The longest thread evolves

The trope may be old - but it is nevertheless apt: You can lead a horse to water.....You of course know the rest. Frankly - I find arguing facts with Creationists (and all the other 'ists' and 'ers') to be naught but an intellectual exercise on the arguer’s part. Fun, even stimulating - but essentially useless. You aren't going to change minds. There aren't any minds to change. A little harsh, perhaps – but Creationists and Birthers deal in aphoristic twaddle (IMO). There are no great conservative debaters the likes of which I grew up with. I'm talking William Buckley here. Intellectual fencing used to be a contact sport. I still remember a confrontation I saw when I was in High School: Gore Vidal took on Norman Mailer, the inimitable Dick Cavett as moderator. Not strictly liberal vs. conservative – but intellectually thrilling. Ali and Frazer going at it in their prime.

That’s what drew me to you and Gene Siskel, you know. That great intellectual give and take. It was never more interesting than when you disagreed. And I trusted you both to tell me the truth. Poor college students don’t have dollars to waste on bad entertainment. Honestly - had you both discussed the events of the day – I’d have stayed to listen to that too. Truth, honesty, intelligence – thoroughness. I don’t think the ‘ists’ and the 'ers’ do much research – do you? It’s easier to parrot aphorisms concocted by somebody else. Well that’s my take, anyway. I appreciate reading your opinions on the matter (on any matter, actually). I just wish you had an opponent of equal caliber (can you guess I’m not a Ben Stein fan?).

I wasn't apart of the original thread so this may have been brought up, but Stein's film seems to end on shaky rhetoric much the same way Bill Maher's Religulous does. I remember watching that film (Relgiulous) thinking Maher was making an ok documentary about how much he hated religion, but I felt completely out raged at the idea that organized religion would guarantee the total destruction of the human race. I haven't seen Stein's film but it certainly seems to be another case of a person who plays an intellectual on TV failing to actually develop an intelligent well thought out argument. The two films came out around the same time and I'm sure they we're two of the most widely seen documentaries of the last several years, in that regard it's disheartening to think about how little attraction a film that takes a nuanced approach to such a complicated topic would have in terms of wide release. Consumers tend to crave polarized opinions in this country, so on one side we get Maher saying religion will result millions of deaths and Stein saying evolution already has.

I think I had asked this question before in that thread, not sure. It seems to me that the US is the only country where this debate is being held. I haven't heard of any discussions or arguments on intelligent design versus evolution, other than in the US. And I teach (part time) at a university. I guess I would've heard...

Ebert: I believe you're correct. I've never heard of an I.D. scientist who isn't American. Most of them are Christian fundamentalists. Christians in general are okay with evolution. Even the Pope. All other religions have no problem with it.

Can't we leave Darwin in peace? He's in heaven now, having a beer with Asimov and Vonnegut.

I have read this blog since its inception, but the Darwin thread is the masterpiece, and it shows. It is hard to believe it has run this long, but it is also easy to see why: people take this stuff very seriously! For my part, I can only take one side of argument seriously.

Also, the thread titled "How I believe in God" was a great piece of work that has a long following. Anyone who hasn't read it should do so.

Keep up the good work, Roger. This blog is required reading for myself and many of my friends.

One last comment about the Evolution/Intelligent Design debate itself. I am so glad you astutely illustrated the way ID supporters often post soundbytes crafted by the leaders of the right. Like in any political debate, the right routinely comes up with factoids that are easy to initially digest, but fold under examination. "Fallacies" you call them, and the term is true. I prefer the synonym with the more negative connotation, "lies". ID would be much better served with facts - regardless of how tenuous they may be to the cause - than outright lies.

But I think the idea is not to win the debate, per se, but to create the debate in the first place. So long as the Theory of Evolution must defend itself, even against ID hogwash, it loses credibility. And that is what they want, which explains why their own "theory" is so vague, loose, untested, and decidedly non-theoretical, but hypothetical. They don't really have a theory, but they don't like the idea that they "came from monkeys".

Ebert: Try them on this: Humans, monkeys and all other living beings share the same single-celled ancestor.

"Of course--if you want to continue the discussion about evolution, this entry does start a whole new comment thread. Smile."

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

I wrote recently on a different Ebert blog thread about the evolution of the sun. I have a legitimate question, I think. How did the sun evolve, and how did the sun know that we needed its light, and how did it know how to give just the right amount of light and then to move on to a different part of the earth in order to let us sleep by the light of the silvery moon? What does the sun care whether we live in its glory or burn to a crisp in its flames? Why does the moon care enough to provide us with a nightlight? Evolutionists claim that one can believe in God and evolution. I know that some religions allow for it, at least to an extent. But just as those religions may make room for certain ideas of evolution, it always seems to me that evolutionists make very little room for God or kind of bounce God around with charmbracelet terminology. I see too much love in this world, despite everything that blackens that love, to not see that love in just about everything that exists. It's why I want to spend my time in my life considering that love, rather than considering the formation and changes of things here on earth. If love didn't create all of this, then what did and why do we care so much about it? The Beatles sang, "All You Need is Love." If love created all of this, then where did that love come from? I just don't understand where the study of evolution gets us, in the end. People believe in God because they want to know where they came from, and have faith in where they believe they are going. But believing in evolution, even if it were to tell us where we came from, well we're not on this earth long enough to see it have any further effects- unless you believe in reincarnation, and think you'll get to come back millions of years from now and see an advanced life on this same earth.

This message is delivered by a guy who despises pollution, cigarettes... and tries to buy everything organic and non-toxic for the environment and each other, if that means anything.

Ebert: We are here long enough to see it happening, in cell colonies or (the classic example) on the Galapagos islands. Or in moths.

I'm not a creationist, but I do believe in God. How's that possible? Because my maker granted me the virtue of common sense. Unfortunately, common sense is not so common. If I were a creationist, I would put forth the theory of Devolution to disprove Evolution. Devolution, as defined by me, is Mankind's intelligence slowly changing into stupidity. That would certainly contradict Darwin's theory of Evolution. How would ignorance help any organism survive?

The element that I think is most reassuring about Darwin's Theory of Evolution is that he freely admits it is a theory, and like all rational thought, is open to adjustment view based on factual evidence. I am an atheist, and believe that evolution can be seen throughout pretty much every system in the universe, from my own body to the social system that surrounds me. I think currently we are in the midst of a psychological evolution, and that the obsession with celebrity and reality tv is literally a subconscious social experiment where people are observing personality types to see which are embraced by others and which traits would render a person less embraced by society.

Then again, I do tend to spend most of my days daydreaming about such theoretical tangents. It could also just be that we really are that venal and cynical and enjoy reveling in the suffering of others. I don't know if we're looking at these people under a magnifying glass to see how they tick or to see if we can set them on fire.

Ebert:
'Posters on this blog, I don't need to tell you, tend to be wordy. I've received comments longer than the entries that inspired them.'

Darwin has yet to be sullied by these heaps of protests here and elsewhere on the web.

I began to realize that almost any position, no matter how absurd, can find support and spurious "facts" somewhere on the web.

You write this as if you might believe that this is a big part of the problem, but it's not. Creationism has long had its own shadow world of pseudo-scholarship which supplies an apparently never-ending stream of bad arguments and bad data. The web has made cut-and-pasting such stuff easy, but there have been mountains of books and pamphlets serving this cultural purpose for decades.

I think it's probably important to be realistic about this and understand that creationism has become culturally invulnerable to scientific argument by virtue of the continual accumulation of this sort of propaganda and misinformation. Support for it will only recede as a result of cultural change, not education or reasoned discourse.

Acceptance of evolution is high in Europe, but this is arguably a consequence of the exceptional European secularism and little else. The root of the denial of evolution is the assertion of human exceptionalism—evolution places humanity firmly within the natural world and this contradicts the fundamental beliefs of the Abrahamic traditions, and arguably to a lesser degree the other great religions, as well. There is something fundamentally hostile in evolution to how people like to see themselves, even today.

Creationism/Evolution has become a cultural line in the sand in the US because of the peculiarities of its religious cultural history. A particular Protestant biblical literalism is embedded deeply within American culture and thus evolution crashes against the rock of this edifice. In doing so, it becomes a sort of hallowed ground of the religious/culture wars—the discomfort pretty much everyone around the world feels with regard to scientific, technological secularism condenses in the US to (among others) a particular anger at the idea of man "coming from monkeys". This is not going away any time soon.

Is it alarming that so many believe something that is so contrary to modern science? After all, young Earth creationism doesn't just contradict biology, it also contradicts huge swaths of other sciences—geology, astronomy, anthropology, paleontology...just to name a few. But then, the majority of people alive today believe so many things which are contrary to science and simple fact. They believe in ESP, UFOs, astrology, chiropracty, homeopathy, ghosts, the Gambler's Fallacy, that nature abhors a vacuum, that glass flows in old windows, the healing power of crystals, that vaccines cause autism...the list is endless. Critical thinking is a very rarely developed skill, availability of information uneven, indoctrination ubiquitous. We shouldn't teach creationism in the schools any more than we should teach astrology; but, otherwise, why focus so much concern on one particular example of human ignorance and confusion? Those who attack creationism are as much drawn to the fight as those who are drawn to support it. They are convinced that this particular battle, at this particular time, will be crucial in some respect. But the truth is that it will not. Until human beings change far from what they are today, there will always be something that will draw both sides to this kind of argument.

“In the beginning,” God always started His stories out that way, it was like His version of Once upon a time...

“I was pretty sure of myself.” God continued. “I knew what I was doing when I created Heaven and Earth. I like to think that my design for life was well-thought-out.”

“Many here call it ‘intelligent,’” Greg pointed out.

“Yes, that’s a good word for it,” God admitted. “And as intelligent as my design was, my creation itself lacked intelligence. You see, I started off with the dinosaurs. They were a lot of fun, but a brain the size of a walnut in a seven-ton carnivore gets rather – well, mindless after a while. So I wiped them out with an asteroid – you should have seen that explosion! Then I watched life evolve into something smarter.”

“Wait…You believe in evolution?” Greg was astounded.

“Of course I do. Look, I’m a busy God. I had to make creation management more efficient. You think I want to sit and tinker with genes every day? So I built a self-correcting protocol into life. It takes time, though, like a slow cooker. Never microwave a roast.”

Greg nodded. He liked a good roast.

“Anyways,” God continued, “I finally created Man, and then Woman. I decided to make them both smart. Bad move on my part. Really bad. I gave them intelligence, but I forgot to include reason. They were the classic example of people that were book-smart, but had no common sense.”

Click here to read more of EARTH'S END.

Roger, I'm afraid you've only scratched the surface of the titanic mass of nutbaggery and willful ignorance that occupies so much of the Internet. You could waste the rest of your life plunging into that. (The Toronto Film Festival sounds like a better alternative.)

The teachers I had at Joliet Catholic High School (now Joliet Catholic Academy), including some clergy, stressed that evolution and creation don't have to be mutually exclusive, that it was possible for God to create a universe in which organisms evolve.

To this day, I don't understand why some people insist on a fallacious "either-or" approach to the matter.

Roger you are a sly dog ("Smile", indeed!), but please - no more!

The argument for me is moot (I am a Darwinian). Part of me just couldn't resist posting. (not wordy at all!)

Believing in intelligent design is like believing in the afterlife. You believe in it because you want it to be true. You have no real evidence to suggest it, so instead you look for potential evidence, those things that seem to suggest that its possible that you are right. Instead, of treating that 'evidence' for what it is, you start to change it, manipulate it, and then put it on your pedestal and then from that pedestal shout to the world that you are right, and that they are heathens, and are responsible for all atrocities.

One thing I'm not clear on, is why the I.D'ites of the world, don't just say, 'Yes evolution occurs, because that's how God wanted it.'

I think that I posted on the Stein discussion (certainly in the first 300 posts.) As a PhD student working on a cultural history of the psychiatry in 19th century American, I think that it is harder perhaps to disentangle the social from the scientific when in comes to the reception of Darwin's theories in the late 19th and early 20th century. This doesn't mean that the theory of the survival of the fittest caused the holocaust. But, as a historian, I don't find it very credible to talk about scientific theories like they fell out of the sky or like they live their out lives in the ether untouched and not touching the world. I recall that in the Stein thread I tried to haltingly say something like this and you wrote some condescending comment about how I don't understand what science *is* that Darwin's theory doesn't necessarily say anything about human morality or religion. But, I think that at times you write about science in this blog in a way that makes this historian of science cringe. Darwin had an extraordinary number of predecessors and conversations partners who were trying to develop a cogent theory of evolution. It was his genius to argue that the engine that fired the process of evolution was "the survival of the fittest." There was already a political conversation about the efficacy and even morality of helping the poor. In the 19th century where there certainly weren't such clearly defined boundaries between science and morality or between academic disciplines like biology and anthropology, ethics, and political science, Darwin's theory certainly seemed to be proof that would buttress one side of these debates. In the early 19th century, most people writing in the field I study--asylum medicine--believed that social progress and social evolution occurred through human special capacity for benevolence, cooperation and fellow feeling (sympathy.) By, the end of the 19th century, their was a general trend toward arguing that social progress required social practices that were not dysgenic, or that didn't give inferiors too easy of a time so that they could thrive and reproduce at too alarming of a rate.

Your best retort to what I just wrote is that Darwin was just being descriptive and not prescriptive, and that might be the case. I don't know. I am not capable of figuring out what my intentions are for what I do... much less the intentions of others, long dead. I liked Darwin when I read his autobiography. I thought that he was serious and struggling. I am looking forward to seeing Creation at the TIFF next week. (I still have dreams that I might run into you!) I think now that we can understand his theories a descriptive and can even boldly claim that human beings are not part of the survival of the fittest. But, I do think you need to give those 19th century folks that argued against Darwin's theory some slack. Many of them did so because they were firmly committed to altruism being the highest human virtue.

I'm the first post I hope (and was one of the 5 or 6 on that entry that were still debating, if anyone else is reading this). It was becoming trivial. Oh, deja vu.

There are some questions, the answers to which are simply beyond the human mind's ability to comprehend. True wisdom recognises the futility of even trying to answer these questions and that any attempt to do so is merely entertainment/diversion.

Amazing. Your post, the responses, the cluelessness, the sincerity while clueless, the lack of reason. It's hard to win a fight by using logic of reason against the logic of religion. Faith, after all, takes the space where there is no knowledge and some of the ID people - even some of the sincere ones - seem to be short on knowledge.

I will smile, but not comment. Have fun in Toronto; I look forward to your canadian posts.

Yes, I think it probably is time to put it to bed. However, I thought of this thread and its topic a week or so ago when I saw a story, Canadian wins $700,000 prize for exploring science history. The part that struck me was this:

"In spite of this diversity there is one regulative idea that pervades all his work: Science is a human enterprise," the University of Bergen committee said. "It is always created in a historical situation, and to understand why present science is as it is, it is not sufficient to know that it is 'true,' or confirmed. We have to know the historical context of its emergence."

This struck me because it touched on something that has bothered me in the Evolution/Intelligent Design debate (not necessarily here) and that is, as the debate goes on and positions get more entrenched, statements pro-evolution sometimes start to sound dogmatic and unscientific.

Personally, I have little interest in the ID side of things but I am very interested in science. I wonder if it's time to discuss just what it is, what 'true' is in science, and other heady things. It seems to me that, outside of mathematics, everything we know is conditional, based on observed evidence. And it's conditioned by where we are in history. And by the reality that we, as humans, have limitations.

So ... what is science? What do we know and how do we know it and what, if anything, conditions it?

I am a resident of Massachusetts where we had the unfortunate luck to have Mitt Romney as our governor a while back. I can say with some certainty the reason he doesn't subscribe to Darwinism is that he is trying to win "the Republican base."

The real longest thread on the net?

Which computer is better: a Mac or Pc?

that's the sad part. even in what seems like a healthy debate, one side is polluted with misinformation and republican strategy. it's like winning a hard-fought game, only to learn the opposition had been cheating the whole time.

Hmm, Darwin, something new to say about Darwin. Not sure I can think of anything. Its such a powerful and pervasive theory. One that also has been modified over the years to include new data. Now, I'm no evolutionary biologist (astronomer me), but I know how a theory works. And that new data is always re-evaluated according to existing theory, and re-incorporated into it as necessary. Its sort of like the ego and id, they are not necessarily equal parts of the psyche or indeed the physics of the brain. So, with wonderful and colorful synechdoche we position the ego with Darwin and the loser is yet again id.

Homily over,

Miles Blanton, PhD

Ebert: Some of the posters on the earlier blog failed to see how evolution could apply to astronomy.

I have thought that same thing about Randy, that maybe he is just agreeing to disagree. He is so smart and persistant that I would just assume somebody that well-rounded and knowledgable would automatically believe in Evolution. I mean, let's face it, 99.999% of deniers of evolution are heavily religious. I go to a private high school, and some kids' parents make them sit outside while we are studying archeology because we're saying dinosaurs lived longer than thousands of years ago. But anyway, congratualations about that blog. I'm suprised that your blog about the "Quantum Theory of Reincarnation" didn't start any huge discussions. Oh well, that's the way survival of the fittest goes.

Sincerely,
Jackson

PS: Why have many of my recent comments not been posted? Specifically, the "Light in the Tunnel" one and the "Quantum Theory of Reincarnation."

Ebert: I post all comments except for the obvious reasons.

I'm afraid I have nothing to add to the debate at hand, I will leave that to others more passionate and erudite than me. However, I would like to thank you for the delightful Tree of Evolution image above Roger. As a New Zealander living in Australia, it warms the heart to see so many New Zealand native creatures and plants collected in one place. It's funny the odd places one can find encounter home-sickness!

I just want to weigh in and throw my support behind that Donald Duck family tree. It drives home the dangers of children being raised in a broken home. Maybe if Huey, Dewey, and Louey knew who their dad was, they wouldn't be mischeviously destroying their Uncle Donald's snow fort all the time.

Ebert: Donald and Daisy: Married? Nesting in sin?

About the longest thread record:

http://www.worldslongestwebsite.com/

Ebert: Also certainly the world's most boring website. :)

I confess to having not read the original thread so Cosmic Ancestry may very well have been beaten to death by now but that's where my money is.
Cheers

Ebert: Cosmic ancestry still requires that life evolved somewhere.

You're right about how any point-of-view can find support and spurious "facts" on the Internet. I've been following conspiracy theories for a little while now, and it's really disturbing how otherwise reasonable people are easily swayed by what amounts to a rhetorical argument, and then how little it takes for them to jump to a really radical set of beliefs. A lot of modern politics seems to be based on "facts" talked into existence.

I've been listening to a conspiracy theory podcast, which works to debunk ideas like Intelligent Design. One guest argued that the ultimate goal of the IDers after establishing Intelligent Design as accepted fact, was to go after all of the sciences, especially astronomy and geology, to establish the Earth and the Universe is only a few thousand years old, as interpreted by some in the Bible.

Let's look at this whole Darwin vs. Creationism debate into a different diretion. Mr. Ebert, who created cinema, and who evolved it to what it is today? My thoughts would be Edison created the first film, but it took "Birth of a Nation" for there to be a new evolution.

It's funny to me that the last thing you wrote was essentially an emoticon without using an emoticon.

Ebert: Back in the old days, "smile" is how :) used to be spelled.

Ultimately, any argument that Darwin's theory inspired Hitler is completely void. If it even is true, which I doubt, it disregards the fact that Christianity has inspired heinous crimes itself. However, inspired is different than being the cause of. Anything can cause a mentally unstable person to take horrific action, especially if that person has found justification for their desires in it. Hell, in the right hands, Crest Toothpaste could probably serve as a justification for white supremacy, but that doesn't mean Crest really condones white supremacy just because some nut decided it did.

Since even the Guiness is out of reach, no point in stretching it for ever, though it could.

As you rightly maintain, there is no incompatability between faith and science.

The important question seems to be, what is the right way to live? This question is all the more crucial in these nuclear-toothed(and a lot else)times. Simplistic answers are of no avail as the Decalogue series sets so artistically argues.

Whether God or god exists or not, Man surely does, and I thing that's what matters most.

Though it is absurd to blame Darwin for Hitler, it is true that our beliefs influence our behaviour.

Can we debate what is the most useful and/or important theory in science instead of debating evolution? For I would argue that the Theory of Relativity, with mind-boggling concepts about the nature of space and time, or Quantum Theory, which makes relativity seem tame in its assertions about the nature of reality, are more a touch more important that evolution.

Ebert: Hmmm. Much depends on how useful is defined. How about the guy who theorized that a wheel might work?

When faced with a high count of comments for one of your posts I generally hit the "end" key to get to the most recent post and move backward from there looking for interplay.

Never really checked out the Darwin one, used to live in Cincinnati metro area much too close to the Creation Museum. Large home schooling population too with children who enter college without mainstream biology.

I am happy to live in a different part of Kentucky now, the more traditional Bluegrass region.

I completely agree. I have been following the 'debate' for over 15 years, since a Jehovah's Witness friend gave me a copy of their book on the subject. (It was "How Did We Get Here: By Evolution or Creation") I have been a semi-regular on the Talk.Origins newsgroup
for over a decade, and believe me, the claims from ID/Creationist are often beyond belief.

Thank you for your efforts for science, Roger.

Darwin = Hitler, eh? Well, Darwin does tip his hat to Malthus, the checks-on-population-growth guy, and Malthus was appropriated by the Social Darwinists--and worse, the Eugenics gang--a big deal at the turn of the last century--Teddy Roosevelt felt white Americans needed to have more children (4 per couple) to avoid "race suicide"--and one which continued throughout the 20th century, with both "innocent" (the Zero Population Growth movement) and "insidious" (see the film Rabbit-Proof Fence) manifestations.

Of course, the dots that connect Darwin to Hitler are fuzzy at best; but it doesn't take much squinting at something to give it the shape one desires.

Darwin Quote of the Day: "It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change." Stay loose, gooses!

The idea that Darwin is responsible for Hitler rests on a fundamental misconception about the way influence works in the world -- which is not a big surprise, given the people making the argument.

The Darwin-to-Hitler argument follows a primitive and strictly linear progression that goes like this: Darwin comes up with natural selection and survival of the fittest. Herbert Spencer (among others) attempts to apply Darwin to human civilizations and ethnic groups. This pseudo-scientific theory known as Social Darwinism is used to justify eugenics in the United States: sterilization of the mentally handicapped, experiments done without the patients' consent or without the consent of their families, and so on. Later, the Nazis latch on to Spencer as justification for their "master race" idea, and specifically cite the eugenics programs in the U.S. as evidence that they were on the right track. Thus, you can draw a connection between Darwin and Hitler -- but it is not a *causal* connection.

Darwin is not responsible for Spencer's errors. Spencer willfully ignored the fact that Darwinian evolution is a natural process that takes hundreds or even thousands of generations to be noticeable. This absurd change of scale then went unnoticed by large numbers of privileged people who wished to find a scientific rationalization for their own economic privilege: "I'm rich and that Irishman/Slav/African-American etc. is poor because nature [which quickly got conflated with God for some people] has made my people superior." Despite the absurdity of completely ignoring political and economic and even cultural factors to make such a claim, you still find these attitudes today.

Of course, one problem with holding Darwin responsible for Hitler is that you can make other, similar arguments for other people's culpability. Romanticism -- the Big R kind, the radical Heine-Goethe-Schiller-Rousseau-Wordsworth-Byron-Shelley-Emerson-Thoreau kind -- has also been blamed for Hitler. The argument goes that Romanticism exalted the idea of the superior artist living in opposition to an unjust society, communing directly with a universal and pantheistic nature spirit, and advocating the overthrow of (unjust) legal institutions and churches. We can easily trace a line from that figure to Nietzsche, the Nazis' favorite 19th century syphilitic philosopher. But then how also to explain that that same line leads to Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.? Maybe I shouldn't ask that question. Given the recent claims I've seen that Hitler was really a liberal (black is white, up is down, the big lie is most likely to be believed), I'm sure someone out there has claimed or will soon claim that Gandhi and King were really Nazis.

How about music? Romanticism gave us Beethoven, who eventually led to Wagner, whose music, as Mark Twain pointed out, is better than it sounds, but whose visions of Teutonic knights and broad-breasted blonde Brunhildes enraptured so many Nazis. By this argument, the "Ode to Joy" in Beethoven's 9th masks the martial rhythm of Wehrmacht boots goose-stepping in unison.

I can't prove it, but I think this kind of simplistic and linear thinking comes naturally to those who believe in a a single anthropomorphic creator for the universe. (Let alone that this creator is male, and often capable of anger and jealousy. How can something omnipotent and omniscient be jealous? And what excuse can an all-knowing creator who is eternal and exists in all moments at once have for being angry with creations that he endowed with the capacity to make decisions to perform actions that displease him? My head hurts.)

The absurdity of these arguments should be obvious. No one is responsible for everyone who claims you as an inspiration. Beethoven is not responsible for Wagner. Darwin was not responsible for Spencer. Byron and Shelley and Goethe were not responsible for Nietzsche. Hell, even Nietzsche cannot be held responsible for Hitler. Millions of people have read Byron and Nietzsche and listened to Beethoven without becoming Hitler, so some other factors had to be involved.

Being responsible for our own actions and their effects on people in our own time is enough of a burden for any individual. By the same logic that Ben Stein uses to blame Darwin for Hitler, he should be cursing Christ for being responsible for Torquemada. Indeed, Stein's logic almost certainly turns Christ -- the lamb of peace -- into the greatest criminal in history, given the number of slaughters done in his name since the time of Constantine. Just in the past millennium we have Albigensians, the Waldenses, the Crusades, the Protestant Reformation and the Thirty Years War, Magdeburg, the Huguenots, innumerable pogroms, and on and on. And on. And these are only the slaughters explicitly connected with theological disagreements. I'm leaving out the bishops blessing the artillery on both sides during World War I. Monty Python's Holy Hand-Grenade of Antioch is so slight an exaggeration it barely qualifies as satire. (Damn funny, though.)

Hitchcock tried to deal with this subject in "Rope," which I think is an under-rated film. The Leopold-and-Loeb-like Shaw and Morgan (played by John Dall and Farley Granger) use the theories of their former professor Rupert Cadell (play by Jimmy Stewart) to justify their murder of an "inferior classmate." The film ends, more or less, with an impassioned speech by Stewart to the effect that they had no right to do so, that they took words he had used as rhetorical effect and made them literal, that most importantly they misunderstood his idea of what superiority meant. Cadell had been talking about superiority in terms of natural talents and innate qualities (and allowed his disgust with the way most people act to come out as extremely black humor), while Shaw and Morgan had assumed their own superiority because of class and manners (and perhaps wit, which is not the same as intelligence or even humor). Cadell is horrified, but more importantly he -- after some real and clearly painful soul-searching -- refuses to accept responsibility for his students' actions. One can read this as analogous to Darwin rejecting responsibility for Spencer and eugenics.

Ironically, some people read "Rope" as indicting Cadell after all. But I think that reflects a common desire to cast as wide a net when assigning blame as possible. It lessens the individual burden. And once again we come back to Christianity, which claims that everyone is a sinner who needs forgiveness (and the corollary that inevitably follows, "I'm a sinner, but I'm forgiven because of what I believe," as if they have sold themselves an indulgence at a bargain price). While doubtless true on some level, almost all the significance lies in the degree.

one of my Christian friends, a guy from Australia, told me that many of his Christian friends from Down Under, simply cannot understand and comprehend the hateful, bigoted, anti-science, anti-evolution, right wing, fanatical Christian movement in the United States. American Christians, as he says, are a sham and bring a bad name to Christianity. I couldn't agree more with him.

Religions aren't necessarily bad-- it's just the idiots who ruin religion for the rest of us.

ATTENTION, CHRISTIANS: Keep your religious ideas out of my life, my school, and my government, thanks.

Imagine what would happen if every single politician simultaneously admitted that religion is not a political issue. People would be forced to vote on--gasp--political issues. The horror!

Quote from opening paragraph in Wired article:

"Intricate cellular components are often cited as evidence of intelligent design. They couldn’t have evolved, I.D. proponents say, because they can’t be broken down into smaller, simpler functional parts. They are irreducibly complex, so they must have been intentionally designed, as is, by an intelligent entity."

You can read the rest of the article at:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/08/reduciblecomplexity/#more-9804

Essentially, the piece reports on recent research showing strong evidence that complex biological sub-systems can combine to work together in complementary fashion.

Darwin's brilliant insight jump-started our understanding of evolution. Now, the 30-some-year-old science of Complexity has taken many of the next steps.

Drawing from many different disciplines, Complexity science examines evolutionary principles at work in all complex adaptive systems like ecologies, biologies, economies, societies, etc. The result of this work has proposed new nuanced principles such as punctuated equilibrium, emergence, and self-organization, principles that begin to provide plausible explanations for the uneven evolutionary progress that a theory of linear adaptation misses.

Fifteen years ago I remember seeing first-hand the artificial ecology software, Tierra, written by Tom Ray. This program had a few simple rules of interaction and was then allowed to run thousands of generations every second. I saw the principles mentioned above both mimic the evolutionary dynamics of a biological system and astonishingly produce parasites, viruses, and other complex features that we routinely see in real life. These elements were not programed to occur. They emerged from the soup in this simple eco-system.

While Ray's program and others like it have had its critics, it begins to concretely demonstrate how evolution might work.

I'm a Christian and, I suppose, an Evolutionist. I say "suppose" because I've never thought of, or referred to myself as an Evolutionist, although I do support and believe in Evolution and Natural Selection. To clarify, I "support and believe" it the way that I support 2+2=4. It makes sense. I have spoken at great length with fellow Christians who do not support Evolution, and I've always encouraged them to stop applying boundaries to God. The Bible informs us of many things, primarily how to live a positive life, be a good person, and how to get into Heaven (which is a good goal for anyone to have). The Bible does not, however, give us many specifics concerning how He went about the creation. And that's okay with me. It also doesn't include my Mom's recipe for Dolly Madison bars, but that doesn't mean God isn't in control or that Jesus Christ isn't my personal Savior. Because He is. Evolution being a fact doesn't change this.

Was that Mel Gibson's production company on the "Creation" trailer? Wow that guy is complicated!

Hi Mr. Ebert,

I have a hypothetical question for you. I have not seen Ben Stein's movie (gratefully) but I am intrigued by the ending as you recounted it above. I think Mr. Stein is twisting a potentially accurate fact for the purposes of his argument - which is a trait of many arguers. It's possibly true that Hitler latched onto the theory of natural selection to found his ludicrous, horrible rampage. Which would then make it true that Darwin indeed wrote his books on the subject prior to Hitler's informative years so that he could read them. My theory on all of this is that it's simply a terrible coincidence. Darwin's theories would certainly have been discovered by SOMEONE, if not he, but they happened to be in existence during a period when they hit a kind of negative, German zeitgeist. Those people or movements that achieve that level of success (I'm defining success on his terms, not mine) must occur during the period when all of the conditions are in perfect harmony.

So my hypothetical question (we come back 'round to it at last) is this: would it be worth it for the fully speculated theory of evolution and natural selection to have its discovery delayed for some 150 years if it would mean that Hitler may not have been as well versed in its foundations? Even though it would set us back as a human, scientifically-oriented race back on our own mental development?

Here's to another unofficial record-breaker.
Blake

If you're looking for long threads, try the Slashdot Hall of Fame. While it would require some work to do a direct comparison, just looking at the raw data shows about 10 MB for the "Kerry Concedes Election to Bush" thread there, vs. 6 MB for Darwin, My Hero. You're probably going to have to beef up your server's capacity if you want to challenge for the undisputed title.

joel,

maybe that's because the US is the only country that has an "official" religion but pretends it doesn't. other countries either openly have one or are just - open.

There is Adnan Oktar (Wikipedia entry), islamic, Turkish creationist, but he is also critical of I.D., which he called ""a product of a Masonic conspiracy for promoting atheism and Deism."

I've grown weary the factoids, fallacies and hyperbole. I avoid television, as they seem to be prevelant there. They clutter my inbox, too. Got to the point where I have pointed people to Snopes and the actual "purported" author of some of these "facts" -- who say they didn't espouse them -- in hopes that these people loving factoids, fallacies and hyperbole will STOP sending them to me. No such luck. In return, I get a huge .wav file of Alan Keyes sent to my inbox with the following comment: "I guess we don't know the reality unless it is actually heard on live video like Alan Keyes statements." And I sit there, just speechless...

Never seen the Ben Stein film, but I mean the guy just got fired and I assume that he can't be too great at making films either. All that aside, creationism works in religion, not in science. Thus it should stay in religion, not in our nation's education system.

I can remember even being puzzled in middle school, wondering why the teacher was presenting both creation and evolution. I think even a young mind can see when curriculum doesn't belong.

But anyway...I have no interest in seeing the Stein film. Or really debating on a public forum about creationism vs. evolution. It seems rather pointless. Kind of like making a movie about it.

I'm a Darwinist. I'm also a Christian. I see no conflict between the two, as I believe that evolution is the mechanism by which God created human beings. I believe that evolution should be taught in schools, and the doctine of God-as-Creator in the churches.

Follow the cause and effect chain back to the beginning, and eventually you must confront the uncaused cause. I believe this to be God, specifically the God as written about in the Bible. Many, perhaps most people don't, and that's fine with me; that's what free will is all about, isn't it?

It kills me that there is so much conflict between atheists/agnostics and Christians over this issue. Evolution is a beautiful thing. When I contemplate the mechanics by which inanimate matter was transformed into human beings, I'm filled with awe and wonder. When I meditate on a God who created human beings capable of free will, I'm filled with love and gratitude (for does goodness really exist in the absence of choice?)

Peace be with you, Roger.

I've always known Ben Stein as a comedian., so I'm always expecting him to reveal "Expelled" as one of his greatest jokes: "I made this ridiculous movie about an absurd concept, and everyone - on both sides - thought I was serious! It was hilarious!"

Roger,
I could be wrong, but I like to think I had something to do with this, in this discussion that took place before the Ben Stein thread:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/11/the_third_most_important_story.html
(Scroll to the bottom under my name and someone named "Tyler.")

Did the conversation spark the Ben Stein blog?

Randy,
Ebert rightly praised you for your defense of ID. Most conversations I have with IDers speak of Michael Moore, liberalism and abortion.

I've no desire to further the debate, as I get paid by the state to do so with middle-schoolers. However,
I'm finishing my PhD this year, measuring any correlation between familial cosmological (creationist) beliefs and science achievement. I'm interested in your thoughts and possible participation. If you're willing, please click on my name and follow the link to the band's website. It connects to my Email.
Dave van Dyke

Ebert: Yes, such posts spurred me to view the DVD. Thanks, I guess.

The Darwin film "Creation" is produced by Mel Gibson's Icon company. What am I missing?

Ebert: A Catholic, even a "fundmentalist Catholic" like Gibson, should have no problem with evolution.

Even if we were told the truth about our existence, it's very unlikely we'd ever be able to comprehend it. We're more advanced than a cockroach. Ever tried to explain yourself to one?

I don't think the evolution vs. creationism (or ID) debate can end. That's the nature of true discussion and of science in general. Things have to be open to challenge on both sides. And we shouldn't be afraid of that.

Paul J. Marasa wrote

Darwin Quote of the Day: "It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change." Stay loose, gooses!

Funny you should mention this. 'Twas just yesterday (Sept. 3rd 2009) that Nick Matzke announced this very quote is apocryphal, and really is due to author Leon Megginson, not to Charles Darwin.

See Survival of the Pithiest for the fascinating details!

Heh,

I know this might sound strange, but I wonder if the people who are both anti-"socialized" health care and anti-Darwin on it's relation to eugenics realize they're advocating something they're opposed to?

As far as I understand, originally, and I think even still, some of the major arguments against national health care was that it was supporting people who didn't deserve it. Either because they were stupid, or lazy, or some-such. But, this is derived from the original eugenics arguments that no social money should be spent on the lower classes because supporting their survival would weaken humanity as a whole.

So, isn't the argument against a national healthcare plan at its base one of eugenics?

I've seen people try to draw comparison between Hitler having a national plan and wanting to have one here. However, Hitler wanted one because it would lead to the furtherance of the genetic code he believed would be superior. Whereas, with health care here, the basis could be said to be in the idea that "all men are created equal." And, while economic station is different, there is nothing that should divide people as having more of a right to live than another.

There are other arguments I could go into about the progress of a country and its positive correlation to the health and nutrition of it's populace. But that's far far too long, and I don't want to make another impossibly long thread for you!

to quote Dr. Francis Collins from an appearance on Charlie Rose, "faith is in fact the most rational of all choices, when you consider, look at the spectrum between atheism and belief, let me tell you why- imagine this table represents all of the knowledge that ever has existed or will exist in the universe. and then ask any individual where in that table is your own personal knowledge right now and even the most confident of us will draw a tiny little circle. now suppose the knowledge of the existence of God is outside your circle. how then could anybody, who is not a wacko, say, 'I know there is no God.' is that not the most irrational position, does that not require the greatest faith of all?. I would argue that already in our little circle there is evidence of the existence of some supernatural being. the big bang for instance, did the universe create itself? I don't see how that could happen. something outside of nature, presumably, had to preside over the creation of something out of nothing. and when you look at the way the universe is tuned, where all of these constants are precisely having the value that's necessary for matter to coalesce and for life to be possible it's almost impossible that such a thing would have happened, the probabilities are infinitesimal. sorta makes you wonder. even Stephen Hawking, who did not come at this exactly as a believer, writes in his book A Brief History of Time, 'this has religious significance.' and it does. so you can look at the logical evidence and bring yourself right up to the cliff's edge of saying 'it makes sense that there is a God.'"

I think you hit on the key of the thread that made me keep reading, which was that for the most part, the exchanges were honest. The Darwinians were admitting they some holes in our understanding and the IDers were admitting that those holes didn't "prove" anything, they just suggested alternatives.

As for the fundamentalists, I'm still perplexed/dismayed at the tendency of some (present company excluded) to insert that into the debate, i.e. Darwin proves Christ didn't die for our sins, or Christ's death proves we didn't evolve.

I'm still reading through Dawkins and trying to make sense of it, I have to admit it's slow going, in part for the reason the IDers say, it takes a while to check the underlying assumptions and see how they were derived. When a structure self-supports logically, that makes it a good logical structure, but if you want to live in it, it still benefits from having solid ground underneath.

Maybe it really is all turtles all the way down.

The premiere of "Creation", both the gala and the regular viewing on opening night TIFF, are already sold out. Along with Antichrist, Up in the Air, the Men Staring at Goats, a Serious Man, etc.

I love TIFF unabashfully. And I love that it's getting bigger and bigger. The only drawback is how much more difficult getting tickets has become...I used to be able to wake up, browse the schedule for the day, pick the one I want to see, walk to the theater, line up in the rush line, and be in time to see the film (most times). Sigh.

Still, 6 days!

Ebert: I have to see certain films for my work. If you're certain a film will open commercially, you might experiment with something in a sidebar program. Few films get into the festival without a reason. The programmers are gifted, and work hard.

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;
Let pry through the portage of the head
Like the brass cannon; let the brow o'erwhelm it
As fearfully as doth a galled rock
O'erhang and jutty his confounded base,
Swill'd with the wild and wasteful ocean.
Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide,
Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit
To his full height. On, on, you noblest English.
Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof!
Fathers that, like so many Alexanders,
Have in these parts from morn till even fought
And sheathed their swords for lack of argument:
Dishonour not your mothers; now attest
That those whom you call'd fathers did beget you.
Be copy now to men of grosser blood,
And teach them how to war. And you, good yeoman,
Whose limbs were made in England, show us here
The mettle of your pasture; let us swear
That you are worth your breeding; which I doubt not;
For there is none of you so mean and base,
That hath not noble lustre in your eyes.
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:
Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'

I see a commenter above has written in about the "Islamic creationist" Oktar - under his pen name, Harun Yahya, he has become an extremely popular writer both in the Middle East and among some Americans who are just happy that somebody else agrees with them. He's an "Old-Earth creationist," so he doesn't buy the 6000 years stuff. For what it's worth, Yahya opposes terrorism because he believes that terrorism was caused by Darwin.

Ebert: Darwin also caused swine flu and rabies.

hey mr ebert,

i hate to upset you but every comment you've ever received on this blog is from the same one person who does nothing but comment on your blog in different names. that person is me. i know this must be terribly tragic for you.

i will continue commenting on your blog.

i like evolution too. its neat.

Ebert: Hmmm. Much depends on how useful is defined. How about the guy who theorized that a wheel might work?

Surely not Roger! I cannot imagine a more useless invention.

Now the invention of the SECOND wheel, that I will give you...

Ebert: Just testing you.

Roger, I agree completely with your views on this matter, unlike some of the other things you've posted about. Yes, it is possible to know people who disagree with you on only CERTAIN points and not EVERY point as if dictated by a partisan arena. In other words, in my world, free thinking is alive and well!

However, I do have something to say about the comparisons made between evolution and Hitler (oh, how the world loves a comparison to Hitler!)

From a purely logical point of view (and when dealing with science, what better approach is there?), a comparison to Hitler, or suggestion that a line of thought led to the Holocaust, is the logical fallacy of implying guilt by association, a form of ad hominem attack. "How can anything he say possibly be true? Why, he was a Nazi during WWII!" See how it works? How do you defend against that?

The truth is, evolution could have been discovered by Hitler himself (where it would alarmingly be called "Hitlerism" or "Hitlerian Evolution"). BUT, however unsavory the discoverer or user of any new discovery, it is completely irrelevant to the truth of the discovery. If the theory tests true in repeated experimentation and observation then we must conclude it is true. If a serial rapist invents a light bulb that is twice as cheap and twice as efficient as all current ones, does that therefore mean the bulb somehow ISN'T because he is so BAD? Or that we shouldn't use a bulb invented by such a man? Put in these terms, we see how silly anyone is who suggests a link between evolution and Hitler, regardless of how true the link is.

But even Dawkins dislikes saying "Darwinian Evolution" because it suggests there is another kind. Do we say "Newtonian Gravity" or "Gravity: ONLY a theory" or "Gravity: or the evil plan of science to make heavy objects fall upon one's head" or, just "gravity"?

What do you think?

Not to besmirch the noble debate with my petty off-topic derailments, but it thrills me to see Don Rosa's McDuck family tree linked in your blog, Mr. Ebert. It would be an even greater thrill to know if you've read Rosa's "The Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck"; if you have not, consider it highly recommended.

Ebert: Do you know the great man himself posted a comment the first time I used that?

These opponents to Darwin's 'Evolution' with his theory of 'Natural Selection' may eventually win; at least in how Evolution is presented in schools all over the USA.
Already, Christian schools across America teach that other 'theory' of 'intelligent design'; and, in this culture of multicultural compromise, hard truths cannot be sustained; at least in the popular culture any longer.
People need their illusions, fantasies, and religions. The human animal has found it's instinctive limits. Its collective 'will' now in history is to turn its back on that which once had promise.
Potentials for destruction against the human species doesn't have to be consciously understood; our species has a collective unconscious component as with any life form on the planet, like a slime mold.
The trend is to down size, restructure and 'hope' it's not too late.
'Evolution' is just one of many blue prints for the process of engendering characteristics for our species future. Evolution may well may wind up, discarded, upon the cutting room floor: because, if Darwin is correct there is no intelligent design to say otherwise.
I think we've crossed that line of no return, some time ago -- no return to that primal forest or 'frolic in the flower'; but the animal we are will fight for it's expectation to remain blissfully ignorant.
Two things are in a running battle here: on one side are the forces of reason and the educated, and the other side are those who've experienced spiritual certainty or believe they've experienced it. Realities which the 'reasonable' and the educated have not. The latter are far and away the larger group; but represent a variety of opposing systems.
The fact is, a person can have all the science in the world, and yet 'know' he has experienced things about his 'soul' or 'god' that an expert on Evolution or scientific method hasn't; and it's that lack of respect from the intellectual community to those persons that threatens such good theory's as Darwin's.
The the very 'community' that would have good science is also the community that engenders it's demise; and here's how:
The conservatives understand what they will do with in the various factions they occupy; Christians, Muslims , Jews , Hindus -- yes the conservatives amongst them; but, the 'agnostics' and liberals don't; they don’t know what they will do when presented with history making choices -- and that is crucial to how things will go.
There are things that one can experience; things that would give one pause to accept a theory that effectively says he's nothing more than an accidental array of molecules and proteins.
It's not a matter of accepting that assumption from Darwin's ideas that we are a collection of randomly selected molecules and proteins, it's more about embracing the 'best' of what is in the other list of traits -- that is, in the way of religions, law codes and philosophies, for they will make all the difference; and, they are not all equivalent.
Darwin pointed out the best way to improve a race horse is not to remove the slowest horse in a population but promote the traits of the fastest.
If all is equivalent in our cultural concerns then we are not promoting the 'fastest' of traits'.

Darwin has become a god himself. Ironic.

It's actually not all THAT far-fetched to connect Darwinism and Naziism. The eugenics movement was something of an application OF Darwinism to sociology, and was a well-respected theory in its day. And the eugenics movement did in fact influence some of the policies of the Third Reich.

What the people who read that fail to grasp, however, is that at the time Hitler was drawing inspiration from the eugenics movement, everyone else in the world had already given themselves a good shake and realized, "wait a second -- that's INSANE," and had already abandoned that theory.

What is Reality, anyway? You see something out of the corner of your eye, and until you take direct notice, it registers to you as a teddy bear or a heap of dress. When you look, "reality" changes.

The "reality" of stars in the heavens (atavistic language, eh?) and us down below (!!!) requires either intense and frequent conscious reorientation, or a trip in a spacecraft, to adjust toward the Truth. (I'm guessing.) Folks in Milwaukee looking at God, and folks in Canberra looking at God, look in roughly opposite directions. Another part of their brain may "know" that "God is all around" but body-knowledge overrules.

Many "Catholics" and "Jews" and "Hindus" and "Muslims" who don't buy that the scriptures their religions are based on were The Truth still practice their "faiths" and not even they know exactly why; it's some mix of Ya Never Know and This Is My Community and It Brings Me Comfort and Other. Heavy on Other.

The point: we may ridicule the beauty-contest youngster who butchered "reality" with her answer about American ignorance of geography, but how much closer to Reality is the smartest physicist faced with the Double-Slit Experiment results, or the smartest microbiologist called upon to describe the immediate step BEFORE the creation of DNA?

Is this post obscure and hard to parse? I hope so, because I'm going for a closer approximation to Reality. You need a lot of quote marks for that.

@ Peter Fawthrop: People believe in God because they want to know where they came from, and have faith in where they believe they are going.

Then you should be able to understand why so many of us are able to accept Darwinism and still believe in God. Science gives us a chance to explore this incredible universe we live in and understand how it all works rather than just saying, "God put us here" and leaving it at that. Alright, so God put you here - but what is more awe-inspiring? That God woke up one morning and said, "Humans!" and so we all came to be? Or that God created an entire universe that through a series of infinitesimal changes over billions of years crafted man?

Science tells us, for instance, that all the blue eyed people in this world share one common ancestor - imagine that. One little quirk in somebody's DNA between 6000 and 10000 years ago, a freak mutation that probably caused much frenzy in some ancient village when that baby was born, and thousands of years later, we get Paul Newman. If that's not God's work, what is? :-)

It has often seemed to me that the big problem that proponents of creationism and ID have with evolution is that it argues that God must love everybody and everything in the universe equally, that Man is not the ultimate creation, just the latest development. It's a denial of mortality - you or I might die but Man cannot possibly die out because this world was made expressly for him.

@ Roger & Joel Meza - I actually once had a Hindu Indian science tutor who told me he didn't believe in evolution. He also thought mushrooms were a western conspiracy to make people eat fungus. Don't ask.

I have read about half the comments on the first post, and just finished reading all the comments on the second post. I noticed a couple people making an argument something like this: I can't imagine how simple bacteria could evolve into complex, multi-celled organisms, so I can't believe the theory of evolution.

Well, that's a honest statement, but my response is, have you done any studying and research into evolution that qualifies your lack of comprehension as any kind of serious argument?

Let me give an example. Fermat's Last Theorem states that, although an integer which is a square can also be the sum of two squares (e.g., 25 = 9 +16), it is impossible for an integer which is a cube to be the sum of two cubes, or in general, any integer to a higher power than two to be the sum of two other integers to that same power.

Can you conceive of why that is true? Why, of all the integers out to infinity, no cube is ever the sum of two cubes, no 4th power is ever the sum of two other 4th powers, and so on? Does that make intuitive sense to you? If not, then you don't believe in Fermat's Last Theorem in exactly the same sense in which you don't believe in the ToE. Nevertheless, Fermat's Last Theorem happens to be true.

It is of utmost importance to keep having this debate as often as possible, anywhere possible. Because science has truth and reality on its side, and every time the matter is debated -- regardless of the thoughtfulness or intellect of the ID persons involved -- ID is demonstrated to be the non-science mythology it really is. ID not only exists, it flourishes and dominates too much thought and opinion in our nation, it creeps into our schools and we elect political leaders who believe in magic and reject reality.

The reason the ID crowd and religious fundamentalists have been so successful in their goal to push their beliefs into law and force society to conform to their superstitious belief system is simply that those of us who reject this mythology and attack on science and reason have not been as aggressive and vocal in defense of reality and truth. Fundamentalists are not a majority here, they are just the loudest, most aggressive and shrill voices -- and the squeaky grease gets the wheel.

Truth and reason require our nurturing and defense, we must always be vigilant in protecting and promoting them, because there will always be someone or some group determined to attack and stamp down truth and reason. They succeed when we remain silent, and they fail when we stand up and challenge them. So we must challenge them, everywhere and anywhere we can. It doesn't matter if you change their minds or not -- and don't be too certain you won't, because my best friend was once a hardcore fundamentalist and aspired to be a preacher, and is now a brilliant scientific mind and atheist who heads an organization dedicated to reason and promotion of science as well as confronting and ending reliance on religion and superstition. The very debate itself is important, on principle and in the very real sense of demonstrating a strong public voice counter to the widespread and loud voice of IDers and fundamentalists.

The attempts to claim Hitler and Nazism arise directly from Darwinism is obscene. Were we to note that the 9-11 attacks originated from religious fundamentalism directly rooted in Judeo-Christian belief systems, could we say that Christianity was the cause of the 9-11 attacks? Could we point to the fundamentalist denouncements of homosexuality as the direct cause of the murder of gay and lesbian people? Could we point to the religious approval of slavery -- under the concept that black Africans were not people with souls -- to say that Christianity caused the slave-trade? Could we visit Ground Zero in New York, or the slave quarters in New Orleans, and shake our heads solemnly that Christianity did this? Can I stand over the grave of my sister and curse these Christians who caused her death with their hateful teachings against who she loved? I suspect Ben Stein and his ilk would raise their shrill voices against any such pronouncements.

No matter what IDers claim, the fact is that there is not once single shred of evidence suggesting an intelligent creator. We know for a fact -- yes, a fact -- that evolution happens, that it happened in the past, and that it will continue happening in the future. We know that there is an explanation for the existence of the world, the universe, life, and complex organisms that is based on science and natural occurrences and which doesn't at all require the existence of a magical all-powerful supernatural man. Such a being does not inherently arise as a logical option when examining the world around it, it arises first as superstition and is then the starting-point from which ID seeks to find and warp information to fit a predetermined preferred outcome.

If I assert right now that the entire universe and life on Earth were created by an invisible all-powerful unicorn who lives in my kitchen, and that he made everything appear instantly out of nothingness, and his rival -- an evil invisible ferret who resides in my basement -- simply created fossils out of his fur in order to trick us all, and who also wrote the Bible and planted it a few thousand years ago to trick us into this evil religion of Judeo-Christian beliefs, then my claim has every bit as much legitimacy as the IDers. Can I demand that it be taught in schools? Can I call anyone who rejects it "closed-minded"? If I follow the logic of the IDers, I certainly can.

And the ID theory has one major flaw that rarely gets pointed out -- if the world is so complex that it must have an intelligent designer, by definition that implies that the designer (God) must be even MORE complex than the world he created. Which, according to ID's "logic", means God must have an intelligent designer even MORE complex than God. Which means this new and bigger God must have an intelligent designer. And so on.

The only way out of this loop is if we simply state that the intelligent designer is not bound by this notion of complexity that gives rise to inherent claims of intelligent design, because he exists in a magical world where logic and consistency and design and intelligence don't apply. Which, of course, means there's no reason to assume that the concept of intelligent design applies in our own world either, since under that sort of guideline for when the concept doesn't apply (to God, in the likely ID answer) would likewise suggest an endless number of OTHER options for how the complexity of our world came about WITHOUT an intelligent designer. If as IDers posit there is a potential other "dimension" or reality where the rules of intelligent design don't apply, it is a rather simple thing to posit an initial stage of natural creation arising from the eruption (for lack of a better word) out of the singularity birthing the Big Bang, where no natural laws about intelligence or design or physics etc even existed or applied either. In that initial "dimension" that had the same rules that apply to the supposed God, reality and the universe and life could all arise with complexity and "design" that lacks any intelligent designer.

This theory, however, has an immediate advantage over the ID concept, since it is one step simpler (lacking a magic man) and still contains the basic facts of the universe and the Big Bang and evolution and other scientific theories. That makes it more plausible, it contains the basics of science and evolution within the basic structure created by IDers to explain why God must exist but why the exact same reasoning doesn't apply to why a creator of God must exist.

Of course, it's every bit as unsupported by facts as the ID claims about this supposed magical dimensional aspect that allows God to avoid the basis of ID's own assertions (complexity demands a creator). And it lets IDers off the hook regarding the fact that if God himself is above the "logic" dictating the need for an intelligent designer of complexity, why would his actions not be above such inherent dictates? How can God not fall prey to the requirement for a creator of himself, yet his creations and actions are bound by that dictate?

If he possesses the quality allowing him to escape the application of the need for a designer of complexity, that quality should be inherent in his actions and thus in his creations. Which would mean that the universe and world and life should likewise escape the claim of need for a designer of its complexity, however likewise bound up they are by the fact that they escape this dictate by nature of adhering to it (since an intelligent creator DID design them). The huge logical flaw here, contradictions, and loop should be rather apparent.

Someone needs to tell IDers and religious fundamentalists that if they are going to embrace the concept of a supernatural magic man who lives in the sky and will make them live forever after they die, they may as well stop trying to find "scientific" ways to validate their mythology. It's just silly to attempt to craft a rational, real-world solution to make magic and the supernatural and the intangible sound "scientific" or realistic. They believe in magic, in the supernatural, in things they cannot see or feel or touch or know, and trying to pretend -- to us, or to themselves and each other -- that it's anything else is irrational. If they need to try and find evidence and demonstrate some measure of "proof", then they've moved away from the most fundamental aspects of faith, meaning they are abandoning the foundations of their belief system and its single most important aspect. Why they can't see this, I have no idea.

Oh no...not again...

Hey Mr. Ebert, do you ever feel even the merest hint of shame over providing a haven, an outlet even, for the kind of pedantic dorks that would ordinarily be laughed out of any other forum on the internet?

Ebert: Many a forum would be greatly improved by the addition of some pedantic dorks.

I think the word theory confuses some opponents of evolution. Because its not really a theory. It is observable fact that organisms pass on DNA and that DNA carries specific traits. If a certain trait is unsuitable to survival, the organism will die before it can pass it on and the trait will die out. This much is observable scientific law. The only thing that makes it a theory is that there is no way observe that this is how creatures have always evolved, but it is ridiculous to the point of absurdity to suggest that creatures evolved differently before scientists were around to observe it. I therefore implore everybody to start calling it the law of evolution, even if its not the technically correct term. Theory implies that it has not been proven. It has.

Ebert: Strictly speaking, theory, as it is used in science, is the correct term:

theory. a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained : Darwin's theory of evolution.

I'm interested in the "Most useful" bit. Really? I'd say brilliant, revelatory, invaluable. And granted, quite useful. But most useful?

I once got into a discussion about the inerrancy of the Bible with a 20-something fellow who I met working together on a community project. I decided to nip it right in the bud and asked him: "Do you believe that there were literally a breeding pair of EVERY SINGLE SPECIES ON EARTH within a single boat of a certain size, and they survived together for 40 days without the carnivores eating their prey -- and btw, how did the species from South America get to the Middle East to board the boat?" My friend was unfazed by that question and said that because it was the word of God, that it must have happened. It was true. I had a followup: "There is literally not enough water on this planet to raise the water level to cover up the tallest mountains, so that there is literally no dry land left, do you agree?" No, he didn't. He said that the standard of measurement back then was different, and because you were measuring in cubits, the tallest mountains back then WERE ONLY SIX HUNDRED FEET TALL. At that point I told him that we'd have to switch to some other topic of conversation. As Barney Frank memorably said in a town hall meeting a week ago: "Arguing with you, Ma'am, is like arguing wtih a kitchen table."

The guy who wrote this article is intellectually bankrupt as are most of his followers who have posted comments. Just think about life and all its values etc and your own mind will tell you there is more than just materialistic aspects.

If you apply TRUE SCIENCE, then the theory of evolution falls flat on its face. The theory of evolution defies mathematics. It defies the laws of thermodynamics. However, you guys have heard these arguments and have some how mentally blocked them out. There are zillions of more arguments which you can find all over if you wish to but since you have your heads stuck in the Darwinian sands, you will never see them or fail to understand.

The connection between Darwin and Hitler was not one that Ben Stein came up with. It was Hitler himself. Hitler was directly inspired by Darwin. And to be logical.... why would he not be? Since, if you are just a "chemical machine" evolving... what does it matter if you get eliminated ... as long as I can plug on... "Survival of the fittest".. means that I have to be on the guard from everyone since everyone is out there to be fitter than me.

The theory of evolution takes away from us an identity... I guess most of you will not understand that. I believe in God and I believe there is the Devil out there also, who has fooled the bunch of you with his "theory of evolution". And in fact in most discussions, I see that it is the evolutionists who use foul language, call their opponents names that are demeaning, try to trash the opponent as opposed to having any credible and logical dialog. It is your champion... Richard Dawkins who used the "F" word in his conversations.

If any mind has "devolved" it is yours.

As for me... I see God in Creation. I see Gods amazing intelligence in creation. Recently, Intelligent Design proponents have done some major scientific research and come up with extremely compelling arguments that now confirm God concretely. However, I guess for the evolutionist, it seems to be posing a threat and they cannot refute the arguments so they do like what Richard Dawkins does.... refuse to even answer and start demeaning and name calling and use foul language. But to each his own. I know several of you "intelligent" creatures will start using foul language against my post and post your wierd unscientific pseudo beliefs on here claiming "majority of scientists believe it". I am not interested in the majority of people's beliefs. I am interested in logical, thought out based arguments and they all point to an intelligence far beyong my understanding.

When I come across a beautiful piece of artwork, I do not need to have seen the artist or to have seen the artist creating that artwrok... I can infer from looking at the artwork that someome who was intelligent has created that piece of artwork... It did not come about by chance... The came applies to what I observe in the universe and to think otherwise, would be done by intellectually bankrupt people.

Peace to you all.

Ebert: The theory of evolution does not defy mathematics or the laws of thermodynamics, as has been pointed out over and over again.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

Before the Big Bang it is theorized that all of the matter that would become our universe was compressed into a sigularity. Something caused that sigularty to burst forth and "create" our universe. I think that something was God. "let there be light" BANG!!!!!!!!

Ebert: What you think is interesting from an autobiographical point of view.

A scientist would say, "I cannot explain it, but I am working on it."

EBERT: "The problem with the debate on the Longest Thread was that the I.D. side was polluted by factoids, fallacies and hyperbole, drowning out those, like Masters, who attempted to engage in rational argument."

One reason to cherish this sentence is that it uses the much-abused word "factoid" correctly. Generally mis-used to mean "a piece of trivia," a factoid is actually a statement that is not really a fact, though it is believed to be one by many. "Obama was born in Kenya" is one factoid; "The moon landing was faked" is another; "JFK's assassination was the result of a conspiracy" is the champion factoid of our time. The word derives from "android," a being that resembles a human but isn't one.

Just going to throw my two cents in, mainly in the hope that people realize that not all Christians are the same... I'm a Christian but I believe in evolution/intelligent design. I think that God made the world but that He made life so that it could evolve. I don't understand why it has to be one or the other. I also think that evolution should be taught in schools. It is a fascinating and essential scientific theory. I learned that God made the world in sunday school and I learned about evolution in school.

Hi Roger. Thank you for mentioning me. I'm flattered. And thank you for, in effect, resetting the Ben Stein thread to continue here.

It was a privilege to participate in that thread, which remained remarkably civil given the topic - which causes flame wars elsewhere. I'll repeat that the reason it didn't was due to your leadership as the host. You remain very civil even in the face of some hostile shots from some commenters, and that set the tone.

I made some good online friends in that thread, and hope to still engage them here on this one. I'll say a couple of things first:

1. I never commented just to provoke discussion. Let me put that to bed. While a couple of my comments were tongue-in-cheek - like responding to the charge that I don't have enough imagination to understand evolution by conceding that it must take a very large amount of imagination to believe in evolution :) - my comments were sincere throughout. There was some playfulness there, in good sport, which is what made the thread fun as well as ineresting.

I'm a lifelong learner. Right now I'm still learning the new discipline of Intelligent Design, which in this form is less than 20 years old. My comment stream is me expressing what I believe about what I'm learning. I'm even learning from the ToE advocates.

2. ID is not Creationism. It's just not. You can't read Dembski's "The Design Revolution" and get creationism out of it. Move past that argument, already!

3. There was a lot of good science argued on that thread, and I encourage anyone with time and interest to go back and read through it. Try my 4-part defense of Irreducible Complexity in July and the responses to it, or Karl's 4-parter on morality. That thread would make a good book in itself, IMHO.

4. "Expelled" is not Ben Stein's film. I contacted the screenwriter, who confirmed for me that the he and the producers contacted Stein, not the other way around. I've watched "Expelled" 4 times now, and it is deeper than given credit for. There are many credentialed scientists in the film, and they are not all evangelicals or Americans. You can put that argument to rest, too!

5. I am re-energized for the debate now, because I'm currently reading Stephen C. Meyer's excellent book "Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design". Meyer is a imminently qualified scientist, and he presents his argument entirely from science. Not only does he present a fascinating history of and explanation of DNA, he challenges the emergence of first life by chance, necessity, or a combination. Let's engage on this!

I'm hoping that Dale, Karl, Keith, Rob, Brad, Miguel, and even Bill Hays and everyone else I'm leaving out will keep tolerating and engaging me here on this thread.

Dale: I'm no where near ready to change teams yet! But, keep trying. :)

Randy

Hi Roger. Thank you for mentioning me. I'm flattered. And thank you for, in effect, resetting the Ben Stein thread to continue here.

It was a privilege to participate in that thread, which remained remarkably civil given the topic - which causes flame wars elsewhere. I'll repeat that the reason it didn't was due to your leadership as the host. You remain very civil even in the face of some hostile shots from some commenters, and that set the tone.

I made some good online friends in that thread, and hope to still engage them here on this one. I'll say a couple of things first:

1. I never commented just to provoke discussion. Let me put that to bed. While a couple of my comments were tongue-in-cheek - like responding to the charge that I don't have enough imagination to understand evolution by conceding that it must take a very large amount of imagination to believe in evolution :) - my comments were sincere throughout. There was some playfulness there, in good sport, which is what made the thread fun as well as ineresting.

I'm a lifelong learner. Right now I'm still learning the new discipline of Intelligent Design, which in this form is less than 20 years old. My comment stream is me expressing what I believe about what I'm learning. I'm even learning from the ToE advocates.

2. ID is not Creationism. It's just not. You can't read Dembski's "The Design Revolution" and get creationism out of it. Move past that argument, already!

3. There was a lot of good science argued on that thread, and I encourage anyone with time and interest to go back and read through it. Try my 4-part defense of Irreducible Complexity in July and the responses to it, or Karl's 4-parter on morality. That thread would make a good book in itself, IMHO.

4. "Expelled" is not Ben Stein's film. I contacted the screenwriter, who confirmed for me that the he and the producers contacted Stein, not the other way around. I've watched "Expelled" 4 times now, and it is deeper than given credit for. There are many credentialed scientists in the film, and they are not all evangelicals or Americans. You can put that argument to rest, too!

5. I am re-energized for the debate now, because I'm currently reading Stephen C. Meyer's excellent book "Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design". Meyer is a imminently qualified scientist, and he presents his argument entirely from science. Not only does he present a fascinating history of and explanation of DNA, he challenges the emergence of first life by chance, necessity, or a combination. Let's engage on this!

I'm hoping that Dale, Karl, Keith, Rob, Brad, Miguel, and even Bill Hays and everyone else I'm leaving out will keep tolerating and engaging me here on this thread.

Dale: I'm no where near ready to change teams yet! But, keep trying. :)

Randy

Ebert: Donald and Daisy: Married? Nesting in sin?

Thanks, Roger. I obviously thought of the same possibility. Now that you have said it aloud, though, I cannot get this Chinatown-inspired scene out of my head of Uncle Scrooge slapping Donald around while Donald haplessly blurts, "Nephews...sons...nephews..sons..."

Or would Scrooge be the Noah Cross character...

Oh, Don Rosa, you deviant, you.

As a Christian I certainly believe in God and that God created the vast universe including Earth. However I also believe that after each "day" which probably meant millions of years after God "got the ball rolling" everything evolved during that time period.

Is it really heroic if someone simply repeats nonsense ad nauseum, ignoring that it's nonsense? Has heroism really sunk that far?

In no way does Evolution deny the possibility of a higher being. I just don't understand what all the fuss is about. How will the post-apocalyptic landscape of "The Road" benefit from Darwin or say God? Have you seen it?

Roger, it's a shame the Guiness folks wouldn't grant you a record, but I'd be happy to mail you a shiny new dime in honor of the thread...

I saw an interesting article in USA Today that discusses lactose tolerance in humans. The Darwinian hook is that via metastudies of dairy farming and lactase persistance they have identified where and when the mutation that allows adult humans to digest lactose first appeared (around 7500 years ago - surprisingly recent).

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2009-08-30-lactose-intolerance_N.htm?csp=YahooModule_News

Of course it proves nothing since it's based on science and can't possibly compete with "faith".

Blaming Darwin for Hitler is like blaming the Beatles for Manson (Helter Skelter). Let’s say Hitler did use Darwin as his justification for his actions that is not Darwin’s fault. Sorry but no where in Darwin's notes/books did I ever see anything about killing minorities.
One final point, there should be some kind of law preventing any creationists from getting medical treatment that benefited from Darwin's theories. Same goes for stem cell research. Once they find cures that stem cell research can solve how about the folks who were against it can't befit from the treatment?

While I agree with evolution (the fact that I even have to say that is a little sad to me....I agree with gravity too), I do have to ask you one question.

Was the Stein movie really any "worse" in terms of its fairness to the object of its hatred than....I forget the name, but that anti-religion film done by the comic Bill Maher. You gave that one a good review...What was going to be the star rating for the Stein film before you got sidetracked and it became a blog entry?

I read part of this book recently, it may interest you:

http://www.amazon.com/Idiot-America-Stupidity-Became-Virtue/dp/0767926145

It begins with the story of how the author visited a Creationist museum in Kentucky....The museum featured a dinosaur, with a saddle. To make matters worse, it was an English Saddle, which means that this was a show dinosaur. And also means that not only did humanity and dinosaurs exist side-by-side, but that we had domesticated them and had invented English Saddles.

-Nighthawk

SFB writes:

"Believing in intelligent design is like believing in the afterlife. You believe in it because you want it to be true. You have no real evidence to suggest it"

This is not exactly true, or at least not true in the way SFB intends it. Debates over what occurs after biological life ends are certainly not analogous to the evolution versus intelligent design debate. In the case of evolution versus intelligent design, all the scientific evidence supports evolution. Belief in intelligent design in its most primitive form ignores material fact, and even in its most sophisticated form -- that is, "evolution occurs but there is a guiding intelligence behind it" -- requires at least the assumption of facts not in evidence. But debates about whether an afterlife exists, which really come down to debates over whether human beings (and possibly other creatures) are simply material beings or have some other component that transcends materiality (conventionally called a "soul," though that word obviously often comes freighted with all sorts of assumptions), are a different matter because no scientific evidence can exist either way. Those who insist upon an afterlife, especially when they (as they almost always do) are convinced they can define exactly what it's like, don't have an evidentiary leg to stand on. But those who deny even the possibility of any kind of afterlife ignore that basic logical tenet that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Scientists know this. Much of science consists of looking for evidence for things (sub-atomic particles, missing links) that we have only imagined.

I don't know what will happen when I die, and while I'm certainly willing to wait to find out, I'm pretty sure that what I feel is more curiosity than fear. I've had a few experiences that fall into the category of what Wordsworth called "Intimations of Immortality," and others that qualify as "things that science at its current level of understanding of the universe is unable to explain." I've known and trusted people -- sober, rational, even scientific people -- who have reported similar experiences. Those first-hand and second-hand experiences still have not led me to accept any conventional view of the afterlife. What most people describe as heaven sounds like a nice suburb with no crime, or a cocktail party filled with only the people you would want to hang out with, or something similarly mundane. Meanwhile, theologically-based visions of the afterlife, such as the promise the Catholic Church offers of sexless spirits spending eternity praising God (see Dante's "Paradiso," the only part of the Divine Comedy that can rightly be called boring), hold hardly any more attraction for me than the threat of a place of eternal torment for temporal sins. Both, in fact, seem transparent carrots and sticks for controlling the masses. More fundamentally, the idea of any kind of eternity is hard to fathom. I like myself well enough, and might want to be me for 50,000 years, or even more, but the idea of a personal identity that lasts forever, in which a trillion, trillion years is just one grain of sand in an hourglass that will never run out, is a bit disturbing.

Yet any claim of certainty that nothing exists beyond death, that the self is entirely physical, strikes me as just as arbitrary and arrogant as the claim not only that heaven exists, but that one particular belief system is the only way to open its doors. Experience has taught me that it's a mistake to underestimate the wonders the universe holds. I'm talking real, physical wonders, not the religious kind, and yet the paradox is that the slightest apprehension of the universe's beauty and complexity (and yet its simplicity too) fully justifies a feeling of religious awe. I don't think the universe was designed, but if it had been, the architect's first goal must have been to make a fool of anyone with the audacity to believe he or she understands it completely. As many have pointed out, quantum physics states as fact paradoxes that Zen Buddhism presents as koans. Matter is energy. Time is a subjective illusion. Change is permanence. The problem with radical materialists like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens is not that they attack the answers religion provides, but that they treat any willingness to ask the questions as signs of mental deficiency.

In any case, when my biological functions cease, shortly after the feeling of transcendent well-being that nearly everyone who has "died on the table" and then been brought back has reported (and which could, after all, be a euphoric illusion experienced by the brain in having been momentarily freed of its responsibilities towards the rest of the body), I'll find out. Either my consciousness and identity will be snuffed out entirely, or something else will happen. I'm okay with the former, or at least as okay as one can be with the thought of oblivion. As Hamlet says at one point, if it happened to Caesar and Alexander, we should just shut up and follow humbly. However, who can deny that the latter possibility -- the something else -- is more intriguing, and if the universe's track record is any guide, therefore at least as likely?

To end where I began, by mixing up the afterlife debate with the evolution vs. creation debate SFB demeans evolution. Only enemies of Darwin imagine his goal was to destroy faith rather than to understand the world. That Darwin's discoveries ultimately put the final nail of many in the coffin of Genesis is true, but it wasn't his motivation. Those who try to claim that evolution requires "belief" and that evolutionary theory is a "secular religion" don't understand the difference between science and metaphysics, but those who insist that no afterlife could possibly exist make the same error.

I hope the trailer for CREATION is an intentional joke. I fear it is not intentional. Fortunately, Darwin's reputation will survive both Ben Stein and Paul Bettany.

Does anyone have a link to a study showing an observed beneficial genetic mutation?

Could not ID and evolution go together? Could someone design life to evolve? Isn't this one of the ways they are trying to tackle AI?

Does Evolution include spontaneous generation/abiogenesis?

Did I just make a post of all questions?

Creators aren't gods. They make places, which is quite hard. It's men that make gods. This explains a lot.

-Terry Pratchett / The Last Continent

When are these blogs going to be compiled into a book? Some of us are just as interested in your blogs as we are in your movie reviews. I want a "Roger Ebert's Journal" book to go along with my Roger Ebert books on film. Though, I haven't had time to read all of the comments of the Ben Stein entry, it seems the Ben Stein entry alone, with the comment thread included could compose one long book on the debate between evolution and creationism. In any case, give us a book of these blogs! Or at least a Roger Ebert commentary book about this debate which seems to be a recurring theme on this blog.

Ebert: Try them on this: Humans, monkeys and all other living beings share the same single-celled ancestor.

Oh boy. You and I both know that that won't fly. It makes too much sense. It is too "scientific" or even "intellectual" for this debate. It requires a bit of thought, which is quite annoying, especially when one can just cut and paste the ideas in their heads from right wing web sites.

It's not like I haven't tried that either, it's just that is has yet to actually work.

Apologies if this has been covered in the previous thread, but since Randy Masters cites Behe approvingly and "distances himself" from the YECs, has it been established if he agrees with Behe that humans share common ancestors with other species?

Also, regarding Ben Stein, I'd appreciate if anyone here can update me (fellow "evolutionists" on other boards are strangely disinterested). Several months after "Set Ben Straight" appeared at the "Expelled Exposed" site I was surprised that he had not answered any of the challenges, either to agree or disagree. I sent him 2 emails but they were not answered. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he's too busy to sift through the undeserved hate mail to find some friendly help. But surely he has had time to digest "Set Ben Straight." Is he still "expelling" himself?

Ebert: As far as I know, Stein has not responded to any criticisms of the film. FYI, he didn't write the screenplay or narration himself.

Hey Roger, did you hear about the agnostic, dyslexic insomniac? She lie in bed all night, wondering if there really was a dog. I guess that about sums it up!

Dear Roger,

at the risk of fueling the controversy some more, I'd like to share my own theory of the creation of life, which I wrote back in 2006 when I was an active Orkut member. One of the communities I used to frequent and post on is called Random Argument Generator. The community's title should already tell you something about what I'm about to share.

---

New York Times
Nov. 25, 2006

Orange County, CA - A revolutionary new theory of the origin of life has been proposed by Dr. R. Wagner, professor dementius in the Department of Revolutionary Science at the University of California, Way-to-the-side. The following is our exclusive online interview with Dr. Wagner.

NYT: Dr. Wagner, thank you for taking time off your busy schedule to chat with us. Could you please summarize in one sentence what your theory of the origin of life is?

Dr. Wagner: It's always a pleasure to waste my time online, especially with the New York Times. In one sentence, my theory of the origin of life is that we all descend from dogs.

NYT: How interesting. What is your theory called?

Dr. Wagner: I like to call it the Theory Of Revolution.

NYT: Can you please elaborate?

Dr. Wagner: If you want me to elaborate, why did you ask me to summarize it first? My Dog, man, make up your mind! Anyway, it's very simple, really. We all revolve, we revolve around our problems, the Earth revolves around the Sun, and so on. That's why I call it the Theory of Revolution.

NYT: I see. And why is it that we all descend from dogs?

Dr. Wagner: Because dogs are the quintessential revolvers. Did you know that dogs spend a third of their lives revolving around, trying to catch their tails? Moreover, as is well known, men are dogs and women are bitches, so that's why in the Theory of Revolution, we all descend from dogs. There has been some objection to my theory on the basis that men are actually pigs, but there is not clear empirical evidence of that being the case.

NYT: I see. How about the religious implications of your theory? Are there any?

Dr. Wagner: Yes, there are. See, when Dog dictated the bible, the people who wrote it down got it wrong and wrote God rather than Dog. I guess they didn't wash their ears back then, so they misunderstood what Dog said. But you can see the connections all over the place. For instance, why do you think that religious belief is said to be dogmatic?

NYT: Well, how does your theory affect those who think that cats are superior to dogs?

Dr. Wagner: It drives them crazy.

NYT: Yes, I'd suppose so, but wouldn't you say that they have the right to believe in whatever they want?

Dr. Wagner: Certainly, but the fact remains that we all descend from dogs, including cats. The series of letter transmutations that convert the word dog into cat are mathematically encoded in the DNA of dogs.

NYT: I see, so your theory makes use of DNA as well. How does it compare to Darwin's Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Intelligent Design?

Dr. Wagner: Yes, but my theory is based on a different kind of DNA. The DNA we use in the Theory of Revolution is an acronym for Doubts Not Answered. As for comparing the TOR with competing theories, this is what I have to say. Darwin's TOE is ugly and needs a lot of cleaning up. And it says that we descend from primitive apes, which is in direct contradiction with the fact that we descend from dogs. As for the TID, it's only a theory, just a bunch of tidbits and twisted arguments. In fact, I think it should be called the TIT - Theory of Imbecillic Twists. That would explain better why so many religious people suck up to it.

NYT: Still, is there any empirical evidence in favor of your theory?

Dr. Wagner: Of course there is! Take the fossil record. It's a lot of buried bones. What animal do you know of likes to bury bones? Dogs, of course. Besides, everyone knows that dinosaurs are just big dogs. Have you never watched The Flintstones? My Dog, man, didn't you have a childhood?

NYT: Well, on behalf of our readers, I'd like to thank you for chatting with us, Dr. Wagner.

Dr. Wagner: You're welcome. Can I get a free subscription to the Times now?

---

New theory of life banned in China
From the New York Times correspondent staff for scientific affairs:

Chinese officials ban new theory of the origin of life
Nov 25, 2006

Beijing, China - Merely hours after Dr. Rengaw Wagner, professor dementius in the Department of Revolutionary Science at the University of California, Way-to-the-side, has announced his revolutionary theory of the origin of life, dubbed "Theory Of Revolution", chinese officials convened an emergency meeting to discuss a strategy to ban the teaching of Dr. Wagner's theory in Chinese schools.

According to a high-ranking official, the decision to ban the new theory, which advances the idea that humans actually descend from dogs, came about shortly after he realized that this theory would suggest that Chinese people have anthropophagi tendencies, since it's well known that dogs are considered a delicacy among many Asian citizens.

A final decision has not yet been announced.

Meanwhile, Dr. Wagner's theory has taken the scientific community by storm. Moreover, political analysts have indicated that, should this theory be corroborated, a shift in the balance of power in the world is likely to occur. The Bush administration has yet to make a public announcement regarding Dr. Wagner's results.

---

Ancient artifact proves new theory of life
From the New York Times correspondent staff for scientific affairs:

Ancient artifact claimed to prove new theory of life
Nov 25, 2006

Cairo, Egypt - In the wake of the controversy generated by yet another theory of the origin of life on Earth - the so-called "Theory of Revolution", which puts forward the idea that all life on Earth descends from dogs - the recent discovery of an ancient artifact in the form of a tablet fragment, inscribed with what appear to be hieroglyphs, is now being considered the tipping factor in favor of the new theory.

Speaking at a scientific meeting taking place in Cairo, where the discovery was made, Dr. R. Wagner, professor dementius in the Department of Revolutionary Science at the University of California, Way-to-the-side, discoverer of the new theory, explained the significance of the tablet found.

"We had plenty of evidence already, before this discovery, in the form of the fossil record. After all, fossils are nothing but lots of buried bones and, as we all know, dogs like to bury bones. However, the discovery of a tablet where the translated hyeroglyphs read "Thou shall throw me a bone" clearly indicates that the universe was created by Dog and that this one commandment predates the more familiar ten. The evidence is incontrovertible."

The meeting had to be adjourned, however, when Dr. Wagner and Dr. Herman T. Przeworski, a fierce opponent of his new theory, engaged in what can only be politely described as less-than-scientific banter. Dr. Przeworski has argued that mouse traps are a clear and simple example of irreducible complexity, which he claims cannot be explained by the Theory Of Revolution.

Dr. Wagner, visibly upset, challenged Dr. Przeworski to come to the podium from where Dr. Wagner was speaking and explain "how in the name of Dog can a mouse trap be considered a biological entity."

Dr. Przeworski accepted the challenge and rose to the podium, only to be interrupted by Dr. Wagner, who then attempted to resume his presentation regarding the ancient tablet. Scientific courtesy quickly gave way to personal attacks, and the meeting was canceled.

---

Cat lovers rally against "Dog Theory"

BBC News
Nov. 26, 2006

Oxford, UK - Following the recent flurry of activity surrounding the so-called "Theory Of Revolution", particularly after the discovery of an ancient artifact in Egypt claimed to be the ultimate proof that Dog created the universe, cat lovers and other dognostics around the world were quick to announce their own news conferences to address the issue.

In Oxford, UK, famous professor of Zoology Dr. Richard Doggins, considered by many as the most influential and outspoken dognostic alive today, angrily spoke to a crowd of cat lovers at a university luncheon:

"It is simply preposterous that the universe was created by a dog and that we, created in its image, should descend from dogs. Dr. Wagner's claims are anything but scientific and his theory, anything but revolutionary."

"Consider, for example, his claim that his theory agrees with the creation of the world according to the Bible because dog years are longer than human years. Even if that is the case, and the evidence is not in its favor, the numbers simply do not add up. The Earth, not to mention the universe, is much older than 6 dog days."

"It is about time people realized that it is a dog-eat-dog world out there and that pseudo-scientists such as Dr. Wagner should be sent back to the dog house he crawled out from."

Other influential figures in the mostly-dognostic academic world, such as Dr. Meow Tails, Doctor Emeritus in Evolutionary Studies and Feline Psychology at Her Majesty's University at Puringhamton, Next-to-the-Shire, have also voiced their disapproval of Dr. Wagner's theory, which she dismisses as a "prank."

Meanwhile, radical Islamic and Christian groups have begun a series of public threats towards one another over the issue of the true nature of the Dog of Abraham, Christians claiming it was a Labrador, Islam experts claiming it was a Chihuahua.

Political analysts worldwide have began to follow closely any developments in the controversy and fear an increase in tension in the Middle East, especially since the Bush administration has not yet made any official announcements addressing the controversy.

Economic analysts and day traders, on the other hand, are expecting to benefit from the controversy with an unusually high profit margin when the major stock markets open on Monday, for it's expected that the stocks of pet-food companies will experience a rise.

---

Missing creator of revolutionary theory rescued by aliens

Reuters
Nov 28, 2006

Dr. R. Wagner, creator of the controversial Theory Of Revolution, who had been missing for five days, has been found.

Weak, but in otherwise good health, 43-year-old Wagner mysteriously appeared yesterday in the town of Roswell, New Mexico, and was recognized when he walked into a diner, completely naked.

Today, after having slept with the waitress who recognized him, and rested for a day, the famous academic and author of best-selling books Memoirs Of An Amnesiac and You Can't See Me: A Photographic Exploration Of The Life Of An Invisible Man (see reviews in our book section) addressed the world media in a press conference.

Dr. Wagner confirmed that he was taken to the US prison camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, but declined to elaborate on the kind of treatment he received there, asking to let bygones be bygones.

When asked how he escaped and came to find himself naked in Roswell, Wagner explained that he was rescued by Raliens, a group of aliens who, according to him, are not to be confused with their cult-like cousins, the Raellians. Dr. Wagner went on to explain that Raliens are more advanced than Raellians and, in fact, beat the latter 10 to 2 in the last Intergalactic Freesbee Competition. Moreover, he continued, Raliens confirmed that all life and the universe itself have been created by Dog and that human life and alien life both descend from the common domestic dog.

Taking the opportunity to divert the press conference to the issue of addressing his opponents' criticisms against his Theory Of Revolution, Dr. Wagner presented the latest empirical evidence which, along with the fossil record and the recently found Egyptian tablet containing the commandment "Thou Shall Throw Me A Bone," he said, unequivocally proves his theory.

This newest piece of evidence, he claims, clearly shows that Dog intended humans to come out of dogs' asses, for he sent his own son down to Earth through the ass of a dog (photograph available here).

In other, but related, news, some anxiety and curiosity have been forming worldwide surrounding the mystery of why the White House has not yet made a public announcement addressing both the impact of Wagner's theory and his arrest. It has been speculated that the delay has been caused by President Bush's difficulty in understanding the difference between the pronounciation of the words 'evolution' and 'revolution.' Anoynymous sources in the White House have told this reporter that the President thinks that the 's' should be pronounced with a stronger accent in one case than in the other.

Meanwhile, earlier today, in Haifa, Israel, a suicide bomber destroyed a pet store which specialized in the selling of Labrador dogs. Surviving witnesses confirmed that the man repeatedly yelled the word "Chihuahua" before taking his life and destroying the store.

Randy. If ID is not creationism, perhaps you are unaware of the wonderful transitional known as "cdesign proponentsists". Or you haven't heard of the "Wedge Document". Or perhaps Dembski's own quote: "ID is the Logos of St John restated in the idiom of Information Theory".

Perhaps you are also not aware that "Irreducible Complexity" is NOT in any way shape or form "evidence" for ID. Assuming there was any evidence for it (which there isn't, since Behe nor anyone else I'm aware of are actually doing any research in that area) it is an anti-evolution argument. "If evolution couldn't have done it then Goddidit!" Which is argument from incredulity. ID needs to stand on it's own merits.

If ID is a "SCIENTIFIC theory", then I'd like to know who or what the "designer" is, how it was determined, what useful scientific predictions it makes, what mechanism it used, when it did whatever it is you think it did, how it is tested, and (quite important) how it can be falsified. And perhaps also why an all-knowing, all-powerful universe-creating "creator" is apparently incapable of using evolution if it so desired.

Also, if ID is indeed a "scientific theory" and nothing at all to do with religion as the IDers themselves (used to) claim, then perhaps one can explain what can be found here?

http://www.designinference.com/teaching/teaching.htm

Part of their ID "course":

"This is the D.Min. course. You have four things to do: (1) take the final exam (worth 30% of your grade); (2) write a 1,500- to 2,000-word critical review of Francis Collins’s THE LANGUAGE OF GOD -- for instructions, see below (20% of your grade); (3) write a 3,000-word essay on the THEOLOGICAL significance of intelligent design (worth 30% of your grade); (4) develop a Sunday-school lesson plan based on the book Understanding Intelligent Design (worth 20% of your grade)."

(emphasis mine)

I must say, the trolling of evolution websites to help get their grades is rather amusing. I wonder how these courses help people become "ID scientists" exactly?

Looks like I have a lot of catchup reading to do to participate. So for now I only have a preface.

Lawrence, only two kinds of creature get fun in the desert: Bedouins and gods, and you're neither. Take it from me, for ordinary men, it's a burning, fiery furnace.

Capt. Karl: you stole that joke from David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest.

IF (as in big if), here's what i envision, as is the theory which is mine:

consider the universe like a top. not the top of something but the kind that a kid used to play with, wind the string, pull the string, it spins until the bully up the street named billy o took it from you. so, god is sitting on the sidewalk with his new top called "the universe." he takes it out of the package, reads the directions that he wrote, readies the string, gives a great godly pull causing it to explode into a great godly spin. then he sits back and watches it go 'round for about 6 billion years. he doesn't touch or influence it, but he got it started and said, "let's see what this baby can do."

so, back to the big IF, if there is a god and/or supreme being, i believe that he/she/it/they set up the universe and got it going, but i don't believe he/she/it/they have reached down to influence man, woman, animal, burger, or anything else that has developed. the changes over the millenia are too great and too subtle. if god were going to make changes and create creatures that didn't exist "yesterday," it wouldn't be a gradual thing such as the evidence shows in creatures that have made such tiny but huge changes little by little over tens of thousands of years. god would have pointed a finger with a "zzzzap!" and then the apelike creature would instantly walk upright and gain the power of speech.

if you accept dinosaurs, you accept evolution.
if you accept prehistoric man, you accept evolution.
if you accept tony danza, you accept evolution.

however, you now have to decide if evolution was started by an intelligent designer.

this is the theory which is mine.

Tom wrote: "Oh boy. You and I both know that that won't fly."

Yeah, but it's fun to remind those who rave about Behe, but seem to prefer YEC, OEC or "don't ask, don't tell," that Behe indeed does admit that humans share common ancestors with other species in a continuum of life going back billions of years.

Given the choice between claiming a common ancestor with creationists and claiming that I evolved from monkeys, I choose the monkeys.

Sir- First-
You said:
"Ebert: Strictly speaking, theory, as it is used in science, is the correct term:

theory. a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained : Darwin's theory of evolution."

Darwin violates this definition. Why? Darwin doesn't talk about man in the Origin of Species- he writes on man in the Descent of Man. There he says man "descends from some lower form". But what needs explaining is the higher form, man. Darwin knows this and assumes the lower form by knowing the higher form. Darwin's theory of evolution is not without its theoretical difficulties. In other way- how could 'mind' evolve from 'nonmind'?
Also, would you not agree that there is a difference between Darwin and what is called Darwinism? Perhaps these intelligent designers are voicing a concern over the ism of Darwin.

My simple argument to creationists:

You believe that the Biblical story is not only correct, but complete. But let me ask you: If your very young son or daughter comes to you and asks "Where did I come from?" your mind races to tell him/her the truth, yet in a way that they can understand. Can they understand what led to your attraction to your wife, the rush of that first kiss, the complexity of the relationship up to the decision to marry, your attempt to provide the means to create a home for your family, the intertwined life of the two of you which led to that exact sexual act which resulted in fertilization, the ups and downs of pregnancy, and the overwhelming emotions associated with birth and on and on....?

You can't explain that simply, so you tell the "truth" in a way they *can* understand: "Mommy and Daddy fell in love, got married, and you grew inside Mommy and were born."

Now let me ask: If you consider how large the gap is between the mind/experiences of a small child and the mind/experiences of an adult, think how much vaster the gap between the mind of man and the "mind" of God must be. To say that the Biblical story of creation is literal and complete, with no additional complexity, is to denigrate God.

Creationism is blasphemy.

Wow. I am a regular reader of Mr. Ebert's reviews, but I've never seen either blog post until today. I have skimmed some of the comments and found many to have actual things to say and some that were full of drivel. If I may add my two cents, as another anonymous commenter:

I am an Orthodox Jew educated in science. I believe in God. I believe He created a universe which exists and persists based on scientific principles. He created the Laws of Nature that scientists "merely" describe. He also set up the "initial conditions" for the "equations" that are Life, the Universe, and Everything. Sure, evolution seems to have occurred as Darwin described it. Why should it not? It makes sense.

Has evolution been "proven"? Does the theory of evolution hold the same amount of authority as Newton's Laws of Motion? For sure not. Of course, to completely test evolution, one needs a test tube large enough to hold an ecosystem and a grant supporting you for several million years. TIME is the missing element, and it is because there not enough time has passed since people started watching, there is NO empiric evidence for evolution. There is a planetload of circumstantial evidence, of course, and that is more than any other theory possesses, but I don't think that evolution is a fact. I personally feel that it is correct, with the caveat that God was always there behind the scenes.

It is because of compromising statements like the one I just made that I do not understand the points of view of either extreme. How can you completely disprove the existence of God. Here we have a hypothetical omnipotent being who doesn't want to be found. It's the same with proving He does exist. One commenter said that personal experience is the best proof of God's existence. I say that while I have had experiences like he describes, I think that this is a poor argument. (The best argument for God's existence, IMHO is the persistent existence of the Jews.)

The argument against "faith" being the thing that God wants (and therefore has not revealed Himself in a more obvious manner) holds water only because the people on the faith side have themselves missed a step. Worshippers of God are to have faith, indeed, but it is actions that bring greater good that God wants, and He wants us to come to be better people based on our own personal development, not because holy-cow-how-could-we-not. Whether there is eternal reward thrown into it is secondary. [Now, one can argue with this argument too, but not on logical grounds. Only on the grounds of "wow, that's a little silly." We can say such things, but it is because we do not know the mind of God, and do not know what is important to Him. That insulates my argument from anything because it hides behind "well, we cannot know" but it I think avoids "we don't know so it must be."]

It pains me that religious people who use microwaves and antibiotics feel that ID needs to be taught as a scientific theory. It isn't. Not at all.

It pains me that secular ideologues feel that being religious makes one uneducated and lacking in intelligence. (Perhaps some of them are influenced by the loud fundamentalists who say and do silly or murderous things in the name of religion. But do not lump Muslim suicide bombers who die "in the name of Allah" with religious scholars who believe that there is some Divine Providence in the world.)

It confuses me when people do not see obvious connections. I always thought it was pretty clear that racism has a basis (or at least a support) in Darwinism. Of course Hitler or some of his people believed in Darwinism on a variety of levels. (Social Darwinism had been introduced a decade or two prior to Hitler's rise to power.) Does this make Darwin evil? A supporter of genocide? No, of course not - any more than the Wright Brothers are to blame for Hiroshima. Scientific discovery - or even theorizing - is what we as humans and thinkers do, and it is our responsibility to control the results of our thoughts and discoveries.

In short, then: it is possible to understand God working within the natural universe, but ID is not a scientific theory. Believing that developments have unintended consequences is normal, and not to be scoffed at. And most of all, do not insult the intelligence of the other side.

I am no scientist or scholar but I do believe my own eyes. I see how traits get passed on from grandparent to parent to child. The idea that the things that make use are passed on through genetics... it supports the idea of evolution.

I think about the fact that in the past, genetics determined survival. Before we had good medicine, if a child had a weak immune system, they didn't survive long enough to procreate. Which means there was some level of being fit to survive that determined who passed on their genes. To deny this reality is infantile at best, and reckless at worst.

I do not expressly believe in Abraham's God. But I believe there is something out there which may be our god. I cannot explain it... but I have faith it exists. I am no christian, no muslim, no mormon, no athiest.

I don't believe that the theory of evolution is in conflict with intelligent design. To me it's like saying gravity is in conflict with e=mc^2. I feel they are very much entwined and one is just the byproduct of the other.

The argument almost feels silly. I have one far more interesting, what came first: the chicken or the egg?

Here my question: if we were to allow ID to be taught in schools, what would it consist of? I've read Pandas and People, and there's nothing in it that lays out a lesson of what ID is or its history. It's all apologetics. Furthermore, if ID is what it claims to be, a non-denominational theory of a "designer", then wouldn't any discussion of it amount to New Age study? That's the only thing religious fundamentalists hate worse than atheism.

Sorry Roger ... I don't know where else to put this ... answerman is not appropriate.

Just read your review for "World's Greatest Dad" and your last sentence is intriguing. I've always wondered why you - someone I admire so much as being able to get satire and topical dark comedy - missed "Heathers" as an all-time classic teen black comedy/satire of exactly the themes you think "World's Greatest Dad" just missed out on.

You've given Heathers 2 1/2 stars, and I think it deserves another look. It did everything "River's Edge" did, and everything this movie tried to do ... but funnier, and thus more biting.

Well, sigh. I thought I'd already straightened everybody out about this. Or at least, got some of the Darwinist Rednecks to admit they didn't even understand what they're reading -- by quite a reputable third party, that is. Or that some of these precocious loudmouths have even ever read ORIGIN OF SPECIES.

So, this debate has the same quality of millions of people vehemently preaching for a political bill they haven't even read -- and biting the fingers off those who probably have, if the LA Times report was true, the other day.

Darwin died knowing there was no empirical proof for the random occurrence of biological characteristics, supposedly accidentally improving the ability of any species to survive by accidentally improved adaptation to the environment and in domination over any other species. He wrote so. I never see anybody quoting this letter, written to his brother Thomas.

"Natural selection" is only a euphemism for "random selection," as I ably pointed out. Some of you Darwinist Rednecks are sorely literal-minded. That's how wiping out whole villages of innocent people gets called "Ethnic Cleansing" by the perps.

Whatever twists and turns this theory has taken over a century and a half, there still remains the problem of the idea of "random." That's still at the core of it. The Spencerian notion, that we should now control this "random" evolution socially, which amounts to culling herds and gathering biological knowledge by torturing even human beings for "scientific reasons," did indeed supply the rationale for the Nazi experiments, as well as the Japanese, which were far worse -- and sold to the U.S., making some of those incredible abusers wealthy. Hirohito was an avid Darwinist. Hitler was a politician without any scientific background whatsoever.

If you "don't agree" with this point of view, it can only be that you don't want to. It doesn't take a whole lot of effort to look up some historical information.

You without testubes gizmoes and grants can only use evolutionary theory in a philosophical way. The philosophy behind this theory states that All Existence, with a capital "E," is random.

Philosophical implications have been ignored here, particularly by the Darwinist Rednecks, probably because it's considered impractical. As Jay Leno once quipped, what did he plan to do with his degree in philosophy? Open up a little philosophy shop?

One lives by the philosophy he accepts, period, whether it's Redneck or high-falutin' egghead. Usually it's instilled by parents, schools, etc. One usually has his nose too far into his philosophy to recognize the restrictive bars through which that nose is eagerly thrusting. Just trust me on this.

So, you True Believers (Eric Hoffer's worthy term) in Redneck Evolution float along to the tuneless philosophy that your own origins are random. There's nothing fair in life but by accident, that what you can grab is a dog-eat-dog proposition and your feelings about it all are ultimately meaningless. Therefore, what happens to you? If you pay attention to the details of your own life, you'll see your philosophy in operation. Few do that.

I'm telling you Christians that you haven't thought it through either. You're stuck with a God that lets "shit happen" to you.

In that other post, I also asked for anyone to volunteer what good evolutionary theory has done them. Personally: not a fine sweeping gesture of hands about the glories of science you've read about plus all the pictures. And not because you got a hack job in a lab, or the like either. Directly. Right now: what good is evolutionary theory doing you?

Nobody responded. I tried a few times, if I recall. Nobody. Not a word. Dead silence.

Trying again: who here has a personal story about how evolutionary theory has improved their lives personally?

To help everyone understand my starting point, I'm a deeply committed Christian who believes that evolution is one mechanism through which God works in his creation. But I usually distance myself from people who self-identify as proponents of "Intelligent Design" or "Creationism" because they seem to believe not that God did not set up the universe in an explicable way, but in an way that doesn't make any sense unless we use the "it's a miracle!" formula in every equation.

My background is in physics and mathematics and most of what the ID proponents seem to want in the field of biology seems to me analogous to insisting that when we throw a basketball into the air, God swats it back down. It seems like an unnecessary interjection of God into a natural system that, in my view, He set up to work intelligibly. It's something of an insult to imply that He set up a system so flawed He has to constantly work miraculous interference to keep things humming.

With that being said, I think it should be noted that a good number of evolutionary proponents (usually non-scientist types) vastly overstate their case in the particulars of evolution. We may see an article that claims that human behavior works in some way or another because it was encoded by evolution into ancient humans. They then claim that the behavior improved survival because that behavior would lead to such-and-such an action.

But, when you dig into scientific studies of many behavioral phenomena, you realize that their "explanation" was little more than a creative writing exercise, imagining humans as they used to be and projecting how the behavior might have improved survival or procreation. Ultimately, the proper answer to "Why do we act this way?" is often "We have no idea, but it's a good bet that the reason was based in some evolutionary mechanism."

This answer is unsatisfying to many and easily mocked by IDers and creationists, but it is a much more honest answer than making the reasons up.

i'm not sure if this is my place to promote something else on this site, but i feel people following this thread and others you have written dealing with the question of god and religion might be interested in hearing some smart work done in national public radio. A show called radiolab frequently investigates issues such as evolution, the afterlife, and my personal favorite theories of the evolution of morality. I highly recommend the show which releases a podcast to anyone interested in a smart, mostly impartial view of these topics.

Randy Masters,

Ever jousted a jaded knight? I got some armor, a sword and a horse over here. I'm in my held-by-a-few-threads undergarments that are about to disintegrate and be blown out into the wind, which means if we're going to do this I'll need someone to put my armor on for me, carry me onto the horse, super glue my javelin sword into my palm and slap the horses ass.

I am a sophomore university student studying mechanical engineering. One of the reasons I choose this field is because I believe that science, in the form of math, physics, biology, psychology, or any other, has led people to where we are today. When humans started sharpening sticks, that was science, you could say engineering :)

I have some conservative beliefs, but I find the indifference, and even anger toward science, by elements on the right, to be dangerous to this country. Rejecting science is rejecting reason, and those who reject it and want to run this country have ideas in their head about how to govern that aren't governed by real reason either. They call it reason, but it seems to me to be some sort of emotional stubbornness stemming from anger issues. That is to say, some conservatives are the type of people who get angry when you disagree with them, and assume they are better than you because you think differently than they do. This sort of thinking leads to an even more stubborn mind the second time around, and I view it as a sort of destructive cycle.

If Glenn Beck ever realizes he has a problem, he'd be a candidate for a psychiatrist, I think. Some people just think they're right, and some little thing like science, or reality, won't change their mind. Good people try to improve themselves. Talking heads on the right assume their ideas don't need improving.

Matt,

I have also developed two "threads" of knowledge concerning this second of your major threads (there was also a third one back there too I believe? or fourth? about evolution or about being about evolution?) concerning evolution. I consider myself, I suppose, "undecided".

Thread One: I find that there is still validity to think of this issue in terms of certain philosophical questions of epistemology. Not necessarily in the "what can we REALLY know?" kind of modern physics/postmodernism way. More in terms of differing trends in a concept i'll refer to as "Essential Knowledge". Though I wish to not mis-use this term, it is true that many universities, foreign and domestic, were founded to a certain degree with Theology as a "queen of the sciences". Now i'm not trying to push this too far. Perhaps many of these theologians, even of former times, themselves subscribed to Darwin's theory while maintaining a degree of theological robustness. Meaning, theology still as taking a primary role in the whole of curriculum. Now this in itself is perhaps of debate. But, I would like to present the case that this picture portrayed provides a situation where an "Essential Knowledge" of a pre-modern society involved to a certain degree theology as making up a central item of knowledge. Now the desirability of this, even for a Christian, is up for debate, involving a discussion of the church in a Post-Constantinian world. And I do admit we are speaking here primarily of "the West", Europe, America. Now, the effects of the Enlightenment, Kant (who paved the way for...), of course Darwin himself, provided a shift in what has been largely characterized as "modern-ism", a society of reason, science and of course "liberalism". (Though I would love to point out at this point that most of what we understand in terms of a fiercely competitive "free market" economy, as opposed to cooperative efforts, guild culture, etc is typically associated with this liberal, "social Darwinism") In these changes there has been a decided shift in terms of epistemology. Logic, science, calculated and "neutral" truth has become the "Essential Knowledge" of a 19th/20th century Western culture. Perhaps this doesn't "do" anything to provide an argument one way or the other. I simply illustrate this to show how, in many ways, Evolution is a sort of assumed and widely accepted position held by people who don't understand it. I myself do not understand it. I myself am ignorant to the biological and genetic sciences it takes to wrap my mind around the ideas. I remain a fairly "undecided" observer because I feel that to take a position would be to accept the testimony of Scientists as the chief source of knowledge in the same way as the church knew in the past. Many people would be offended at the sensibilities of the pre-modern world in accepting blindly the dictates of the church when they didn't necessarily always check into the truth for themselves (which is a fascinating question for "theologians" like myself to attempt to wrestle with). Some of those who had the same problem were called Protestants. Though I also mean it in a wider sense... buuuuut

Thread Two: At the same time, though I believe these are some valid points and observations, I allow that acknowledging the inter-workings of modern epistemology is not an excuse for ignorance. Though I maintain that in terms of priority, there is a dictating of the reign of science to put this issue in the forefront, that reservation could be held too far and create one to become a psychologically unstable hermit. Therefore, I plan on making myself more knowledgeable. I have enjoyed reading many of the "great minds" of the past few centuries (Kant, Nietzsche, Freud) even for gaining a basic knowledge in understanding some of the most influential ideas of modern philosophy. I plan on taking up "The Origin of the Species" and seeing what I think of it. The main item I acknowledge towards those on the side of the theory of evolution is the lack of a great response that truly makes the impact that Darwin himself did on the topic. Though I suppose in some ways we could say St. Augustine if we're willing to take science from its pinnacle of epistemology (i.e. "well it doesn't matter what Augustine thought on the topic of creation, he's not a SCIENTIST"). Though I admit that finding what Augustine thought concerning the age of creation could take a dissertation in itself.

Roger
Why do you make claims that are unequivocally false such as "I've never heard of an I.D. scientist who isn't American. Most of them are Christian fundamentalists. Christians in general are okay with evolution."

Over 100 surveys have been done on this question and they are fairly consistent. About 90 percent of Americans support some form of ID or creationism and the number is not too different in many countries, especially Muslim nations. And to deny the connection between Nazism and Darwinism is about equal to denying the holocaust. The evidence is very clear. Read Mein Kampf in German.

Ebert: youread Main Kampf in German. Life is short.

This Gallup Poll says the percentage of Americans believing in evolution is over 50%:

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20060606/nearly-half-of-americans-believe-in-creationism/index.html

Quotes from the article:

Analysts also found a strong correlation between the level of education and the response. About three-quarters of those with a post-graduate degree said humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, compared to just 22 percent choosing the “created in present form” option.

According to Gallup, the poll shows that Americans’ view on the origin of life has remained constant for decades. Since 1982, when the poll first began, between 44 and 47 percent of Americans have consistently agreed with the option that God created humans in their present form, and between 9 and 13 percent believed man evolved without guidance from God. This was the seventh time the poll was conducted.

Meanwhile, 36 percent of Americans agreed with a third option, that man evolved with the guidance of God through millions of years.

Just bought my TIFF tix this morning downtown in beautiful T.O., where many enthusiastic and friendly film lovers lined up in the dark of 4 am, to buy tickets at 7. I had mine by about 8 or so and left downtown around 11 - when the line was longer than ever, people still trying to get into... anything. It was amazing to see so many people interested in film in one place at one time.
Sometimes, in an everyday smaller town life, seeing cinephiles only as names on blogs like this, you forget these people do exist out there, somewhere...

Anyway, the real story: Lars von Trier's "Antichrist" sold out before tickets were available to the general public. (There's a random draw people enter to try to get advance tickets, and of the 80 or so of those who did get advance tickets, guess what everybody wanted to see...) Standing in line, it seems to be *the* movie that people wanna see (with a few exceptions of people who, based on what they had heard from internet buzz/ word of mouth, weren't sure they could handle "Antichrist" if they were to see it...)

Shockingly, there were tickets remaining for the Lynch-produced/ Herzog-directed "My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done?"

A USA Today/Gallup Poll from June, 2007 found that 53% of respondents agreed the following was definitely or probably true:

"Evolution -- that is, the idea that human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life"

The same poll found that 66% of respondents believed the following was definitely or probably true:

"Creationism -- that is, the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years"

So, at least 19% of those surveyed agreed with both statements simultaneously.

Ebert: Do you know the great man himself posted a comment the first time I used that?

I did not! That is truly awesome.

I'm looking forward to eventually seeing "Creation" for being a fan of Paul Bettany and Toby Jones, not to mention interested in the subject but from an artistic point of view - case in point, look how beautifully they've designed the website for the film:

http://creationthemovie.com

The cursor is a magnifying glass, allowing you to pass it over a delightful collection of fascinating things as set upon a sheet of handmade paper. From butterflies and beetles, to sea shells and a sundial clock, they wait patiently for your inspection as a charming ladybug navigates a path around it all. Meanwhile, children can be heard playing as birds chirp and sing; the notes of a piano trickling softly in the distance. There's even the occasional burst of sunlight from the top, right-hand corner of the screen.

I confess, I've absolutely no interest in the debate which has never worn out its welcome on Roger's blog; wry smile. Once I've expressed myself as well I can on a subject, I'm content to move on and let others beat it to death. I don't need to be last man standing. And that what's happened to this topic, imo. And why it's depressing to see it again for it reminds why we have wars.

So many have been so focused on arguing their points and for months that for me, to spend any time on it now, is to risk the death of nature's wonder and awe, of the beauty of beetles and bugs and dragon fly wings - for so rarely does anyone ever stop to notice what they're arguing about.

I'm going outside now to enjoy the sunshine and explore a garden.

I don't recall Christ saying anything about evolution. In fact, there's a lot of "christian" beliefs that he never said one word about (like the issue homosexuality, abortion, just to name a few). So how is it that being a Christian automatically discounts one for believing in evolution, or at least the possibility in it?

BTW, no one asked, but I happen to be a gay man who doesn’t really like abortion. As a gay man, having kids requires much elaboration and planning. I can’t imagine giving up on the opportunity to have a child so easily.

Then again, is that really my decision to make? Probably not. I'm not a woman.

Now I feel guilty that I never seized the chance to create a post on the "single longest thread on the web", Guinness record or not!

Our only hope is to make this thread even longer. Can it be done?

Whiole I agree with you on almost all counts, I do take issue with the line "the most influential scientist of all time" when talking about Darwin. He certainly was impressive, and I have no doubt correct, but he comes nowhere close to people like Newton, Euler, Einstein, or Gauss when it comes to influencing the development of the world. And that says nothing of the ancient greats like Archimedes or Euclid.
So while Darwin was one of the greats, let's not go too far in the opposite direction from people like Stien. Darwin put into words what many people knew, Newton made the world we live in possible.

"By Don Zomberg on September 4, 2009 10:06 AM
The Darwin film "Creation" is produced by Mel Gibson's Icon company. What am I missing?"

IMDB's plot summary: Charles Darwin struggles to find a balance between his revolutionary theories on evolution and the relationship with his religious wife, whose faith contradicts his work.

"By Amrita on September 4, 2009 11:20 AM

Alright, so God put you here - but what is more awe-inspiring? That God woke up one morning and said, "Humans!" and so we all came to be? Or that God created an entire universe that through a series of infinitesimal changes over billions of years crafted man?"

The Bible teaches that God created the universe in 7 days. Previously I argued that a day for God may not be a day as we see it. Roger calculated billions of years into 7 days and said that he'd accept a "God's Day" that's equal to 'so and so' billions of years. This forum has me terrified of outing myself as a creationist, but I guess I already have, and that is what I am, and I don't see anything more bizarre about being a creationist than being an evolutionist. They both will ultimately delve into territory that we have no proof of- the first speck of existence. One road to the origin of that speck is based on faith and the other is based on science. I am not going to argue the age of the earth, because I just don't know. I don't argue adaptation- living organisms changing colors, forming characteristics according to their environment- but that does not lead me to believe that it is by pure luck that my ancestors were the ones who diverged into the more intelligent lineage- the ones who rent condos in Miami and type on internet forums discussing how we got to be here. That we share 95-99% of our DNA in common with chimpanzees does not prove anything to me. An artist may use the same basic paints to create two wholly different images with two very different purposes.

When you ask what is more awe-inspiring as to how it all started... as a Christian, it doesn't matter what I find more awe inspiring; it matters what God chose to do. I'm supposed to be ashamed for believing in 7 human days creation? I may not believe that, but even if I did, what is so much more absurd about that than anything else? The absurdity is all around us- this existence- we usually take it for granted. Is God in awe of his own wonders? Does he over-awe and under-awe and comparatively awe himself? Maybe he established exactly what he wanted to, and what was necessary to him and to us, and has been working ever since on Heaven, which will out-awe it all.

Science tells us, for instance, that all the blue eyed people in this world share one common ancestor - imagine that. One little quirk in somebody's DNA between 6000 and 10000 years ago, a freak mutation that probably caused much frenzy in some ancient village when that baby was born, and thousands of years later, we get Paul Newman. If that's not God's work, what is? :-)

It has often seemed to me that the big problem that proponents of creationism and ID have with evolution is that it argues that God must love everybody and everything in the universe equally, that Man is not the ultimate creation, just the latest development. It's a denial of mortality - you or I might die but Man cannot possibly die out because this world was made expressly for him.

The deal with evolution as a theory is that you actually know neither the beginning nor the end, but cobble up a theory based on some observations taken re: an infinitesimal slice of the middle. This is like dropping into a couple minutes of Citizen Kane and concluding it's about bad opera or political chicanery.

More substantively, there are many criticisms to make. For example, if a thing changes (evolves), what is the relationship between the changed thing and the original? Because it is not the same, but different, they actually have no relationship at all! Given that they have no relationship, it is the height of haphazard illogic to construct a theory based on the notion that they do.

The vigorously functional entity known as Roger Ebert once seen arguing with a similar entity known as Gene Siskel, is not the same entity as the one known as Roger Ebert today, and it is mere convention to regard them as such. There is no real relationship between the two Eberts, the former existing only as a memory and the present existing as presumably real, but almost equally incapable of being quantifiably or qualitatively comprehended. DNA will not suffice.

Science, a devolution in its own right, is almost hopelessly confused on these matters, the import of which should actually move toward an understanding of the true nature of reality, and not merely reinforce the unexamined and ignorant presumptions of even the modern mind's conceptions of it.

Ebert: This Ebert has a pretty good idea of how he evolved from that Ebert.

I don't recall Christ saying anything about evolution. In fact, there's a lot of "christian" beliefs that he never said one word about (like the issue homosexuality, abortion, just to name a few). So how is it that being a Christian automatically discounts one for believing in evolution, or at least the possibility in it?

BTW, no one asked, but I happen to be a gay man who doesn’t really like abortion. As a gay man, having kids requires much elaboration and planning. I can’t imagine giving up on the opportunity to have a child so easily.

Then again, is that really my decision to make? Probably not. I'm not a woman.

I haven't read My Country in German, but I do know that regardless of whether the crackpot Hitler invokes or adheres to Darwins theories he's still a crackpot. There is no slight against Darwin for Hitler's actions, just as there is no slight against the song 'Helter Skelter' due to Manson and his family's actions.

Miles Blanton

And God looked upon the Trevi Fountain and God said "Let there be Anita Ekberg." And there was Anita Ekberg wading in the fountain, in that long strapless black dress. And God rested, after muttering to Godself, "Hmmm. Not bad."

Ebert: And Adam looked upon Anita Ekberg, and suddenly an idea popped into his pants.

I'm an academic evolutionary scientist with a blog concerning film interpretation from a Darwinian perspective: http://darwingoestothemovies.blogspot.com/

I hope someone might find it useful/interesting with respect to why film has the psychological effects that it does and how major themes reflecting evolved human nature are expressed in the movies.

Ebert: Bookmarked it, started reading your essay on "Carnal Knowledge" from the POV of Sexual Strategies Theory in evolutionary psychology, and I'm hooked.

"About three-quarters of those with a post-graduate degree said humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, compared to just 22 percent choosing the “created in present form” option."

Faith is a belief. It has nothing to do with intelligence. It is not any fairer to insinuate that creationists are mindless than to assume that three-quarters of educated people are faithless.

Insects such as cockroaches are much more resistant to radioactivity than human beings. This couldn't have evolved, since there haven't been enough atomic explosions in the past for natural selection to weed out the less resistant ones. I therefore conclude:

1) They must have been made that way by an Intelligent Designer.
2) The I.D. is more interested in preserving insects than humans.
3) So let the insects worship the I.D. I refuse to.

Ebert: Cockroaches can evolve immunity from insect killers in perceivable generations.

Am I to be the only one weighing in on the intelligent design side?

I absolutely refuse to repost the arguments gone on before.

With that in mind, just two quick things, just as a jumping-off point as to why I believe as I do:

First: I believe in the soul. No evidence to back up that claim, yet I hold it to be true, just as I hold that there is a difference between mind and brain. It's not quantifiable, and therefore not reproducible, so the pure science crowd disdains the notion. And once you allow a soul...the argument makes itself.

Second: This worship of logic above all else is worthless. Logic describes the world as it is, or as it was, and gives us a basis to predict the future--but the rub is in that inference. You must infer if you do not have empirical evidence. There is no empirical evidence that's definitive. Therefore both ID and Darwinism become leaps of faith (one more than the other right at the moment, I'll give you that), and I don't find the strict evolutionary side to be of much use, frankly.

Why should we not adopt the Greek ideals when we debate this question? What would be the harmonious answer, the beautiful answer to the question of origin? Roger, where is the ecstatic truth in this? Must we be saddled with the accountant's truth at the expense of something meaningful?

Ebert: When I read The Ancestor's Tale, by Dawkins, I feel filled with awe and wonder. Evolution is such an elegant theory.

I, for one, believe everyone descended from dragons.

Ebert: Even damsels in distress?

Well, I have started my due diligence back blog reading to join in, and have gotten thru some fraction of it. I figure that I will let me thoughts evolve here and dive in.

First, I'm kind of wondering what the idea here is: is it an attempt at a serious discussion of science, is it political, is it practice for going to law school - what is it? I will read more. What is the basis: the philosophy and history of science, scientific study itself, a belief in religion, an attempt to mediate some perceived differences between science and religion, or something else altogether? I will think more.

Meanwhile, I have read the 'pile of rocks argument' above, viz 'I know the difference between a pile of rocks and a fireplace, and we are fireplaces, and fireplaces obviously was designed'.

Anyone who has ever done computer programming knows the precision and exactitude needed to get a computer program to function at all, much less do anything useful or comprehensible. Yet the field of computer science (around in varying degrees for decades) called 'evolutionary computing', and a subfield called 'genetic programming' has achieved extraordinary results in producing software which can produce software offspring that evolves, software generation by generation, into new forms that are more complex, ordered, and useful than their distant software ancestors. Let me add that this field was not inspired by some inane desire to prove biological evolution, or disprove creationism or intelligent design, but as a scientific discovery process.

This ought to give pause to those who use their intuition about what is obviously true or false to draw conclusions about what actually is true or false. The idea of intuition as ground truth in science has not proven useful in the past. For example, see "Science and Human Values" by Jacob Bronowski, especially regarding Hegel's intuitive metaphysical proof of the number of planets in the solar system.

I've spent my time budget for right now but will check in later in the weekend. Bon appetit!

Going back to the Hitler thing, I don't think it's fair from either side to justify their opinion with what Hitler did. Yes, Hitler invoked evolutionary ideology into his despicable actions. Yes, he invoked Christian ideology into his despicable actions. When are we going to realize that Hitler was a true nutjob, and that he is never a good example to argue and say "well, Hitler believed...?" Directly connecting the Holocause with Darwinism is pretty idiotic, as is using Hitler as a "prime" example of Christianity. In both cases, he clearly got something wrong.

I don't think it's rational to deny evolution; it's been proven. But the way so many evolutionists or Darwinists or what-have-you completely rule out that a higher power had a hand in that evolution kind of frustrates me. The odds were so weighted against human beings or life of any kind ever coming into existence in the first place, that you'd think the fact that it has would be reason enough to consider something bigger than us at work. I don't understand how people can accept how unlikely their very existence is with just a shrug, but find the notion that God or a higher power exists completely preposterous.

And yes, I'm aware of the argument that no matter how many times you flip a coin, the odds are still 50/50 that you'll get tails. The universe isn't aware of how unlikely it is that we exist. But aren't we aware? The fact that so many tiny circumstances, so many minute details, were all EXACTLY right has to at least give one pause.

If Intelligent Design equals "creationism," then explain why intellectual atheists and agnostics such as David Berlinski and Bradley Monton support ID as valid science? Many if not most ID critics have not thought through the issue enough to consider the difference between a theory's sufficient elements and and its possible implications. Theological implications, biblical or otherwise, are not necessary to understand design qua design. The signs of intelligence in specified-complex systems are real and inexplicable through any proven macro-evolutionary mechanism. Let some of us think this through, before stifling free thought with un-thoughtful name-calling and red herrings.

Ebert: Here's what I find about Berlinski:

An outspoken critic of evolution, Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, a Seattle-based think-tank that is hub of the intelligent design movement. Berlinski shares the movement's disbelief in the evidence for evolution, but does not openly avow intelligent design and describes his relationship with the idea as: "warm but distant. It's the same attitude that I display in public toward my ex-wives." Berlinski is a scathing critic of "Darwinism", yet, "Unlike his colleagues at the Discovery Institute, [he] refuses to theorize about the origin of life."

I can't explain Monton.

We have become a society of right and wrong, left and right, pro and con. We have reached the point where, often times the debate about issues--important issues--climaxs to where if I don't agree with you then I am against you, and evolution is a perfect example. There is no reason why intelligent design should be taught in schools, because if you believe in a creator than it should be obvious. If there is a God, then clearly science is just the way God works, the laws of the universe and God's laws are one and the same.

Sadly, most people will not listne to reason or try and understand one another. They, instead, will grab a hold of the views so tight they can barely gasp for air, let alone grow and, yes, evolve. Instead, the will defend their belief, no matter how wrong, ignorant, hateful, uneducated or disproven in has become. There are still people claiming Obama was born in Kenya for Christ's sake.

I am reminded of the woman who confronted Barney Frank at a town hall and compared Obama and Frank to Nazis. Frank, a gay jew, eventually responded "Having a conversation with you would be like having a conversation with a dining room table, I have no interest in either." More and more, people are feeling that is the case with the other side--on both sides.

Why do people get so angry over everything? Is it the fact that our news networks are closing in on Howard Beale? Are we as mad as hell, and are we going to take it anymore?

Being a Christian, I fall somewhere in the middle of the argument. Large portions (but not all portions) of Creationism are based on faith. That is the point. If you do not have faith, Creationism will never make sense. Now, I'm not saying it's not scientific, but it isn't in the modern, traditional sense. Evolution, at least to me, is similar. We will never know everything about it, for both are, in their own ways, beautiful mysteries. But, evolution does have huge gaps that many scientists have pointed out, enough that they cannot continue to believe in the theory. I think that many people who subscribe to the religion of Evolution are too blind to notice its innaccuracies, just as many Christians are too dogmatic to notice that Evolution does contain some truth in the middle of its silliness. I really hate arguing and the fact that no middle ground can be found, but I'm just glad I'm not a science major, and don't have to touch upon this too much. Regardless of whether Evolution occurs or not, Christ is still Lord of my life, and that's ultimately all that matters to me. But, if you still need "proof" that evolution has many fallacies, listen to or read works by Lee Strobel or Kent Hovind, men that prove that one can be a legitimate scientist and still question evolution while not blindly following Creationism.

I am sorry. I must have poorly cut and paste. The last two paragraphs of my message (starting with "Science tells us") were by Amrita, and I didn't mean to include them.

I both love and hate when someone I admire comes out against this I.D. nonsense. I love it because it needs to be said (it shouldn't need to be, but apparently it does).

I hate it because it's always a pointless argument. You can't argue against "it's magic". "It's magic" trumps all of science and history (and it's only two words!). You can point out that the science that gave us the very computers we're reading this on is the same science that tells us that the world is more than 2,000 years old. You could even reproduce every single experiment that led us to our current scientific understanding. It won't matter, though. "It's magic" trumps all.

The only thing you can do is not engage with these people.

"This Ebert has a pretty good idea of how he evolved from that Ebert."

However, this is not a scientific response, it is a response of the type that unconsciously supports the unexamined presumptions of our conventional conceptions. These cannot be reconciled. Ideation itself is only a portion of the total observable phenomena. That portion arrogates to itself the position of overseer and arbiter and false totality. All subsequent acts in which it indulges, then, only serve to fortify its own sense of importance and dominance. Since this is untrue, it leads to chaos (the present condition of society), therefore ideation is not a truly evolutionary event. Paradoxically, an authentic evolution transcends the realm of ideation and ultimately obviates it, and only then can we say, "We shall speak of this no more."

Ebert: I see.

Hi Roger,

I would be interested to hear how you reconcile the belief that theer is no intelligence behind the natural order with the willingness to use the words of Jesus as though they hold some kind of authority. You even included the part about him separating the sheep from the goats at some point. Since you don't believe there is any intelligence behind the universe, the obvious conclusion is that you quoted Jesus for purely political purposes.

Anyway, your two views are wildly contradictory (there is no intelligence, but Jesus is an authority on morality) and I would be interested to hear how you reconcile them.

It seems that if he's not who he claimed to be, he has no more authority on moral issues than anyone else (and it would mean he was a bit loony). In fact, if there is no intelligence behind the natural order, there is no authority on moral issues, period. Which ones again, makes your entire moral appeal a few posts back a bit absurd.

Would love to hear how you reconcile the two contradictory views.

Ebert: Morality is a human attribute, independent of the supernatural.

Dear Roger,

The basis of the Nazi doctrine was a myth (Aryans were an ancient Nordic race? Say what?), and to say that Nazism was based on Darwinism is like saying that the Holocaust never happened.

I believe in God and maybe Afterlife (in which my soul will be projected into the Universe, that's the 'Heaven' part). But people do things to people and not science or God to people. I came to that conclusion when I was ten, and the bully who stole my lunch money was enjoying an ice-cream in front of me.

Hello Roger and all,

Oh good, an extension to THE THREAD!
Now I can add a recommendation to the SF novel "Calculating God" by Robert J. Sawyer, in which the author explores the idea that ID is real and a scientific truth. ID vindicated! The aliens have the proof! God did intervene in the cell, and exterminate the dinosaurs. Sawyer tries to show what level of godhood would be required to create life, organize the universe just right and what could be this god's goal.
Of course, as a hard science SF novel, it's not the all powerful all seeing God, but a much more limited version.
As a novel, it's got some good and some just OK bits, but as an exploration of the ideas proposed in THE THREAD, it is perfectly on topic and quite a fun reversal of the typical scientific dogma.(Which I believe in,just in case someone wondered).

Regards,

Michel Lamontagne
Quebec Canada

And the author is from Toronto! Almost the whole novel is set in the Toronto science museum.

Thank you very kindly, sir...I'll try to keep them coming. I think Straw Dogs and The Accused are next. I suspect you can guess the topic...

Ebert: The function of rape in evolution?

On a side note, Jesus seems to become more and more caucasian with each passing year. If He *does* ever come back, nobody will recognize Him.

Ebert: In the Middle East of that time, he would have been short and dark.

Why, Roger. Damsels are the progenitors of modern dragonflies. Elegant and graceful, yet still fire-breathing terrors of a summer-time deck.

Hi Adam Zanzie.

Our only hope is to make this thread even longer. Can it be done?

I'm game! I think there is a lot more energy and fresh ideas to expend on this topic. I'm newly energized to go at the issue.

Here's a topic: Why couldn't the excellent conversation that we had on the Ben Stein thread be repeated in a high school or college biology classroom? It was civil. It rehashed the design vs. unguided evolution debate that's been going on since Plato? Why can't students have the excellent debate that we had on the thread over 2600 comments?

Randy

Reply to: First: I believe in the soul. No evidence to back up that claim, yet I hold it to be true, just as I hold that there is a difference between mind and brain. It's not quantifiable, and therefore not reproducible, so the pure science crowd disdains the notion. And once you allow a soul...the argument makes itself.

Again, if you start with the right questions, you won't come to an Impossible Conclusion, as you have.

Let's look at our Ancestors. Our grandparents, and their great-grandparents, going back thirty or forty million years.

If you compare our DNA with a chimp's, you get a figure of about

5 million years ago ( also written 5 mya)

for our Last Common Ancestor.

(Our DNA is 98.5% identical. Human DNA is also closer to African Apes than Asian apes.)

Ebert: Try them on this: Humans, monkeys and all other living beings share the same single-celled ancestor.

Exactly.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Is-This-the-Common-Ancestor-of-Humans-Chimps-Gorillas-70715.shtml

ARTICLE: Is This the Common Ancestor of Humans/Chimps/Gorillas?Nakalipithecus confirms that we evolved strictly in Africa

Nakalipithecus nakayamai, found in Nakali, Kenya, in 2005, was located less than 30 km (19 mi) from the Samburu area where another ape, Samburupithecus kiptalami lived 9.6 million years ago....a new 10-million-year old jaw bone and 11 teeth found in the eastern edge of the Kenyan Rift Valley of Kenya simplifies this entangled theory (end)

The problem with "humans have a soul" is obvious.

Do humans have a soul and chimps don't? Even though we both start from the union of sperm and egg and grow into human beings through exactly the same process?

How about Great Apes? Do they have souls?

How about rodents and marsupials?

There's no scientific theory that would account for a human being developing a soul... except that some religious nonsense has FOOLED you into that conclusion.

Are you saying that a "soul" suddenly appeared AFTER the split from chimps, or BEFORE?

No matter what point in History that you say one of our ancestors had a soul and the previous generation (the parents) did not... you instantly PROVE that the idea of a soul is FALSE.

And that's why you don't have any evidence to back up your False Belief.

There's no "little person" inside the brain that survives death. When our brains die, we die.

Rather than repeat previous posts, I'm going to suggest a book.

"The Book of Life" by Stephen Jay Gould.

Let's try to use that as a reference. (Or, any other book on the list.) It has lots of drawings representing the fossils found recently in China and in Canada in the Burgess Shale, and it explains the Cambrian Explosion in understandable terms.

The term "evolution" implies that humans improve at a steady rate, or according to some timetable. Which is also false. Between 520 and 530 mya, there was a remarkable explosion of new types. Since then, our evolutionary history has been, pretty much, getting bigger. If you want to understand evolution, you have to look at what happened 530 mya.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/reviews/

In my eyes it's somewhat irresponsible not to emphasize that, although the advocates of "Intelligent Design" may come off as more civil, rational, and reasonable than the "Creationists" who defend positions that are obviously ridiculous, ID is still just Creationism in a cheap tuxedo, and the ultimate political aims of the two groups are one and the same.

What IDers propose is still what the creationists propose: that the curricula of public school science classes should be restricted due to objections that are entirely unscientific, effectively giving groups that are outside of the scientific community full veto power as to what constitutes legitimate science based on objections that are completely unscientific.

Don't mistake the ID crowd's use of scientific-sounding language for genuine interest in participating in the scientific process. If they truly believed that what they were proposing were science, they would be funding research labs, not PR firms, with their money, and would be working to publish peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals with the hopes of persuading the scientific community of the validity of their argument, rather than publishing books aimed at the laypersons that provide them with their political currency.

Describing anyone that champions a cause whose aim is to, in effect, destroy science, as "heroic" is lamentable.

Firstly, I see that there are a few Karl’s floating around Roger’s blog now, so I’m changing my nom de plume to Karl-Heinz.

Hi Randy, you ended the last thread with eugenics and I see that some people are defending the whole Hitler/Darwin argument here. I'm sure you know that I have some thoughts on that. I wasn't able to post a long reply in the other thread, but you can expect one here. Perhaps later tonight, or tomorrow. I have to rewrite it first, the last one went into the ether. But first, I see a new poster....

Quote...Mark; Am I to be the only one weighing in on the intelligent design side?

No no, Mark meet Randy and Much Aloha Bill. Randy and Much Aloha Bill meet Mark.

Quote...Mark; First: I believe in the soul. No evidence to back up that claim, yet I hold it to be true, just as I hold that there is a difference between mind and brain. It's not quantifiable, and therefore not reproducible, so the pure science crowd disdains the notion. And once you allow a soul...the argument makes itself.

The science crowd doesn't deny or disdain the notion of soul. I'm in the science crowd. I definitely have a soul. I also believe that you have a soul, and Randy has a soul, and Roger has a soul, and turtles have souls, etc. etc.. The difference is, I do not believe my own personal soul is immortal. That is a Christian concept, but Christians do not own the patent on soul and more than atheists own the patent on science.

Many atheists explore the concept of souls, it's not at all a uniquely religious POV. Here is prominent atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett on the topic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lfTPTFN94o#t=2m20s

Quote...Mark; Second: This worship of logic above all else is worthless. Logic describes the world as it is, or as it was, and gives us a basis to predict the future--but the rub is in that inference. You must infer if you do not have empirical evidence. There is no empirical evidence that's definitive. Therefore both ID and Darwinism become leaps of faith (one more than the other right at the moment, I'll give you that), and I don't find the strict evolutionary side to be of much use, frankly.

'Worship of logic' is not very accurate when it comes to science. Many scientific and even mathematical conclusions seem illogical, never the less scientists believe them to be true. Take for example the number of dimensions in space. Current thinking, there are at least 10. Yet we are only "logically" aware of four of them. You can point to the first three (X,Y,Z) and measure the fourth (time).

There are indeed many cases in science where conclusions went against common logic. For example, it's 'logical' to believe the sun revolves around the earth and that the earth is flat. This is the observed everyday conclusion one could make. Yet science, which does not rely solely on the observed, everyday conclusion found a different answer. And it did indeed predict the future. Long before we could fly into space to confirm it, science told us that the earth was round. It even told us it's actual circumference to a remarkable degree of accuracy. Eratosthenes calculated it about 2200 years ago. There are myriad example. The movement of the continents (they move at the rate your fingernails grow), the continued raising of the Himalayas (10mm a year). The mutability of all living things into progenitors. All can be measured, tested and explained scientifically, not through a leap of faith based on logical reasoning.

By contrast, it is religion that relies heavily on a worship of logic. Early Jesuits even tried to deduce the composition of the Sun through pure logic. Science waited for evidence. Religion is still doing it today. The entire ID movement is not one of scientific evidence. It's presented purely as a logic argument. Whether it be Behe's mousetrap, or Paley's watch on the beach, or Ray Comfort's banana argument. They all have something in common. They are presented as purely logical reasoning arguments, science doesn't do that.

Now as far as you not finding the 'strict evolutionary side' to be of much use. Luckily, scientists do not agree with you. They are finding it very useful, so that they may do things on your behalf. One of the most recognisable images from Darwin's book is the Tree of Life. We are all aware of what they look like, but rarely recognize the fact that these life trees (called phylogeny trees in science) were basically his invention. Of what use are they? For one, they are critical in the understanding and control of the viruses that sweep across our planet.

Wiki...

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309095042&page;=79 -here is the phylogenetic tree of the influenza virus.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309095042&page;=123 -here is the tree showing the evolution by reassortment of H5N1 from 1999 to 2004 that created the Z genotype in 2002

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol11no10/05-0644-G1.htm -here is the tree showing evolution by antigenic drift since 2002 that created dozens of highly pathogenic varieties of the Z genotype of avian flu virus H5N1, some of which are increasingly adapted to mammals

So Darwin's important idea is being used today to fight bird flu, swine flu, and every other virus. Fight it by understanding it. It was the same principles of Darwin's theory of evolution that allowed us to discover the origins of the Aids virus in West Africa. The very same scientific techniques that classified humans among the apes, namely common morphologies, biological properties and genetics, is what was used to phylogenically map all these viruses. This is just one of the battles that Darwin is fighting on our behalf, there are many many others. By comparison, what are Dembski, Behe, Wells and Johnson doing? Sitting around trying to construct bullet proof logic arguments, that's what.

If it rains in the USA, it drops in Europe. I thought of Intelligent Design as something American that had luckily not reached our shores.

But a few months ago I read that the minister of education from our neighbour country the Netherlands wanted to teach Intelligent Design at school. That caused quite a bit of uproar over there and over here in Belgium. A reaction from our Belgium director of Catholic Education mentioned that catholics have accepted evolution a long time ago. ID is apparantly more represented in protestant countries. Noone has seriously proposed to teach ID over here. If someone would, the public reaction would be entertaining.

Tom Dark, your posts seem consistently contrived to simply be the written equivalent of walking into a room and suddenly urinating in the face of everyone around you. It appears you mistakenly think this makes you superior to everyone else, instead of just being full of more p*** and less couth. Why not just change your display name to "troll"?

Seriously, "Darwinist Rednecks"? This from a guy who was losing his mind over supposed "ad hominem" attacks against Armond White? I get it now, I think everyone gets it now. Yes, you're a big contrarian, you fly in the face of whatever, you so on and so forth.

And yeah, I can name "what good" the theory of evolution has done for me and continues to do for me. It's helped me to better understand my nature, my origins , the "how" and "why" of life. Some of us find value in such truths about our origins, Tom, whether you personally value it or not. And it's not up to YOU to tell me or anyone else whether our lives were truly honestly improved by the theory of evolution -- it's up to me, and others, to make that determination for ourselves.

The fact that you obviously don't feel your own life improved by knowledge and understanding of your origins -- if you did, you wouldn't ask such an absurd question -- is rather sad. If I wanted to apply your own tendency toward condescension and dismissal of the mental capacities of anyone you disagree with (which is apparently a knee-jerk reaction to anyone who happens to be near you), I might say it represents a stunning display of lack of intellectual curiosity on your part.

However, I'll give you a real-world, here-and-now way that the theory of evolution has been an enormous help to every single one of us. The fact that we aren't all going to die from bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Since we understand point mutations, we understand this danger, how and why it happens, and can deal with it. We understand resistance to medical treatment via point mutations, and can anticipate it, do our best to prevent overuse etc that could lead to increased possibility of resistant strains -- and in the event of a point mutation giving rise to such resistant strains, we can develop new treatments.

So my answers, then, are "truth and increased understanding of life and its origins" and "I'm not dead". Hope that helps.

Ebert: Now, now, boys.

There is a speed to everything, or a rythm. This rhythm,I've measured, is 145 beats per minute. Everything HAPPENS on a kind of drum beat to this rhythm. Animals move to this rhythm, which means everything moves on this rhythm--for what are animals but just another thing such as the moon, or clouds...including us. Falling stars appear on this rhythm. We're going to die on this rhythm. Stars will die on this rhythm. Whatever happens during infinity it is going to happen on right on this rhythm. I suppose that raises the issue in that we have free will and can move along at a different rhythm than nature's 145 beats per minute and I suppose that is right...but maybe not right. Maybe we're only fooling ourselves until nature take's the wheel again.

Anyway, don't believe me, huh?

Look at a free online metronome that allows you to set the speed at 145 beats per minute. Know the beat: I usually use my hands as a kind of visual aide to kind of see the rhythm. Let nature start the count and watch it animate on rhythm.

Next step is watch nature and see it on this beat, in action.

Lightning (sorry for lame video; it's shockingly difficult to find a lightning video that just watches nature without trying anything); watch it appear right on rhythm, as does sound come right on rhythm! Find a better lightning and thunder video and post it if you can find one.

http://myspacetv.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid;=2009720

Meteor Showers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c383VYFZ8Co

Animals move to this rhythm. Notice how their stillness starts on rhythm and their movements start on rhythm.

Anything and everything in the world HAPPENS on this rhythm.

Happy nature watching.

Mark:

On which "intelligent design side" do you weigh in? Behe's, which accepts the ~4 billion year history of life and common descent? AIG's, which asserts that the Earth and it's life are merely 1000s of years old? Or any of numerous mutually contradictory positions in between? Or is it the "ID" of Francis Collins and Ken Miller, which accepts Darwinian evolution (if not the "Darwinism" caricature) as the only valid explanation of how God creates species?

Earlier I mentioned that Tarantino always has his characters explain why they commited an act of violence, which makes his portrayals of violence not immoral, and thus, just violence for the sake of violence (funny, Eli Roth could learn something from him). I'd like to mention something about the ending of the movie in light of this observation.

As I said, Tarantino's characters always explain why they commit an act of violence--Brad Pitt at the beginning says "Nazi's don't have no humanity", Shoshanna--as the cinema burns down--gives her motives right there on the big screen for her victims to know WHY she did it (and for us, I believe...the morality aspect). Okay, as far as Landa: throughout most of the movie Tarantino doesn't really explain WHY Landa commits the acts of violence he does; we just feel that he cruelly enjoys it. This leaves a moral void throughout the entire film because we never know why we are witnessing the things he does. Later on it is revealed that he is on the good side, and has been undercover. Tarantino is playing with our moral indignation even more here. We are left with this thought, "Even if he is on the good side, what he did was STILL wrong." Then Brad Pitt carves the Swastika in his forehead, killing him. Earlier Brad Pitt gave his reason for violence that he is killin Nazi's because they have no humanity, and with Landa it is no exception. But we still are feeling that moral indignation because Landa still hasn't given us an adequate reason for why he did what he did--"no humanity" isn't quite sufficient. So, with the ending of the movie, I think Tarantino is making us supply our own reason for why Landa enjoyed doing it so much. He did the same kind of thing in "Pulp Fiction" where we are left to decide for ourselves what was in the briefcase. At the end of the movie we are left feeling that it was immoral of Tarantino not to explain why Landa did what he did, but we get the sense that he felt it was unspeakable, which makes it right of him not to tell us, and in doing that he redirects are moral indignation from the external (movie screen) to the internal. We are left to ponder or kind of meditate at the end, "Why in the world is there such senseless violence?" It is a meditation for us to wonder WHY there is so much senseless violence in the world. This is an appropriate question to be asking ourselves at the end of a WW2 movie and I think the real subject of the movie.

I just thought I'd add one another thing.

Nazism happend because Germany had no cause--no cultural, no historical, no vocational: nothing. This is what caused it. Darwin is not responsible for Germany's lack of any kind of identity. It started long before Darwin from all the way back to the 30 Years War.

Debate? What is there to debate? These two positions are not reconcilable. The basis under which one can be accepted as possible can't be used to disprove the other. This is the patent nonsense of the internet, one sensible position facing an attempt to blur the arguments simply by the volume and steadfastness of the "opposing viewpoint", with the suggestion of one of two false situations: that either the truth lies between (not in this case) or else these are two propositions of equal merit and it's just a matter of opinion which one is right. But since one is a scientific theory (which does not by any means mean it is correct, it's just a theory which to a greater or lesser degree tends to correspond to scientific evidence) and the other is something that is not evolution and not scientific (whether you parade that as creationism or ID, neither of which is supportable by the scientific method and don't need to be for a person to believe in them since are theories of faith, not reason).

There is nothing to debate, it insults science to debate it against faith and insults faith to debate it as science. Nothing prevents both positions from being true, nothing prevents a devout Christian from practicing science, and nothing prevents a scientist from believing that God is the creator of all things. (And the more you learn about science, the more wondrous the world is, not less. And if you seek an intelligent hand behind it all, though that is not science, as your scientific understanding grew, the more astounding an intelligence would seem if indeed it was responsible.)

Science is an intellectual construct, meant to help explain the world, not to be the world. Newton's theory of gravity tends to explain a lot about the world, but it's not "true" and is ultimately an inaccurate explanation. That doesn't mean a theory of intelligent gravity can be rationally explored as science. It's idiocy to do it, or to ask it to be taught.

But it is a truly depressing symptom that our society has devolved to the point that we create, indeed cultivate and fuel intellectual, cultural, and scientific illiteracy at a frighting speed, inspiring idiot parents not to vaccinate their children because they are unable to intelligently weigh risk and consequences, idiot citizens to protest government actions that don't even exist, and idiot cultural policing warning the masses to fear anything and anybody who doesn't look talk dress speak or vote like they do. It's back to the middle ages, a fear of knowledge or at least a ceding of thought to a priesthood of AM radio hosts and cable news shouters ordained to interpret the social scripture rather than prizing knowledge via the championing of reason and education on the part of the individual, indeed as Jefferson would have said, as the responsibility of each citizen to think for themselves.

I know it's a lot of fun to tell us what you believe...

... but you've got to attempt to link it to some kind of scientific theory, or it's just Fundie Babble.

Reply to: K-H: The science crowd doesn't deny or disdain the notion of soul.

This statement is FALSE.

The human brain is complex enough to contain MEMORIES. We remember voices, music, sounds we heard when we were ten, many linked to emotions like sadness or joy.

The cerebral cortex of the human brain contains roughly 15 to 33 billion neurons, linked with up to 10,000 synaptic connections each.

Each cubic millimeter of cerebral cortex contains roughly one billion synapses.

With the exception of a few primitive forms such as sponges and jellyfish, all living animals are bilaterians,(left and right sides that are mirror images of each other). All bilaterians are thought to have descended from a common ancestor that appeared early in the Cambrian period, 550-600 million years ago

The first appearance of the nervous system is as a thin strip of tissue running along the back of the embryo. This strip thickens and then folds up to form a hollow tube. The front end of the tube develops into the brain. In its earliest form, the brain appears as three swellings, which eventually become the forebrain, midbrain, and hindbrain. In many classes of vertebrates these three parts remain similar in size in the adult, but in mammals the forebrain becomes much larger than the other parts, and the midbrain quite small.

Neuroanatomists usually consider the brain to consist of six main regions: the telencephalon (cerebral hemispheres), diencephalon (thalamus and hypothalamus), mesencephalon (midbrain), cerebellum, pons, and medulla. Each of these areas has a complex internal structure. Some areas, such as the cortex and cerebellum, consist of layers, folded or convoluted to fit within the available space (end)

What is the MECHANISM OF "THE SOUL" used to preserve the billions upon billions of individual components that make me a thinking, intelligent human being with memories?

There is NO MECHANISM in an ENERGY FIELD that would allow for a "soul" to preserve a human being's ability to think and remember.

Unless you're talking about ... the Photonic Mechano-Ectoplasm from "Ghostbusters"? aka, the "slime." Now that stuff was awesome. Our Slime is an Awesome Slime.

Reply to: I'm in the science crowd. I definitely have a soul. I also believe that you have a soul, and Randy has a soul, and Roger has a soul, and turtles have souls, etc. etc

No, you're NOT in the science crowd. You're in the "let me share my Imaginary World with you" crowd.

Reply to: But, evolution does have huge gaps that many scientists have pointed out, enough that they cannot continue to believe in the theory. I think that many people who subscribe to the religion of Evolution are too blind to notice its innaccuracies,

Well, you're going to have to back that up before anyone here takes you seriously.

We've discussed all of the Christian views and shot them down.

Reply to: I'm just glad I'm not a science major, and don't have to touch upon this too much. Regardless of whether Evolution occurs or not, Christ is still Lord of my life, and that's ultimately all that matters to me.

That's why we call it an Imaginary World, populated by Zombie Jesus (the guy who was dead before he sat up and unwrapped his grave cloths) and Zombie Lazarus and all the others.

The Theory of Evolution trumps Zombie Jesus. And it has since 1859. Catch up.

Pat C. on September 4, 2009 5:38 PM
Insects such as cockroaches are much more resistant to radioactivity than human beings. This couldn't have evolved, since there haven't been enough atomic explosions in the past for natural selection to weed out the less resistant ones.

cockroaches have been around since dinosaurs. there has been plenty of radioactivity during the millions of years since the dinoboys, including a great radioactive event that wiped them out. every time something from space broke through the atmosphere, it brought radioactivity with it. uranium and radon are not so prevalent nor plentiful now, not just lying around for creatures to climb on, not now. but we don't know what the situation was before we took inventory.

Quote...Kyle;But, if you still need "proof" that evolution has many fallacies, listen to or read works by Lee Strobel or Kent Hovind, men that prove that one can be a legitimate scientist and still question evolution while not blindly following Creationism.

Legitimate scientist?...Are....you....serious?

Kent Hovind? The guy with no legitimate degree in science? The guy who's dissertation is under lock and key by the diploma mill that issued him what he calls his "degree". The guy that taught high-school level science for 15 years.....in his own creationist school he built away from the prying eyes of any recognized authority?

Wiki...Hovind; "As these were private schools, Hovind was not required to have any teaching credentials or accredited qualifications"

They guy the built Dinosaur Adventure Land, where you could see dinosaurs with saddles on them presented as actual history?

The guy that thinks he has 'scientifically proven' that the great flood was caused by the melting of an ice canopy which was suspended in heaven, encircling the entire globe?

The same Kent Hovind that's in prison for tax fraud because he thinks "that as a minister of God everything he owns belonged to God and he is not subject to paying taxes to the United States on the money he received for doing God's work".

The same Kent Hovind that has had every one of his 'scientific' arguments exposed as trash by actual legitimate scientists on Youtube for years and years?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbvMB57evy4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKdfeP1sGIg

Is that the guy you are talking about?

If you think there are fallacies in evolution, then please point them out so we can discuss them. However, if you've chosen Hovind as one of your sources it's going to be very easy to debunk. There are mountains of videos and documents, even from creationists, that will do the job.

Quote..Answers in Genesis website.
"In the interests of maintaining Christian/creationist integrity, we believed we had to respond to Kent Hovind’s critique (albeit with a heavy heart), particularly because of the mistakes in facts and logic which do the creationist cause no good."

Ebert: I think that settles the Kent Hovind question.

By Sam Mills on September 4, 2009 4:07 PM
I don't recall Christ saying anything about evolution. In fact, there's a lot of "christian" beliefs that he never said one word about (like the issue homosexuality, abortion, just to name a few).

hey, sammie. christ didn't say anything about the civil war. what should we gather from that? he didn't say anything about a lot of things that hadn't yet been figured out. i don't recall him endorsing refrigerators. play-doh? not in my bible. he never ate curly fries, so i guess we shouldn't either? he never played scrabble, so what should i do with all those little tiles? he probably never played golf. should i toss out my clubs?

my mother never told me NOT to beat my brother with a hydraulic jack. i guess i should take one to meet the side of his head? i could do this all day, but my feet hurt and my dogs have to go outside.

if you'd like a humorous take on ID, please read my short story called "the sweeper" at either of these two locations:

http://brainsnorts.blogspot.com/2008/08/sweeper-short-fiction.html

or

http://www.pikerpress.com/article.php?aID=3483

Ebert: Abortion and homosexuality existed at the time of Jesus. If refrigerators did, there goes the theory of the Bible as an historical record.

Carra on September 4, 2009 7:53 PM,
wrote:
"... our Belgium director of Catholic Education mentioned that catholics have accepted evolution a long time ago."

A summary of the magisterial Catholic statements on the subject of Adam and Eve, the book of Genesis, the Flood and Creation Ex nihilo. can be found on-line at:

What does the Catholic Church Teach about Origins?
www.kolbecenter.org/church_teaches.htm

(partial quote)

- Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909)

- Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)

- All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)

- The work of Creation was finished by the close of Day Six, and nothing completely new has since been created—except for each human rational soul at conception (Vatican Council I)

- St. Peter and Christ Himself in the New Testament confirmed the global Flood of Noah. It covered all the then high mountains and destroyed all land dwelling creatures except eight human beings and all kinds of non-human creatures aboard the Ark (Unam Sanctam, 1302)

- Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught. (Pius XII, Humani Generis)

- Investigation into human “evolution” was allowed in 1950, but Pope Pius XII feared that an acceptance of evolutionism might adversely affect doctrinal beliefs.

References:
Genesis 1-11
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1-11&version;=NIV

The global Flood of Noah
Genesis 6-10
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis6-10&version;=NIV

Here's a red herring.

I walk on the beach and look down at a watch lying there. I pick up the watch and examine it. I inspect its gears, etc. and come to the obvious conclusion that the object must have been designed. Further expanding on this hypothesis, I conjecture that the designer was a variety of living being that contained intelligence. Further do I opine that this intelligent being, who clearly designed this watch I hold in my hand, must surely have evolved over time from less complex species until, being naturally selected, the species resultant was intelligent enough to design such a useful object to understand the motion of the Sun throughout the day. I turn the object over and read the inscription: "To my son Miles, for whom I have made this watch." I place the watch back in my pocket, where it belonged in the first place, instead of lying stupidly on the beach.

Miles Blanton, PhD
Department of Physics & Astronomy
Bowling Green State University

PS My apologies to my real father, a retired MD.

PSS Though, of course, this is not in the least a slight against watchmakers.

Intelligent Design is not science. This is not an opinion: it is an objective fact. If you say that Intelligent Design is science, is valid, and is in a genuine debate with the Theory of Evolution, you are either misguided or a liar. If you would cite small gaps in the Theory of Evolution as cause to legitimize Intelligent Design, which is almost nothing but gaps, then you are a fool. If you believe that Intelligent Design is not Creationism in a very thin disguise, then you are likewise a fool. And if you would move to force the dogma of ancient superstitious people who didn't know any better onto the modern world, you are a contemptible human being.

Ebert: Well, now we know your opinion.

Just a quick point on Darwin inspiring Hitler to cause the Holocaust.

I guess all those other leaders who committed genocide due to a feeling of superiority were just ahead of their time, eh?

"Okay, as far as Landa: throughout most of the movie Tarantino doesn't really explain WHY Landa commits the acts of violence he does; we just feel that he cruelly enjoys it. This leaves a moral void throughout the entire film because we never know why we are witnessing the things he does. Later on it is revealed that he is on the good side, and has been undercover."

I don't think that's right that Landa was on the good side undercover. Landa does what he does at the end, because he's a completely amoral opportunist.

Ebert: Anyone who thinks that's what Landa reveals at the end wasn't paying attention.

Mark Hughes: So my answers, then, are "truth and increased understanding of life and its origins" and "I'm not dead". Hope that helps.

Ebert: Now, now, boys.

Hughes STARTED it, Roger. I already went to the bathroom, so maybe I'll just invite ARMOND WHITE over here to do it for me, as that's how you feel about it, Donald Du-- er, Mark.

You're an easier mark than that short-tempered farmer in "Shane." But I have better ethics than the gunfighter Jack Palance played. So I'll be kind. Generous. Even sweet. Ready?

What you meant was:

QUACKquackquackquackQUACKquacktruthquackandquackincreasedquackunderstandingquack ofquacklifequackandquackitsQUACKquackoriginsquackandQUACKI'mquacknotquack deadQUACK. WAK!

Now pick 'im up and get 'im outta here.

Ebert: Just put it in my bill.

We don't really need to know what the answers to why everything is the way it is. To question is enough. To pretend like you have answers is the definition of insanity.

Straw dogs...

http://darwingoestothemovies.blogspot.com/2009/09/straw-dogs-1971-dir-sam-peckinpah.html

Sorry if I've sent this before...couldn't remember.

Ebert: Friends: this is the reader who has a fascinating blog discussing movies in Darwinian terms.

I farted real huge.

Ebert:

A gaseous teenager named Colton
Was so full of shit it was molten.
At the gastro-internist
He farted in earnest,
And screamed, "I have only begun!

Please, Ebert and others who do good work: You cannot level with those who contrast Nazism to Darwinism, and to explain why they are different only seems to make them even more suspicious, especially as they're not operating with any rational thought process to begin with (ie. to explain that genetic diversity is favorable in humans and occurs naturally between populations); this debate is only derailing your own thoughts and writings, delivered into a big stupid vacuous hole of dumb in which they don't stand a chance against obliteration.

I understand the urge to help people, and perhaps find a middle-ground, but there is no middle-ground like this in science. The nice Intelligent Design proponent Ebert described, who didn't believe in stunts like those pulled by Ben Stein, is just that; a nice guy. But he's wrong. So talk to him about something else.

Somebody quoted Dr. Francis Collins, that "faith is in fact the most rational of all choices...", which is like saying Freedom is Slavery and War is Peace. Collins is saying there must be evidence of a god because there's no evidence of a god.

Ebert re Darwinima: Friends, this is the reader who has a fascinating blog discussing movies in Darwinian terms.

LOL, that's wonderful stuff! Well done Darwinima! You're bookmarked.

Hi Karl-Heinz.

By comparison, what are Dembski, Behe, Wells and Johnson doing? Sitting around trying to construct bullet proof logic arguments, that's what.

Well, Dembski for one doesn't claim to be an experimental scientist, but a theoretician. He's a mathemetician, so he's not likely to be mapping viruses. He did say in "The Design Revolution" that what the emerging field of ID needs is for some research scientists to take it to the next level, and he offered some ideas for what that research might entail.

Behe is a biochemist or molecular biologist, can't remember which. My understanding is that his scientific work that is not ID related is useful, respected, and uncontroversial.

Randy

Creationism has something in common with evolution, namely that life got created at a specific instant of time. As against both is the perspective that life has always existed.

Two things I find myself intellectually exhausted by:

1. The continuous, unending propagation of the false dilemma that tells me I must chose between God & evolution; and

2. The continuous, unending propagation of enlightenment arrogance that assumes any substantive conclusions about the nature or origins of life - and how it should or should not be lived - that existed prior to the modern era is somehow inherently inferior to our modern intellect, or is somehow automatically negated by modern scientific discovery or practice.

As a narrator of a film on evolution vs. intelligent design, Ben Stein made a great TV game show host.

As a philosopher on the subject, Richard Dawkins makes a great biologist.

There is nothing in "box a" (the "natural world") that can tell you anything definitive about anything related to "box b" (the "spiritual world.")

For anyone interested in a respectful, reasonable take on such a discussion, I'd encourage you to at least consider reading Tim Keller's THE REASON FOR GOD. He's a Pastor from Manhattan who believes that God & evolution aren't mutually exclusive. He also writes reasonably, intelligently & with appropriate humility, encouraging people of faith to be more honest about their own doubts (& the substance of others' doubts), while also encouraging people of doubt to recognize they exercise more faith than they might realize.

Roger, if you haven't seen/read it already, I genuinely think you'd enjoy it, even if you don't agree with it. As opposed to the angst you felt over having invested time in THE DA VINCI CODE, I think you'd find this one at least time well spent...

Respectfully,

Deacon Godsey
Omaha, NE

Ebert: Of course you can believe in God and evolution. The Pope does.

Karl-Heinz - Thanks! Looking forward to your comments...

To Frank J on September 4, 2009 1:19 PM

...since Randy Masters cites Behe approvingly and "distances himself" from the YECs, has it been established if he agrees with Behe that humans share common ancestors with other species?

Without ducking your question, I'm still working out what I believe on the question of common descent. I'm aware of Behe's statements. Let me flesh out my thoughts for a moment.

On the other thread, I defined myself as a "Transcendental Punctuated Informationalist". A term I'm coining. By that I mean:

Transcendent: I have a worldview that allows for the possibility of a transcendent and purposeful actor.

Punctuated: It seems to me that there are periods of innovation in the history of life that deserve attention and explanation. For example, apparently all of the current body plans came into existence during the relatively short period known as the Cambrian Explosion.

Informationalist: The presence of purposeful information in living things needs explanation as much as energy and matter do.

So, how does that affect my thoughts on common descent? Well, I've been working to define that in my 30 year study of the topic.

The tree of life starts somewhere. First life. ID is, in my opinion, well in play in the explanation of first life. Abiogenesis is not convincing to me. I believe that the evidence shows a transcendent purposeful actor in first life.

After we have the first cell, what is the level of involvement of the designer? Not sure. For most of my life I've been of the opinion that a designer started it all, with a design that would evolve and grow without much interaction.

But then again, there are the periods of innovation in life's history that offer the possibility that the purposeful designer is at work.

Also, I hold the fairly standard ID view that ToE mechanisms for micro-evolution are correct, but not for macro-evolution. I don't agree that random mutation & natural selection are creative forces sufficient to introduce new species, only change within species. (Lots of good discussion on this topic in the Stein thread.)

So, is "common descent" flexible enough to incorporate the periods of innovation where a designer is working and also with ToE in the acts of change over time within species? If so, I'm with common descent. If not, I'm not.

At present in my study, I think that a purposeful designer is more evident through the history of life than just at the beginning. Although, I could come down at this: the designer's design incorporated enough capability in the first DNA for the design to then be perpuating and capable for growth in complexity through ToE. Still working on that.

Randy

Reply to: I'm newly energized to go at the issue. Why couldn't the excellent conversation that we had on the Ben Stein thread be repeated in a high school or college biology classroom? It was civil. It rehashed the design vs. unguided evolution debate that's been going on since Plato? Why can't students have the excellent debate that we had on the thread over 2600 comments? Randy

Quite frankly, it because you never made a valid point. Not a single one.

Every time we proved there was no design, you came back with the nonsense retort, "But I see design."

You posted a lot of personal opinions and beliefs, but you've never provided anything that would PROVE any of them. Let me explain the definition of the word "SCIENCE" to you.

Reply to: Kyle Lundberg: Large portions (but not all portions) of Creationism are based on faith. That is the point. If you do not have faith, Creationism will never make sense.

Do you see my point? Having a belief, or a statement based on "faith," isn't science. You have to go into a lab and PROVE it, one way or the other. And we've proven Creationism is false, time and again.

Reply to: evolution does have huge gaps that many scientists have pointed out, enough that they cannot continue to believe in the theory.

Kyle, put on your glasses.

When you log on, this topic says "Darwin, My Hero" at the top. Do you really think we're going to let you post that kind of drivel without demanding you back it up?

Reply to: But, if you still need "proof" that evolution has many fallacies, listen to or read works by Lee Strobel or Kent Hovind, men that prove that one can be a legitimate scientist and still question evolution while not blindly following Creationism

Actually, I've had several encounters with Lee Strobel over the years. He was a pastor at Saddleback Church, about 15 miles from where I live. He's a guest speaker at the Biola Apologetics events, and in all modestly, I am his Biggest Nightmare.

I am the man who calls Lee Strobel a fool and a liar.

In his blubs, Lee says he worked for a newspaper when he began investigating religion. He wrote stories about the court system in Chicago. In no way was he ever a scientist.

Pick up one of his books and read the title. "The Case FOR Christ." His books are NOT impartial accounts. They are not scholarly. They are interviews with other Christians who have book contracts with his publisher, and they only give the case "FOR" the topic.

which means that Lee Strobel NEVER represents... what did you call it?.... "men that prove one can be a legitimate..."

Lee Strobel is not a "legitimate" anything. He is selling Blue Sky. He's selling Christian nonsense.

In his chapter on demons and demonic possession, he quotes someone with a degree in psychology. After reading the interview, you come away with the impression that "legitimate" psychologists think demonic possession is real.

http://www.biola.edu/news/biolamag/articles/04summer/famousfathers.cfm

Like Father, Like Son
Kyle Strobel said that, as the child of a famous Christian, people make many assumptions about him.

In high school, people assumed Kyle was very spiritual because his father, Lee Strobel, was a pastor at Willow Creek Community Church in Illinois.

Today his father is most known for his bestselling book, The Case for Christ, that details how he went from being an atheist reporter to a believing Christian, using tools of investigative journalism. Because of his book, Kyle said many people think his father is a genius.

“If people saw dinner at my house, they would probably just laugh,” Kyle said. “We’re not dialoguing about philosophy.”

Kyle said his father is a normal guy, goofy and notoriously messy: it’s not unusual for his office chair to be resting on a car pink slip or one of his manuscripts.

One assumption people make about Kyle today is that he shares all the same views of his father. While Kyle admires his father as a godly man and evangelist, he has become a critic of the seeker-sensitive movement of which is father is a proponent. Before authoring The Case for Christ, Lee Strobel wrote the seeker-sensitive manifesto, Inside the Mind of Unchurched Harry and Mary.

Throughout college, Kyle's theology professors made him the defender of seeker-sensitivity in classroom debates, not realizing he opposed the movement. “I would argue for it anyways simply because I knew my arguments were better than the ones people were using against it.” Kyle said.

In addition to his masters degree in philosophy from Talbot, he’s about to finish a masters degree in New Testament, also from Talbot. Then he plans to earn another masters degree and a Ph.D. (end)

Talbot is a department at the Bible Institute of Los Angeles, now located in La Mirada in Orange County.

Anybody can write a book about this nonsense called Creationism, or why they decided to be a Christian. It doesn't mean you have "legitimate" credentials as a scientist.

Kyle knows the arguments "FOR"... and can argue them in a debate, but personally, he doesn't believe a word of what he's saying. Learn from THAT!

Let me spark the next longest thread on your blog. Daffy Duck is superior to Donald Duck.

There, I said it.

Hi Frank J.

Also, on your question about the "Expelled Exposed" website, with the "Set Ben Straight" section: some questions:

1. Are you aware that the "Expelled Exposed" website is run by the National Center for Science Education (NCSE)? NCSE being a lobbying group with the purpose of "defending the teaching of evolution in public schools", with Eugenie Scott as principal lobbyist.

2. Why did the NCSE need to set up this separate website to poke at "Expelled"? Why not just cover it on the existing NCSE website (www.ncseweb.org)? Why the need to be once removed from this expose site?

3. Staff from the NCSE were involved in the Sternberg dismissal from the Smithsonian staff. Yet, here they are on the front site EE further maligning the expelled, without being upfront about that conflict of interest. Does that bother you?

Expelled Exposed is to me a sleazy front site that the NCSE is hiding behind, unintentionally confirming that the expelled were truly expelled. Take it with a large grain of salt.

Randy

Hi Nick: on September 4, 2009 1:38 PM

3 thoughts on your comment:

1. On ID as creationism, and the Wedge Document.

I am aware of the Wedge Document, and have commented on it. I don't see what the fuss is about this document, or about folks who believe in ID having a strategy to promote it. Johnson, who promoted the WD, was not a scientist but a strategy-setter. An entrepenuer, in a sense. He motivated others - credentialed scientists like Dembski/Behe etc. - to take it where it needs to go as science.

2. Perhaps you are also not aware that "Irreducible Complexity" is NOT in any way shape or form "evidence" for ID.

I did a 4-part defense of IC on the other thread. I see it as both: a critique of ToE mechanisms and evidence for ID. IC is a signature of purposeful design. The only source in our experience for purposeful (intelligent) design is an Intelligent Designer. Go read my argument. It starts around July 2 on the other thread.

3. Regarding Dr. Dembski teaching a divinity course. He is, after all, currently employed at a Theological Seminary.

However, he is multi-talented and multi-degreed. With doctoral degrees in both science (mathematics) and philosophy. He can write and teach on multiple topics.

What you need to do is evaluate his ID writings as arguments for ID. Read "The Design Revolution" - no theology anywhere in there.

Randy

I'm just going to start mumbling here. I'll be brief, I promise.

Stanley Kramer wasn't a bad filmmaker or anything; I like that we had a liberal in Hollywood at that time. The only problem is that you look at some of his films and they just seem, you know, NOT that liberal? On Turner Classic Movies, they were talking about how despite it broke new ground by pairing up Sidney Poitier with a white fiancee, they only had one kissing scene... and it was seen in a rearview mirror! Kramer didn't take much risks, I guess. I'll see "The Defiant Ones" and "Judgement at Nuremberg" one of these days, I've heard they're both great, but I can't see them right now. Just not right now! And then I saw "Inherit the Wind" on PBS one time. I'm a Darwinist and everything, but that movie got annoying quick. All that irritating screaming and arguing and slapping in the face and lawyers talking back to judges and collapsing on the floors and dying and the angry mobs outside the jail cell vowing to hang the teacher. Why does Kramer feel that in order to get the point across he has to be as obnoxious and loud as possible? He's worse than Alan Parker in that respect. Tracey and March both gave good performances, but I wish their characters' names didn't have to be changed. Can you imagine what "Inherit the Wind" would be like if it had been more faithful to the actual Scopes trial? If it had depicted how Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan really communicated on and off the courts? Sure, the film might not have been as entertaining but at least it would have had a more defined sense of maturity and, possibly, more nuanced filmmaking prose (listen to me using big words that I probably don't even understand). Bottom line, Creationists probably laugh when they watch the movie because it's so ridiculously manipulative and over-the-top. I think John Sturges' "The Satan Bug" is a more convincing account on evolution and it's not even a movie about Darwinian theories! It's a movie about a virus that kills people. It just kills a whole bunch of people and spreads across the country. And there's this scene at the end where this guy goes AHHH!!!! and jumps out of a flying helicopter. It's wicked.

Ebert: Of course you can believe in God and evolution. The Pope does.

---Yeah well, he'll believe whatever that butters his bread.

---Oh. And, uh, he was a junior Nazi. A Hitler Youth.

Hey guys I'm from Canada and universal health care is great.

Hi Jackson Sav on September 4, 2009 7:39 AM

...I would just assume somebody that well-rounded and knowledgable would automatically believe in Evolution.

Jackson, I've been at this a long time. Back in the late 70's I filled my engineering elective course requirements with courses in Anthropology, Astronomy, and a Biology department course in Evolution (studying Wilson's sociobiology concepts). I also was fortunate to get to go in the evenings to debates with Creationism folks like Dr. Henry Morris et al.

I've been reading about this topic for 30 years as a hobby. On both sides. I've been through all of the fads and phases of the creationism in schools issue. I've read not only Darwin and Dawkins and Dennett on one side, but books most people her have not read on the other side. Hugh Ross. Dembski. Stephen Meyer.

It's not as clear cut as you think it is, is all I'm saying. Keep studying. Keep a critical thinking edge. And my best advice is to read the source material on ID for yourself, and don't let others tell you what it says or why it's wrong.

Ask questions. (Where did biological information come from? Are the ToE mechanisms really "creative" enough to increase complexity in lifeforms? More. And don't stop until you've read both sides and know the answers for yourself. It's a lifelong study program.

Randy

Randy Masters,

I have question to ask. First I will try to see if we agree on the on the terminology. Intelligent design is the implication that there exists an entity that is an intelligent designer of a complexity that couldn't have occurred otherwise. If this is indeed true, then would it be correct to imply that the intelligent designer is complex?

Hi Miles Blanton.

I enjoyed your "red herring" watch on the beach story. Your reframing of Paley's classic argument which kicked this whole thing off with Darwin in opposition.

Of course, in your story you recognized design (the purposeful arrangement of parts, in this case gears and whatnot) and rightly inferred a designer (your father, in your telling).

The red herring part, I guess, was inserting an assertion that the intelligent designer of the watch "must surely have evolved over time from less complex beings" into the story. A fact not in evidence from finding a watch on the beach!

Team Paley and the Watchmaker vs. Team Darwin and evolution over time. A classic struggle over the evidence.

Pick a team, folks! That's the fun of it.

Randy

"Win Ben Stein" is still an amazing piece of commentary. I find it utterly frustrating that numerous professionals I know judge much of the Middle East population as religious extremists and yet take comfort in their own views of ID and disregard Evolution as scientific fact. Most of these people are scientists and engineers themselves; people who have crafted their analytical minds to use fact and logic to solve problems. How can this be?

Quote...Randy;Well, Dembski for one doesn't claim to be an experimental scientist, but a theoretician. He's a mathemetician, so he's not likely to be mapping viruses. He did say in "The Design Revolution" that what the emerging field of ID needs is for some research scientists to take it to the next level, and he offered some ideas for what that research might entail.

Behe is a biochemist or molecular biologist, can't remember which. My understanding is that his scientific work that is not ID related is useful, respected, and uncontroversial.

Hi Randy,

You can keep calling me Karl. I'm just adding the Heinz as a pen-name so I'm not confused with the other Karl's that I've read on here (some views I don't agree with, etc). Only my Oma called me KarlHeinz in real life. LOL

Yes, I read Dembski's suggestions in TDR, however I must confess I can't remember a single one. The weren't very concrete as I recall. Something about....nope, lost it. Can't remember. I'm guessing it's the same with you as far as those suggestions go.

About Behe, I agree. He does legitimate science outside of the ID world. But of course, he doesn't do any science what-so-ever within the ID world. He only constructs the 'logic arguments' that were mentioned above. He does not conduct experiments, nor do his colleagues. He does not propose any testable hypothesis, nor make any predictions. Basically, he's giving a personal opinion.

I know that Dembski disputes some of those points, for example he insists that ID is testable. But he never proposes a test, so...*shrug*.

Speaking of viruses, and of people not likely to be mapping them. I notice that two prominent ID defenders, Jonathan Wells and Phillip Johnson were early supporters of AIDS denialism, having signed this petition.

"It is widely believed by the general public that a retrovirus called HIV causes the group of diseases called AIDS. Many biochemical scientists now question this hypothesis. We propose that a thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for and against this hypothesis be conducted by a suitable independent group. We further propose that critical epidemiological studies be devised and undertaken" - http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/group.htm

Of course, critical epidemiological studies were all over the place when they signed this petition. But since they were based in a science they've spent their careers criticising, perhaps we can see the reason why they had so much trouble accepting the results.

Did Stein ever respond to your earlier post about him?

Ebert: Nope.

Hi Bill Hays.

Having a belief, or a statement based on "faith," isn't science. You have to go into a lab and PROVE it, one way or the other.

Now Bill. That's not exactly true, as Stephen Meyer points out in his excellent new book "Signature in the Cell".

Meyer points out the distinction between "historical sciences" and "experimental sciences". While experimental sciences do in fact go into the lab to "prove" things, historical sciences for the most part do not. They work to theorize the best fit explanation from the past for things that we see today.

ToE, as an explanation for this development for life up until now, is mostly a historical science. Meyer points out that Darwin, in developing "Origins" didn't do so in "the lab". He made observations of animals, yes. But his innovation was to look at a multi-disiplinary body of evidence developed over time, developed in part by others, and to provide what to him was a best-fit explanation for mechanism - natural selection.

Darwin didn't, so to speak, "prove it" in the lab to develop "Origins". Same for the current ID theoriticians.

Randy

"Let me spark the next longest thread on your blog. Daffy Duck is superior to Donald Duck.

There, I said it."

Hear, hear!

Mr. Ebert:

I admire your stamina in creating these threads and moderating them.

On topic, I think you would find "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Miller a very good read.

Dr. Miller is one of many who both are actual, personal God-believing Christians (with all the attendant theological trappings that drive persons who think it impossible for "religious" people to be scientists [Dawkins comes unbidden to mind]) and he is an ardent, sincere and enthusiastic proponent of the evolutionary model, defending it intelligently against "intelligent design" adherents of various camps.

Yes, he is able to distinguish between them, which lends his defenses even more credibility -- he is sympathetic, but emphatic.

He uses Augustine and Aquinas to remind believers that God's creation is revelatory of His nature, and that (to paraphrase Augustine) a Christian who is willfully more ignorant of natural science than unbelievers -- should be ashamed.

"Finding Darwin's God" has taken a place of preeminence on the shelf of books I have devoted to the creationist/evolution debate.

Cheers,

I just felt like you should read this. If you havent already.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?printable=true

Ebert: It's clear that he's guilty, then it's clear that he's innocent. Texas executes more than the rest of the nation.

@ Mikey on September 4, 2009 6:47 PM
On a side note, Jesus seems to become more and more caucasian with each passing year. If He *does* ever come back, nobody will recognize Him.
I'm sure that's a typo and you really meant "Michael Jackson", but that's OK, I still understood.

Why would some great being design such flawed creatures that are us? Sure we have the fundamentals, but wouldn't it be better if we have the sight of an eagle, flexibility of a cat, and longevity like of one of those land turtles?

There is "intelligent" design, but one based on the complex patterns of DNA molecules.

Evolution straight to Nazi argument is as ridiculous as Monotheism straight to Inquisition argument.

Apologies if this has been covered in the previous thread (a quick though not thorough scan suggests it hasn't been here), but my preferred point against creationist logic is dog breeding. The fact that animals can be bred intentionally in a predictable way to produce desired traits pretty much proves the theory right there since it's an identical process to that happening in nature.

And he said it was and it was, but was it really?...

I love this debate. So many people trying to put there stake into the ground and make a case. My Grandpa may he rest in peace, told me once that evolution was a bunch of junk, his reasoning was "it just was." He refused to believe that we evolved. He was a very intellegant God fearing man, but in this case he was blissfully ignorant. He didn't care the reason or the arguement, you were wrong if you didn't believe it happened in seven days.
Needless to say when I argued with him he bought me a subscription to creationist magazine. I read and prepared my arguement just to see if I could get him riled enough to actually spark a debate and have a dialouge. Being only 16 I truely wanted answers to these questions. In the end he was unwilling to speak besides the occasional grumble. I love the idea of creationism. It gives an ease and comfort to a sometimes bleak world. A hope of something greater or a bigger purpose, but in the end I almost believe it selfish to argue the topic because we will never be 100% sure. I admire the courage of the movie to speak on behalf of an unpopular subject to most. Evolution uses observation and creationism uses faith. Faith isn't science, and shouldn't be taught as such but that doesn't mean faith is a bad thing to have.

Mark

Obviously, a debate between evolution and intelligent design could go on forever without really settling anything, but the scurrilous intellectual dishonesty of Expelled should be beyond debate. If anyone really doesn’t get it, just try to imagine getting a movie made that ended like this:
“I’m here at Ground Zero, the former site of the World Trade Center, because as an American I needed to see for myself the true legacy of Newton’s Theory of Gravity and Three Laws of Motion.”
Or:
“I chose to finish our journey here at the Hiroshima Memorial because I could not imagine a more eloquent testament to the dangers of believing in Mendeleyev’s Periodic Table of the Elements.”

Did you know that "Brewster McCloud" by Robert Altman was released in widescreen on Laserdisk back in 1993? And that it stars Bud Cort from "Harold and Maude" - one of my all-time favorite movies ever?

Because it does.

It's also not available on DVD however and for that reason, I've never been able to watch it - I couldn't find anywhere - until recently that is, when it fell off the side of a black ship near Sweden! :)

I've just finished watching it - and what a cool movie! It starts off in a classroom with a professor at his desk (Rene Auberjonois) who appears throughout the film as its odd narrator, and then the film turns into what can best be described as a stream-of-consciousness absurdest satire complete with bird poo-poo and a surrealistic Fellini-esque parade for the final scene!

"How I yearn to throw myself into endless space and float above the awful abyss." - Johann Wolfgang Goethe (quote the narrator.)

"Man, incontestably the most advanced creature, has only to observe the flight of birds to realize the weight of the world's imprisonment. And so the desire to fly has been ever present in the mind of man. But the reality has been long in coming: has man truly realized his dream? To answer that, we must isolate the dream: was the dream to obtain the ability to fly - or was the dream the freedom that true flight seemed to offer man?"

Then all the crazy stuff starts! See for yourself... :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-sYrA3RrAA

And since we're all related to birds, and birds are related to dinosaurs, and dinosaurs are related that icky stuff - primordial ooze? Then "Brewster McCloud" is ultimately about "what the ooze was also dreaming" and gosh who'd blame it, eh? As I'd sure like to be able to fly.

Ooo, and drive a souped-up mango orange Plymouth Road Runner, just like Shelly Duvall in the movie. :)

Ebert: Not on DVD! Damn.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19701224/REVIEWS/12240301/1023

Ebert: I believe you're correct. I've never heard of an I.D. scientist who isn't American.

Rog, only last year, I met a German lutheran/evangelist who turned me to "Dr. Dino/Kent Hovind" and I nearly laughed in his face, however the conventions of social conduct restrained me and I tried my best to listen with a straight face as both he and Dr.Dino tried to convince me of their half baked ideas of existence, I could'nt help grinning ear to ear though :) Sadly, he managed to turn a well educated British christian family to this lunacy. Bear in mind this was a guy who said that he just did'nt get art, you know art like dadaists in general, Picasso, Dali etc. etc. He said that he did'nt understand anything not devoted to Jesus. This was also a guy who had a very shifty look about him, when he described his pet mice and asked me not to tell anyone that he performed "experiments" on them. American I.D. idiots it seems have long hands and are extending their reach into Europe. Karl-Heinz's comment on Hovind is brilliant.

Ebert: When I read The Ancestor's Tale, by Dawkins, I feel filled with awe and wonder. Evolution is such an elegant theory.

I agree both on evolution being an elegant theory and on The Ancestor's Tale by Dawkins, they both fill me with awe and wonder too. My feelings on Dawkins' The God Delusion however remain mixed, mostly positive, with a tinge of dissatisfaction at the tone and the proselytizing. My question is, must he sink to the level of the fundamentalist propagandists? I know what he is saying is factually correct and agree with it, but the way he's saying it makes me uncomfortable, because I think that he as a figurehead of known and respected scientists is representative of a lot of not altogether unreasonable people like myself, but I again reiterate that the way he and others are doing it, is to me reminiscent of the self-righteous preacher.

LOL at Tom, I was about to jump to your defense with Mark Hughes, until I saw you did a great job of it yourself :)
Tom said: "---Yeah well, he'll believe whatever that butters his bread.
---Oh. And, uh, he was a junior Nazi. A Hitler Youth."

True & true. Perhaps he is a reformed man? Entirely reformed? Doubt it, at least not what some of the comments of his papal reign would suggest. Both however sad indictments of the scam that organised religion appears to be. Whatever happened to personal spiritual journeys?

Tell me Mark, why must you and Bill Hays (don't start again Bill) jump down the throat of someone so much as casting half a shadow of an aspersion on evolutionary theory? Nietzsche, disagreed with it. He was wrong about the theory of evolution and a lot else, but he was right about a fair few things too. Tom does'nt seem to me a contrarian, he seems considerate, open minded and far, far more intellectually curious than you seem willing to give him credit. By the way, Christopher Hitchens who your comments suggest would be one of your heroes, has publicly admitted to being a contrarian; he's even written a book about it.

LOL at Roger's fart limmerick.

Bill Hays: "You posted a lot of personal opinions and beliefs, but you've never provided anything that would PROVE any of them."
This from a man who indirectly and unintentionally implied air does'nt exist. In an argument between you and Randy Masters however, I am inclined to agree just a little bit more with you.

Muttering to self - goddamned politicians, both theologically and scientifically minded of today would put Machiavelli to shame. Don't understand why people can't just go into their garden like Marie did, take a whiff of fresh air and be glad to be alive.

Computer inventor Babbage,
turned me into web surfing cabbage.
Web inventor Berners Lee,
made me free-er and from discussion forced me not to flee.

I'm off to worship at the altar of Charles Babbage and Tim Berners Lee.

Indian Idiot (H.W.)

Ebert: On theology, I prefer someone like George Bernard Shaw to Dawkins. He upholds the British tradition of bemusement.

Denying evolution is the inevitable result of taking the poems of man and turning them into God.

I think this is called idolatry, only the Golden Calf is now a Bible or Koran.

Spirituality is saying “God I do not know what you are at all, but I experience that you are all, evolution being a true part, but not all.

Randy Masters: "For example, apparently all of the current body plans came into existence during the relatively short period known as the Cambrian Explosion."

Thanks for your prompt answers. Not sure what the ~70% that refuse to answer have to hide.

I'm still not sure, though, where you stand with regard to humans and their closest relatives. Do you think it's more likely that the Creator (not necessarily the same as the designer) intervened within a continuum of cells (e.g. fusing the 2 chromosomes among other changes) from a lineage that began in the Cambrian? Or that new eukaryotic cells (human line? chimp line? both?) were assembled independently from “common designs”? Surely you have thought of it enough to pick a slight favorite.

Also, do you agree with Behe and mainstream science that the Cambrian Explosion occurred ~540 MY? If not or unsure, when would be your best estimate?

As for not finding abiogenesis convincing, surely you know it had to have occurred at least once by definition, regardless of whether a Creator was involved. The suggestion that it occurred independently for many lineages, is the extraordinary claim that lacks evidence, extraordinary or otherwise.

Hi Roger, here is my Longest Comment:

As a teacher of religion in a Catholic high school - not in America - I am concerned I may have some misapprehensions.

First, if you comb the Bible for its first error in science, it would be in the first chapter with the word 'firmament'. This word describes the ancient Hebrew concept of the cosmos, where something like a giant glass dome keeps water safely away above (!) us. Presumably, to start a flood, God would just have to open a latch on some gate and then WHOOSH! So to take the Bible as an ideal textbook on science does not go over well with the largest (population-wise) denomination of Christians, Catholics. The firmament is a neat idea, and I am sure it could indeed inspire the fear of the Lord into people who haven't yet had the pleasure of seeing the marvellous photo "Earthrise", taken on the lunar surface. But. No there is no dome.

Do Americans think there is a dome separating the waters above and below?

The Bible is not all literal. There are too many metaphors and too much poetry. God changes character too much. The devil found in Job is simply an accuser. How could a Christian think that Jesus used parables yet God is only literal? Think about that.

Us non-Americans sometimes get worried too easily. But a lot of people would like to know just how many people believe all of this is literally true. What is the state of education in the lone superpower? To what ends are these religious beliefs held? Are they tools, is ignorance being cultivated intentionally... Too many cynical questions, but people want to know, and gossip is never good enough.

Can't Americans just start travelling more and meeting real people with a variety of opinions? You would think after a while, after true reciprocation, the fundamentalists would start to think that they sound a little arrogant to suggest that God only cares for one faction in one country and they happen to be it. It sounds too lucky and too convenient to be born automatically with God on your side.

Travel. I think this would help the debate. Come to my school. The religion that is taught at my school does have a purpose. We are trying to cultivate compassionate people who rely on informed consciences. We come from a long tradition. To go back to when people were first starting to wrestle with God - and were nominated as such - shows us that morality is unfolding on this Earth through the effortful contemplation of impossible mysteries. Impossible, but not useless. Useful like Japanese koans, or isometric exercise for your brain (or soul if you prefer).

It is the struggle that is important. We should never give into temptations of assuming we are right and then categorically condemning any side in any situation. This is religion. Religion, despite the fashion to blame it for all evils, has had a central role in shaping human morality through a cultural language we can independently learn. Good things have come from it.

Perhaps objectively we see democracies, human rights and the UN gaining ground. Stephen Pinker reminds us that the world is a much safer place today. I cannot prove that religious concepts such as the dignity of life and the golden rule are responsible but I intuit it. We do not need a fight between science and religion and the world does not need polarization just because it can be commodified.

Science is science and religion is religion. Religious people can be concerned with science, but keep it honest: make sure that new technologies don't exploit the poor, make sure that our consumerism is for the common good, and in the long run, not just for the next quarter. The opportunity cost of weapons development and manufacturing - do we consider it at all? Just because questioning may sound unrealistic does not mean that we are absolved of all self-criticism. It is the piety of thought, according to Heidigger. There are so many valid contemporary issues that religious people can confront that all of this hype against evolution is mind-boggling. Do something good, be compassionate. Choosing to fight scientists who are following an objective standard might keep you from scrutinizing inequalities in your midst. God wants you to fight for what? Which side of education is failing here?

This is all coming from a Catholic perspective but I would like to know: is the problem scientific illiteracy in America, or is it religious?

Ebert: Only a minority of American Christians are fundamentalists. But a great many Americans are poorly educated and illiterate about science.

My apologies for going off topic with this question, as it doesn't have anything to do with Evolution/Darwinism/ID. However, I remember in a previous blog post that you were upset by the fact that, for the American release, the producers of Inglourious Basterds were going to make Tarantino shave off something like 40 minutes of the film that was shown an Cannes. You said you were going to write (or already have written) a blog regarding your feelings about that, as well as your opinion of the current film industry, sometime after the film was released. Well, the film has been released, and I have yet to see such an entry. Will you still be posting it? (On a side note, I heard that the American release was one minute longer than what was shown at Cannes.)

Ebert: Tarantino was not forced to cut anything, but did some tweaking for the final release print.

Roger -

I'm glad that somebody as verbally competent as you so stalwartly defends evolution - as I believe it to be an important debate and it warms my heart to know that even intelligent film reviewers are taking the lead in the argument.

However, I think it weakens the "evolutionists" (of which I consider myself a passionate member) argument when the defenders make statements that claim that evolution may be the most "useful theory in the history of science." Not only are you not particularly qualified to make this statement, it distracts from the overall argument at hand. One can unequivocally say that the theory of evolution is extremely sound science - and those who disagree have some problems. Still, at the same time, you are discounting so many other important scientific discoveries that have saved millions of lives (inoculation), given us the potential to explore other worlds and enhanced our understandings of the inner-workings of the entire universe - not just our own planet.

In some sense, even though the theory is a vital scientific one, evolution has little practical application at the moment. In some senses, that would completely obliterate the idea that it is "useful" as it is not very practical.

Again - I commend you for continuing this argument as it is an important one - please just be more careful to not taint it with unsupportable and distracting declarations.

Ebert: I was thinking of its application in so many sciences, including astronomy and the social sciences.

Dark says:
'...So, this debate has the same quality of millions of people vehemently preaching for a political bill they haven't even read -- and biting the fingers off those who probably have, if the LA Times report was true, the other day.
Darwin died knowing there was no empirical proof for the random occurrence of biological characteristics, supposedly accidentally improving the ability of any species to survive by accidentally improved adaptation to the environment and in domination over any other species. He wrote so. I never see anybody quoting this letter, written to his brother Thomas.
"Natural selection" is only a euphemism for "random selection," as I ably pointed out. Some of you Darwinist Rednecks are sorely literal-minded. That's how wiping out whole villages of innocent people gets called "Ethnic Cleansing" by the perps...'
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
What an angle, Tom Dark (not to pick on you, but you just glow). So, lacking the 'missing link' one should just turn out the light and go back to bed? If I understand you, you object to 'redneck' Darwinism because it's misused? Or do you mean because it's unprovable down to the last turtle? Or are you, like I'm wont to do, segueing your political rant into this topic?
Be that as it may I'll say this:

Darwin had a specific hypothesis that had been sorely wanted for a long time regarding the animals and the mystery of life itself. For, among other reasons, the more intelligent amongst us were sick of the force fed nonsense from the religious authorities on this topic.

Darwin found support for his hypothesis in observations of the traits of numerous animals -- this 'hypothesis' has proven over the years to remain intact despite attacks upon it by the likes of Hitler, the Pope or you (.
It was not his intention to implement some evil plan for the likes of Hitler (if I'm getting what you say correctly) but to shed light upon how things actually work in this world. Evidently, 'God' will allow us this insight.
What Darwin did is open up the mystery of existences to meaningful investigation -- rather than have the matter summed up in some cheesy story, as with Genesis. Darwin invited participation from the best amongst us, with the moral underpinnings of human reason itself, not of some self-appointed spokesman for a demented Allah or god.
Stupid animals, as you know, often put their snout where it doesn't belong, but that's hardly a reason to dismiss the subject of their meddling. You wouldn't let a chimp fly a passenger jet (hint 9/11) -- or cease using such transportation that serves us well, because chimps couldn't fly one competently even if they tried ... would you? Hey, as Kafka says: life's unfair ...

To Mr. Ebert.

I would like to expend a little on the scientific concept/definition of THEORY.

Creationists often state that evolution is only a theory. They wrongly use 'theory' in those cases as it is often used in regular non-scientific conversation to refers to a simple idea - a careless explanation. (Ex: I have a theory for the recent bad performance of the Yankees).

In science, an idea or a possible explanation for a phenomenon is called an 'hypothesis'. Only, and only when an hypothesis has been tested rigorously with different means throughout a significant period of time, that it is called then a THEORY. Being tested with different testing methods(dna, fossiles, ect..), and being non-contested in the scientific community for now many decades, evolution definitely deserves to be called a scientific theory.

However, when a scientific theory becomes so unequivocal, it graduates to become a scientific law(ex: the law of gravity).

I think that it is time to qualify the theory of evolution as the LAW of evolution. Therefore, ending the non-sense debate that sadly still occurs in the United States.

Cheers,

Andre-Frederic

Long live the Law of Evolution!

Ebert: A law admits of no improvement. Because theory is misused is not reason enough to abandon it.

Hello progeny! I am Blobbo! I am the original one-celled organism!

No, no, I am not a replica. I am still me, the first animate life to form on earth! When this sun goes out, I will float around in space until I land on some other planet. It's fun!

I am sure you have many questions, my progeny. First of all, yes, it is boring being a one-celled organism. That is why I laid the vegetable and animal kingdom here on earth! First, I lay many microbes, each in a certain mood, then voila! They generated organisms of their own, representing my many moods!

Of course all this took awhile, but when you're a molecule-size one-celled organism with nothing but time, what's the hurry?

Now, I as I read through this blog I am not so sure anyone will have many questions after all, as everyone is so dead sure of their answers. In fact you seem like quite an incurious lot, and I do not remember ever having been in an incurious mood. I might have been constipated that particular moment.

Yet for all of you who are too certain of your answers, I must at least mention that the only thing I created "at random" was Mark Hughes. Like him, I am not very good at math.

With love to a good many of you,

your original prototype,

Blobbo

The problem with survival of the fittest is that there is no stress test for humans any longer.In the animal world we are shown examples of where a mutation that gives an organism an advantage leads to that trait being the one that ends up being passed along because more of the progeny survive to pass it along. All you have to do is to look at the various breeds of dogs to see where selective breeding gets you. In the human world accidents cause people. Oops, the condom broke, oops I had a little too much to drink, oops I didn't think. So humans get by with random chance being the determining factor. This thinking in no way condones the "Master Race" view, but does give thought to the wide parameter of what passes for a normal human being. If you have ever had the pleasure of conversation with a brilliant mind, you can count yourself as one of the lucky, for it is there that you see what the wonder that humanity can be.
And yet there is a selection process going on in the human world, of the lowest common denominator it seems. The feed back loop of the mass media seeking the largest audience catering to the largest audience.
There is comfort in the crowd, do you think the people in the stands of the coliseum are any different than the crowds at any WWF match, well except for the ability to give the choice of life over death.
Where the attitude of superiority and intolerance comes from in the human beast is the question that needs the answer.
The saying "Never argue with an idiot. First they drag you down to their level and then they beat you with experience" does come to mind as I read through this.
It is a sad comment on society today that self interest groups are allowed to determine what is right for all and even worse, determine what will be done.

I think Iris Dement says it best in "Let the mystery be"

Everybody's wonderin' what and where they all came from.
Everybody's worryin' 'bout where they're gonna go when the whole thing's done.
But no one knows for certain and so it's all the same to me.
I think I'll just let the mystery be.

Some say once you're gone you're gone forever, and some say you're gonna come back.
Some say you rest in the arms of the Saviour if in sinful ways you lack.
Some say that they're comin' back in a garden, bunch of carrots and little sweet peas.
I think I'll just let the mystery be.

Everybody's wonderin' what and where they all came from.
Everybody's worryin' 'bout where they're gonna go when the whole thing's done.
But no one knows for certain and so it's all the same to me.
I think I'll just let the mystery be.

Some say they're goin' to a place called Glory and I ain't saying it ain't a fact.
But I've heard that I'm on the road to purgatory and I don't like the sound of that.
Well, I believe in love and I live my life accordingly.
But I choose to let the mystery be.

Everybody's wonderin' what and where they all came from.
Everybody's worryin' 'bout where they're gonna go when the whole thing's done.
But no one knows for certain and so it's all the same to me.
I think I'll just let the mystery be.
I think I'll just let the mystery be.

Gary

Sam,

"I don't think that's right that Landa was on the good side undercover. Landa does what he does at the end, because he's a completely amoral opportunist.

Ebert: Anyone who thinks that's what Landa reveals at the end wasn't paying attention."

Landa wasn't on our side? I thought he revealed that he really wasn't a Nazi. I did go see it with one hour of sleep that day, at the 7:00 p.m. show. I know realize my brain checked out at that point.

The thing that interests me the most about the theory of evolution is its impact on philosophy and ethics - an impact which I think is not entirely clear yet.

Now, before I go any further (I've got a question I want to ask), I want draw attention to something which I've seen some other people mention, but I'd like to reiterate it.

It is possible to think of evolution as a process (rather than an original cause) and so in no way contradictory with "creation" per se. God might have created (or "designed" if you prefer) the original organism and allowed the process of evolution to take place, fully aware (in his omnipotence) of where it would lead (i.e. humans). In the same way God might have designed the universe, created matter and allowed the whole system to work itself out on that scale, the laws of physics and chemistry leading eventually to the orignal organsim which would then evolve. Evolution can be reconciled easily with a Deist "clock-maker" God, and to some degree it can be reconciled (though with more difficulty I think) with a personal God who might be active in the world even now. It seems to me that such beliefs are a natural way to ease the tension in the debate, and I don't know why they aren't more popular.

But this is not the way in which the debate is typically framed. The scenarios I just presented are considered "Creationist", Evolution proper must mean that there is no God at all. Certainly in the media evolution is presented as the diametric opposite of religious faith, which is quite hyperbolic (as is typical of the media), but I'm attending university right now and have met and spoken with many people working in the field of Evolutionary Biology (including undergrads, grad students and proffessor - in fact my Biology 101 professor had his P.H.D. in Evolutionary Biology) and they also seem to mostly believe that Evolution is incompatible with the scenarios I mentioned above. My professor in particular was explicit in his belief that the origin of the original organism had to be random ("lightning striking the soup bowl" he used to say) in order for the theory to be legitimate. They all believed (or so it seemed to me) that not only evolutionary biology but science in general demanded that there be no God at all, and to them I posed a question that they failed to answer to my satisfaction (and I'm about to pose it to you, because I would love to hear a good response)

And to be clear, going forward I'll be using the terms "Creationism" and "Evolution" in the broader manner that in my experience scientists, journalists and uneducated members of the public use them: Creationism = Any belief in which any part of the universe was in any way "created" or "designed" by any entity supernatural or otherwise at any point (whether it be prior to the big bang or 100,000 years ago when human beings appeared); Evolution = The belief the the entire universe is the accidental consequence of natural forces, life on earth being only one of the many random peculiarities taking place all over the universe.

The question I would ask is this: If evolution is true, doesn't it mean that the Western moral system (and really I would argue all morality) is worthless?

If evolution is true what exactly is wrong with murder? Or theft? Genocide? Rape? Slavery? If human life is accidental what is the nature of its value? Can human life have intrinsic value if evolution is true? Isn't eugenics a logical endeavor? If life is an accidental but inevitable result of chemistry and physics than can it be more valuable than a rock (which is also a result of chemistry and physics) and can human life be established as more valuable than any other - say a bacteria, or a leaf. If a member of the stoneage can craft a rock into something useful (like a hatchet blade or an arrow head) we do not call it immoral -
therefore if a person can subjugate another person to some useful purpose how can that be immoral? Male lions fight and often kill eachother for the right to lead the pack and mate - why shouldn't humans do the same? Aren't we just animals like anything else? The implications (to me at least) seem to be endless - for instance, why would anyone who believes in evolution be a vegetarian? Isn't killing and eating a plant of precisely the same moral weight as killing and eating an animal? For that matter even another human? There are other animals that naturally eat members of their own species - why restrict ourselves? Why, ultimately, this pretense of "civilization"? Without addressing whether or not Hitler believed evolution justified the holocaust (my understanding has long been that Nazi scientists did use evolution as an explanation for what they were doing but that doesn't prove anything at all as brutal regimes regularly use whatever theories or ideas they can to justify whatever crimes they may be committing which doesn't mean those ideas caused those crimes) doesn't evolution suggest that the only moral problem with the holocaust was Hitler's calculations that Jews were inferior? That is, killing inferior people in order to cleanse the gene pool is a logical concept in the world evolution describes - perhaps objective tests could be generated to locate such people? I knew a guy in high school who used to argue sincerely that the best way to fight genetic diseases was to kill the people who had them so they couldn't reproduce. You test infants, even before birth, for such ailments; that way we could euphemistically call it an abortion. Speaking of abortion - doesn't evolution suggest that it should not only be legal but even mandated for some; say, those whose incomes are too low, or with certain troubling histories? Anyway, I could go on and on but I think everyone gets the point. I would ask this question of my professor or friends who espoused the theory of evolution as described above (and I ask from the perspective of an agnostic - that is, I'm truly wondering, not trying to trick people, or trap them into saying something foolish) and they would typically deny that evolution meant that murder (or whatever, I've used various examples) was okay. And I would say "why not?" and they never seemed to be able to give me a logical answer. They would appeal to emotion or a sense of conscience ("Does it seem like that would be alright to you?") but this is not good enough for me - I demand truly logical justification for actions, especially government policy. For instance we used to debate the Iraq war (I was a bit of agnostic about that aswell, at least for a while) - I would argue that there was a certain internal consistency to the logic of George Bush's middle east policy and they would respond that it didn't matter, it was immoral. I was incredulous - "How do you know?" I would ask and they seemed to find that question so bizarre that they couldn't even answer it - They just sort of repeated it at me ("What do you mean 'How do I know'?").

Anyway, if anyone on here can offer me a logical explanation for how the Western moral system can survive evolution or point out a logical fallacy in my thinking I would be extremely interested, as this is something I've been wondering about for years. I have a feeling however that I am right, and that if the absolute atheism that Evolution seems to demand (at least, to some people) really became the dominant belief then we would find ourselves living in a very different world indeed.

Ebert: Cosmic ancestry still requires that life evolved somewhere.

Nope. Cosmic ancestry places no specific requirements on the origins of life. It simply holds that life comes from life.

Life's origins, according to cosmic ancestry, remain a complete mystery.

If life evolved, as you propose, cosmic ancestry would require it to take a really, really long time - basically an infinite amount of time.

Conversely, cosmic ancestry does not rule out ID, or any other theory of life's origins, it simply explains how life propagates throughout the universe.

Ebert: Cosmic ancestry rules out ID for the same reasons it doesn't work on earth. No matter where life comes from, it has to begin, and there is no way ID can account for that other than a magic trick.

Since now I know my brain checked from sleep deprivation during "Inglourious Basterds" I now realize it is a different movie from what I thought it was. It's a little harder for me to understand now (why Landa would turn himself), but that fault lies with me.

Sam said it was because he was an amoral opportunist, and I don't have any reason to doubt that. So, he got his street justice, I see. Okay, thanks, I got it now.

Regarding morality being a human attribute:

We can have one or the other but not both. In many posts (most recently the one where you quote Christ), you are assuming there is some kind of authority behind your position and also the words of Christ. But, if morality is a human attribute, there is no standard by which to differentiate between moral and immoral. You have your values and preferences and others have theirs. To classify these differences as moral or immoral, as opposed to just different, assumes not just a moral law, but an authoritative lawgiver. And to assume that much, assumes intelligence transcendant to the natural order.

So, you can have it one way or the other, and you may choose as you wish. But, it is a bit absurd and hypocritical to have it both ways. If morality is a human attribute, then it would be silly to seek guidance from someone claiming to speak on behalf of the Divine. If there is no intelligence, Christ made a much larger fool of himself than any ID person ever has.

Pick one side or the other. It's intellectually dishonest to try to have it both ways as each situation proves convenient. That's not exactly morally virtous. Nor is it rational.

There either is intelligence beyond the natural order or there is not. Choose which side you wish, but go ahead and live by all the logical consequences of each position. If it's moral standards and authority you believe in, you'll have to assume or posit some kind of intelligence. If your beliefs hold to no intelligence, the moral clamoring should either end or at least be acknowledged as nothing more than mere personal preference.

On this topic, here is a great six part back and forth between Christopher Hitchens and a theologian on the topic. It's insightful, humorous, and altogether enjoyable. You may decide with Hitchens, but you'll notice he never shows a standard by which to measure what is moral or immoral. As the theologian says, he has no book (standard by which to differentiate), just his preferences. The theologian may be wrong on whether the supernatural exists, but without the supernatural, let's stop all this 'moral' and 'immoral' nonsense in your posts.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/mayweb-only/119-12.0.html

I just had to post on the connection between Darwin and Hitler, because it illustrates one of the great mistakes when trying to make reasoned arguments. Item A causes/influences Item B. Item B is evil/great. Therefore Item A is evil/great. That type of argument ignores basic cause and effect logic. If Mark Twain inspires me to write a novel, and that ensuing novel is horrible, does that make Mark Twain a horrible writer? Of course not.

Yes it is true Darwin's theories inspired Hitler. Yes it is true that Hitler was evil. It is not true that makes Darwin's theories evil, or even more ridiculously, untrue.

If chocolate cake influenced Hitler instead of Darwin, would anybody make the argument that chocolate cake is evil? Probably, but they would be ridiculed for it.

Are railroads evil because they helped transport Jews to concentration camps? Without an efficient rail system the Holocaust would have been so efficient. Should we have never invented railroads?

Well, RDS, my Chimpanzee Kafka has advised me to be tender with you, because he thinks many humans are crazy.

He said "...so don't say things like 'what is your point', or anything that might bring up the image of a sharp stick."

"...and DON'T say things like 'hasn't anybody actually read up on Darwin or the times that caused this international fixation on random origins of the universe," Kafka said. He really is cute when he shakes his head in wonderment, as his big ears wiggle.

So I'm stymied. Kafka thinks nobody will even hear about Laplace or Lyell or what they were actually looking for or the true character of Darwin's dad or the oppressive religious dogma that birthed a kind of guilt-rebellion in the name of science or nothin'. They're like that Muppet "scientist," who has glasses but no eyes. Of course, since they all make pretenses of being reg'lar beer-drinkin' sports-and-girl-watchin' types, "Rednecks" fits. Until they start trotting out what they think they believe.

"It's like watching a bunch of adult male primates march around in a circle beating pots and pans in a Romper Room parade," I told Kafka, "only no 4 year old would march with such grim determination about how ignorant everybody else is supposed to be."

"Mmmphaa" Kafka replied.

Now who said humans were better than chimps?

I don't believe in evolution of any kind. Therefore, my views will never change. Free will, you say? I'm predetermined thank you very much. You should see me do the robot.

Hi Roger,

Some religious people misunderstand the purpose and scope of science. And some scientists misunderstand the purpose and scope of religion. As a person who is able to draw constructively from both domains, I do not find any actual contradictions. I like it that can keep each other honest, humble, and focused on what they have to offer to our human experience. Science offers provisional understanding of what is observable. That is its limitation, but that is also its power. Religion attempts to provide provisional understanding of things beyond factual observation. Again, limitation and power. Human understanding seems to be able to deal with and even crave both kinds of ideas. And both kinds of understanding are provisional: science revises and changes its understanding as needed to conform to what we observe or deduce; regions changes its understanding to conform to changing human culture and self-awareness. Science and religion, you are like an old married couple that somehow get along and need each other. It's beautiful to watch the two of you together, but please don't complain about each other's quirks in front of guests.

Creationism vs. Evolution
Judaism vs. Islam
Right wing vs. Left wing
Black vs. White

blah blah blah. Respect other people. Respect yourself. Find someone to love. Love your kids. Any questions? Do I need to write a book?
I love your site Mr. Ebert, may this post find you and your loved ones well.

Randy Masters is very keen on repeating the claim that ID is not creationism. I respectfully disagree. Philip E. Johnson, the law professor who invented the whole ID movement has said this in Forword to Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science (2000): "The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that "In the beginning was the Word," and "In the beginning God created." Establishing that point isn't enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message."

If that's not creationism, I don't know what is.

Sure it might be possible that some day one IDist gets past the point of saying this or that complicated puzzle is to be answered with the default explanation called "God did it", but perhaps a new term to describe that position should be coined then?

I have yet to see any truly falsifiable arguments put forward by IDists. Behe's Irreducible Complexity, which Randy mentioned, has been said to be one, but Behe still clings on that even though it wrongly assumes that only additions of single molecular parts are possible in evolution, neglecting deletions, changes in function, duplication of multiple parts, addition of a second function to a part, and gradual modification of parts as plausible evolutionary changes. See http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html

"By Carra on September 4, 2009 7:53 PM
If it rains in the USA, it drops in Europe. I thought of Intelligent Design as something American that had luckily not reached our shores.

But a few months ago I read that the minister of education from our neighbour country the Netherlands wanted to teach Intelligent Design at school. That caused quite a bit of uproar over there and over here in Belgium. A reaction from our Belgium director of Catholic Education mentioned that catholics have accepted evolution a long time ago. ID is apparantly more represented in protestant countries. Noone has seriously proposed to teach ID over here. If someone would, the public reaction would be entertaining."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RApapDXJt4A&feature;=related

Quote...Daniel Goldhaber;In some sense, even though the theory is a vital scientific one, evolution has little practical application at the moment. In some senses, that would completely obliterate the idea that it is "useful" as it is not very practical.

Hi Daniel,

Good post, however I would make this comment. The ToE has enormous practical applications, and has had since Darwin first proposed it. You give a perfect example in your comment, namely inoculation/vaccination. When biologists develop vaccines, they must begin with a thorough understanding of the virulence and how it evolves. For example, why has HIV-1/2 evolved over the decades to assume multiple guises which differ from place to place across the globe? The virus itself is mapped out in a phylogenic (Darwinian) tree of life, and it's various progenitors and offspring are placed within that tree using the exact same methods that place humans in the lineage of apes. This gives all the various scientific endeavours a thorough understanding as to what the virus is right now. Each branch of this mini-tree is known as a clade in evolutionary terms, and each clade has it's army of scientists studying it. The predominant subtype in the western world is clade B.

So by comparison, the ToE has placed all lifeforms into organized hierarchical clades. We, as humans, belong to series of these branches, namely Primata/Haplorhini/Anthropoidea(monkeys)/Catarrhini/Propliopithecoidea/Hominoidea(apes)/Hominidae/Hominini(humans)/Homo(man)/Sapiens(us).

While another lifeform known as HIV belong to another cladastic hierarchy, named (less romantically) A-D,F-H,J and K.

Once a virus is placed within it's proper Darwinian branch on the tree of life, scientists can begin to devise the weapons needed to combat it. So you can see that the ToE is indeed very useful. Scientist know that viruses are subject to gene shifting, and random gene mutation, just like we are. They are subject to the changing conditions of life which cause old strains to become extinct, just like the changing conditions of life caused homo habilis, rudolfensis, egaster, erectus, neandertalensis and florensiensis to become extinct. Leaving only us, homo sapiens.

Have you ever read Darwin's theory? Please remember it is a theory and is not accepted as fact by the scientific community. All theories have a hypothisis, data, and a conclusion. please read his conclusion. If the conclusion does not appeal to you, you have to start over and perhaps wait another 200 years for it to be accepted. Maybe you & Ben Stein could write one up together,,,,,,,,
" The origin of species " by Ben Stein & Roger Ebert or maybe by Roger Ebert & Ben Stein?

Ebert: No theory is accepted as a fact. I'm not sure you understand the difference between the scientific and everyday use of the word.,

Ebert: I was thinking of its application in so many sciences, including astronomy and the social sciences.

ToE (Darwinism) has applications in the social sciences? As in, perhaps Social Darwinism? As in eugenics? I thought that link couldn't be made? :)

Hmmm. I had my say on that topic on the other thread. I'm going to try to leave it alone on this one.

Randy

From the tail end of the other thread…

By rmasters on August 21, 2009 1:08 PM (On eugenics:is Darwinism "necessary but not sufficient?")

By Karl on August 22, 2009 2:16 AM (Darwin is not "necessary" to eugenics, nor is eugenics "an application of" Darwinism.).

By rmasters on August 31, 2009 1:33 PM Responding to another person - (You gave me back generalities. Religion "necessary but not sufficient" for genocide?)

And so, to pick up where we left off...

1) Were the Nazi’s atheist?

Firstly. It takes approximately four hours in a library to know that the Nazi’s were not atheists. Or about three minutes of youtube video.

Nazis not Atheists. (2m30s)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWvvSdxu9eo

Hitler Oath. (26s) When Nazis swore their oath to Hitler, who were they swearing by?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zq5L4k9gKgs

Wiki - The German Christians
The German Christians were, for the most part, a "group of fanatically Nazi Protestants." They began as an interest group and eventually came to represent one of the schismatic factions of German Protestantism.

Wiki - Positive Christianity
…is a term adopted by Nazi leaders to refer to a model of Christianity consistent with Nazism. Adherents of Positive Christianity argued that traditional Christianity emphasized the passive rather than the active aspects of Christ's life, stressing his sacrifice on the cross and other-worldly redemption. They wanted to replace this with a "positive" emphasis on Christ as an active preacher, organizer and fighter who opposed the institutionalized Judaism of his day.

"The time is fulfilled for the German people of Hitler. It is because of Hitler that Christ, God the helper and redeemer, has become effective among us. … Hitler is the way of the Spirit and the will of God for the German people to enter the Church of Christ. -- Christian spokesman Herman Gruner, soon after December 20, 1933 when Protestant youth organizations were incorporated into the Hitler youth."

2)Were the Nazi’s Darwinists?
“Himmler also found time to take Bohmer aside at a gathering to convey his personal views on the subject of human evolution. It must have been an instructive conversation. As Bohmer later reported, Himmler dismissed outright, for example, the current notion that the human race was closely related to primates”. –From The Master Plan by Heather Pringle (page 134)

Take all that you personally know about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and Common Descent. Can anyone actually claim that this idea fit into the ideology of the Nazi’s? Do you think Hitler and Himmler and all the other worshipers of the mythical Aryans accepted for one second that they were classified as Apes in Darwin’s Tree of Life? Himmler himself believed that the Aryans came from Atlantis.

“Himmler believed that ancient emigrants from Atlantis had founded a great civilization in Inner Asia, the capital of which was a city called Obo.”…..”Himmler mentioned his belief that the Nordic race did not evolve, but came directly down from heaven to settle on the Atlantic continent”. – United States Forces - European Theater, Military Intelligence Service Center, APO 757 Final Interrogation Report (OI-FIR) No. 32 Feb. 12, 1946 “The Activities of Dr. Ernst Schaefer”.

Himmler, with his ‘direct from heaven’ lineage was the actual architect of the holocaust. He also created the Ahnenerbe (the inspiration behind the Nazi relic hunters in Raiders of the Lost Ark). This organisation had the specific task of unearthing the divine lineage of the “Master Race” (see Wiki, Ahnenerbe).

3) Were the Nazi’s Creationists?
From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today. - Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Tabletalk

The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator. - Adolf Hitler, ibid.

The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. The only difference that can exist within the species must be in the various degrees of structural strength and active power, in the intelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc., with which the individual specimens are endowed. (Mein Kampf, vol. i, ch. xi)

So were the Nazi’s Creationists? I’ll let you be the judge. Did Hitler believe the Perfect Aryans evolved from a lower lifeform or did he think they were ‘specially created’ and then corrupted through the years by ‘others’?

As we ponder that we can ask ourselves, what were the roots of their thinking in regards to all ‘others’, and in particular the Jews? They certainly weren’t waving around copies of the Origin of Species as the Brown Shirts roamed the streets of Germany. What book were they waving around? I’m being literal here. Some were waving a particular book in the air during the Night of Broken Glass, which most scholars agree, was the start of the Holocaust. I’ll talk about that book in a moment.

4) How far back did the superior/inferior race concept go before the Nazi’s came into power? Did it start with them or do the roots go deeper?

Here is one source of their thinking…

Wiki – Martin Luther. (1483-1546)
... changed the course of Western civilization by initiating the Protestant Reformation.

Luther taught that salvation is not from good works, but a free gift of God, received only by grace through faith in Jesus as redeemer from sin. His theology challenged the authority of the pope of the Roman Catholic Church by teaching that the Bible is the only source of divinely revealed knowledge and opposed sacerdotalism by considering all baptized Christians to be a holy priesthood.

Martin Luther was not some rouge priest. He was the founding father of Protestantism (52% of American who are religious, say they are Protestants). He was also a professor of Theology and a German, or born in the land that would become Germany. He was vehemently anti-Catholic and played a major role in breaking his country loose from the Roman Empire.

Did this giant among Christians have anything to say about the Jews?

Wiki - Martin Luther
Much scholarly debate has focused on Luther's writings about the Jews. His statements that the Jews' homes should be destroyed, their synagogues burned, money confiscated, and liberty curtailed were revived and used in propaganda by the Nazis in 1933–45.

Now back to that book I was talking about…

Wiki - On the Jews and Their Lies – by Martin Luther.
In the treatise, Luther writes that the Jews are a "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth."Luther wrote that they are "full of the devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine,"and the synagogue is an "incorrigible whore and an evil slut".He argues that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness, afforded no legal protection, and these "poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time.

And so, as any student of World War Two will know, this is exactly what happened. During the Night of Broken glass they burn synagogues, arrested some 30,000 Jews, and destroyed or confiscated property. Almost like they were reading out of an instruction manual. This was the beginning of the Holocaust.

Wiki - On the Jews and Their Lies – by Martin Luther
The prevailing scholarly view since the Second World War is that the treatise exercised a major and persistent influence on Germany's attitude toward its Jewish citizens in the centuries between the Reformation and the Holocaust. Four hundred years after it was written, the National Socialists displayed On the Jews and Their Lies during Nuremberg rallies, and the city of Nuremberg presented a first edition to Julius Streicher, editor of the Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer, the newspaper describing it as the most radically anti-Semitic tract ever published.

Further quote from Martin Luther’s Holocaust inspiring writing…

“We are at fault in not slaying them. Rather we allow them to live freely in our midst despite all their murdering, cursing, blaspheming, lying, and defaming; we protect and shield their synagogues, houses, life, and property. In this way we make them lazy and secure and encourage them to fleece us boldly of our money and goods, as well as to mock and deride us, with a view to finally overcoming us, killing us all for such a great sin, and robbing us of all our property (as they daily pray and hope).”

So we can begin to see the foundation stones of the Holocaust. We can find other authors in positions of authority, we can find other popular books by Luther, we can investigate his belief in the "Divine Right of Kings", which helped lay the foundation for a Fuhrer. And we can look inside the bible itself, and ask ”How did Christians, pre-Darwin, see the world and it’s people. What idea was Darwin replacing, specifically?”

I’d like to submit something on that next.

Hi djones01 on September 5, 2009 3:57 AM

...my preferred point against creationist logic is dog breeding. The fact that animals can be bred intentionally in a predictable way to produce desired traits pretty much proves the theory right there since it's an identical process to that happening in nature.

Darwin apparently thought so.

I dissented, on the other thread. The point that I made is that it seems to me that dog breeding is NOT what is happening in nature.

Dog breeding introduces the element of purpose. I doubt that dog breeders take their capital investment (their breeding stock) and wait for random mutations to occur and then be acted on by natural selection. Dog breeders purposely (read: intelligently) select for traits. It is not random in any sense. It is not unguided - which is supposed to be the hallmark of ToE.

The dog breeder is the Intelligent Designer in that particular activity.

Have you thought about it in those terms? Agree or disagree?

Randy

It has always struck me that these creationist/intelligent design arguments are so beside the point. If God choses to work on astronomical time scales—taking 4 billion years to make man instead of 4 thousand—how does this in any way argue either for or against His existence?

This whole issue is really a straw man. Creationists use it as a rallying point to point out the "infidelity" or those who think Evolution is a reasonably accurate description of how we came to be. I believe in both God and Evolution and see no conflict there whatsoever. So why am I to be reviled?

The mistake is entering the debate. That's like taking sides on abortion. There are no winners there...

For those that want to understand God in everyday life, read Paul Tillich.

I just finished reading his three volumes of "Systematic Theology", but I was also a bit sleep deprived (aside from it needing to be reread a few times), so, I probably can't do too much to help you (see my above comment on "Inglourious Basterds" if you want to see what happens when I try that).

I'm always sleep deprived. So, even right now, it will be hard to help. But I'll give it a shot incompetently anyway.

A few quotes I remember is that Tillich calls God the "eternal present" and "beyond essence and existence" (I think he said existence). He said to try to define him was atheism. Although, he of an Intelligent Design type argument, I think he said that god is "spontaneity." The spontaneity of atoms and everything and so forth. This was just one possibility he put forth during a time when we were just beginning to understand atoms, but perhaps there is still something to it; he is a man ahead of his time. Notice how I capitalized god on one instance but not another. The God as defined first is the capital lettered God, "the god above god." Sorry, that's all I can think of for that right now. God is infinite and we are finite, but there is a POSSIBILITY that we share in the infinite, which is why we can question god or our existence in the first place. This is what Christianity is about. The Resurrection is about God, not Jesus. Jesus with the Resurrection points to a mystery. It is not to be taken literally, although it is to be taken as having happened--everything except the actual coming back to life. The Resurrection is about the New Being, of being in touch with God, (the eternal present), and thus, transformed--it's a participational process--and this is how you believe. You believe in the Resurrection BECAUSE you have participated in its mysterious, transformational powers, NOT because it literally happened. Only after participating in it do you understand what the Resurrection is about, or points to rather, which is infinity. It makes the mystery transparent, but still a mystery nonetheless. So, it is both actual and symbolical. There is a new kind of Christian history. This is the Kingdom of Eternity. Humanism is based on a religious tradition. And the Resurrection is seen as the most transparent of this Through God's love, we may love. God is about making sure that nothing we do here is, being finite, is raised to a level of infinite, or ultimacy; when a certain power has been broken democratically, the church doesn't fully reject or fully accept it, but recognizes that it is God's power that has done it. This is what our system of checks and balances is about, and in every aspect of ourselves...if we let it. Things in our finite world can become raised to a level of ultimacy and in that they cannot stand, and this is where God comes in. God is meant to bridge things. It is to be used to protect from idolatry, demonization and secularism. We can still be all these things we say we are today and believe all of those things Dawkins and so forth have said, but realize the dangers in raising those things to infinity.

Re: ANDRE-FREDERIC

Unfortunately, to label evolution a law simply to win an argument would be intellectually and academically dishonest. It remains a theory because it is in many regards an attempt to explain something we have observed in the natural world, like the Theory of Relativity. (I will give a more detailed example shortly.) Evolution is a result of the nature of life, but it is only that, just like Kinetic Theory is a result of the laws of physics. It is not a fundamental principle of science; if we wanted to make a law out of evolution, it would likely reference the method by which organisms mutate, and postulate percentages of mutated population, and little else. The theory of evolution would continue to be a theory, but would incorporate this hypothetical law into its evidences.

Consider Kinetic theory, specifically the Kinetic Theory of Gasses. We created this theory to explain the behavior of molecules in their gaseous state. We derived equations to model it. In spite of being "only a theory," KTG has never failed us. But it is a model to explain the behavior of something we have seen in the natural world. The laws that back it up are Newton's laws of motion. Newton's laws are fundamental principles of physics. Kinetic theory is a specific model to explain the movement of particles. Similarly, evolution is specific model to explain the change in the genetic makeup and physical characteristics of species over time.

We will never be able to call evolution a law, but this does not make it any less valid. All it means is that what evolution describes is specific, and is not fundamental enough to be considered a law. Next time you hear somebody talking about how evolution is "only a theory," explain to them that what makes their car move (Collision Theory explains chemical reactions, such as the one used to refine gasoline) is "only a theory." Don't let people get away with scientific ignorance. Explain to them that the choice of the word "theory" to indicate a set of observations and models that describe something we see in the natural world is unfortunate, but that this should not be an argument against scientific theories. We shouldn't cheat our way around it by labeling evolution a "law" when it can never be.

It's a shame I never read the original entry. I probably would have put in a response.

As a Christian, I find the idea of fundamentalism a bit odd considering Jesus was incredibly liberal for his time.

I always thought if it really was worth arguing the matter of the time frame in which our world came to be what it is, the book of Genesis would have more specifics on the topic of creation. But since it doesn't, I interpret it as meaning that it really just isn't a priority to be dwelled upon, especially when it seems to burn bridges.

Tom Dark: "You're an easier mark than that short-tempered farmer in "Shane." But I have better ethics than the gunfighter Jack Palance played. So I'll be kind. Generous. Even sweet. Ready?
What you meant was:
QUACKquackquackquackQUACKquacktruthquackandquackincreasedquackunderstandingquack ofquacklifequackandquackitsQUACKquackoriginsquackandQUACKI'mquacknotquack deadQUACK. WAK!
Now pick 'im up and get 'im outta here."

Which, of course, is a lot of words that mean about as much as what you wrote before. Rather than an actual response, as usual. From the guy who flew in flapping his arms furiously and snapping his bill at everybody else in the room. As usual. That's just trolling, Tom. And your trolling gets more and more rude if anyone actually questions your behavior, I've noticed.

Why is it okay for you to always insult everybody else, to question their intelligence and their integrity, but we're supposed to just laugh it off since it's ol' Tom Dark doing it and we aren't supposed to respond to your rudeness about us? Rudeness is rudeness, online bullying is online bullying, however much someone might try to disguise it with attempted wit and more clever name-calling. Why can we point out such things here in this discussion where we're already talking about the behavior of either side of the debate, but not point out the same behavior taking place right here in this discussion? I didn't just step out and start insulting you, Tom, you walked in and insulted me and a lot of other people, and my comments to you are due to your own tone and what you said to me and other people here.

Oh well, Mr. Ebert doesn't seem to want these exchanges in the thread, which I regret since it seems similar to the exchanges between the ID side and Evolution side of this debate, and goes to some of the same issues about the methods of argument and posting used (a topic of some of the broader debate). So I'll simply avoid reading or responding to your posts in the future, because I do think you've been repeatedly rude toward everybody else and that you seem to resent having that pointed out, and you won't respond directly to actual points (most of my post to you responded to your direct question about what the theory of evolution has done for me, and you didn't even attempt to respond after having repeatedly asked for someone to respond).

Blobbo... on second thought, I'm feeling rather incurious again and pretty certain about the randomness of your comments on math and... er, randomness.

Generally speaking, I think that we should recognize that the actual loudest proponents of ID (who are actively going out to publicly push and promote their agenda, who get on Fox News etc and insist that Christians are being "persecuted" for their beliefs, and those like the makers of "Expelled" for example) are a different lot from the average Christians and even from those who might believe ID teachings. I don't think it serves any purpose to speak with contempt and condescension about every single religious person, or every single Christian, or every single person who believes in Creationism or ID. I don't think they are all just either liars or complete fools, regardless of what I think about their specific belief systems and the religious leadership who promotes that belief system.

I have faith in the ultimate goodness in humanity. I believe, despite all of the evidence to the contrary throughout our history, that there is hope for our species, that there is something WORTH saving and preserving in humanity. I believe that it is almost always important to judge a person by what's best in them, rather than their worst failings. There's no solid evidence or reason to believe in this intangible "goodness" and notion of inherent "worth". But I believe it nonetheless, despite whatever cynicism I have about government or religion or aspects of human nature in specific contexts.

So I understand faith in the intangible, I understand a belief in inherent goodness and hope, and I think this is where much of the religious faith in many people comes from. It shouldn't be dismissed or insulted, because it may be a very important aspect of humanity's search for truth and understanding that leads to scientific breakthroughs, to political reconciliation, to cooperation, to progressive advancements in our treatment of our fellow man (trying always to keep apace and hopefully someday to surpass the advancement of our killing of our fellow man). The religious leadership take advantage of lack of education, lack of information, false claims and "evidence", spreading rumors, feeding fear, and other such reprehensible behavior to gain support for things like ID among the broader population.

When a parent says, "It sounds reasonable to let them also teach ID in school, after all they do have scientists on their side and evolution isn't very popular among scientists anymore," they aren't being stupid or lying, they have plenty of reason to believe what they are saying is true -- they've heard it in the news, seen it in film, been told it at church, read it in e-mails, and so on. The idea has been reinforced as truth over and over, and not every person is adequately informed about geology and history and anthropology to recognize the flaws in ID claims or the falsehoods in ID assertions about evolution. So those claims sound valid, it appears to come from educated people in the relevant fields, and everyone around the parents are nodding yes and insisting it's all true.

Someone who believes those things isn't inherently an idiot or a liar, they are just a person who believed what was being said and repeated by a bunch of people who claimed to be experts and who are treated as such by the media and politicians and churches and friends etc. Why can we understand so clearly the role of the media in helping spread so much false information about Iraq's supposed WMD programs that lead to support for the war, without calling all of the public a bunch of idiots and liars? We see that the news media and political leadership spread lies and deceit in that instance, and so we can understand why an average person without more information would believe what they were being told. For religious persons, there is often an even more closed loop of information that reinforces such beliefs, and I can fully understand how and why it happens.

So my own anger and contempt is for those who know what they are doing in spreading false information and intentional distortions and disinformation on behalf of ID. It's for the religious leaders, the so-called scientists, the media who treat it as if it's a real two-sided scientific debate, the famous people who lend their faces and voices to films that promote such lies, and so on. But I don't hate or hold in contempt all religious people or even all believers in ID. And I certainly don't dismiss the entire concept of faith in the intangible. So I hope people won't just resort to insulting every single religious follower or believer in ID as if they must be either stupid or lying -- I have known and still know plenty of deeply devout religious people who are neither stupid nor liars, and it's unfair to label them all as such, however much I reject and regret religious beliefs and their influence on history and today's world.

Where's a Babel Fish when you need one?

In my last post I said "Kingdom of Eternity" and I think I meant "Kingdom of God". Here is another quote from Tillich, perhaps explaining that...a little bit:

The appearance of Jesus as the Christ is the point at which history becomes aware of itself and its meaning."

Natural selection is proved everytime you receive a flu shot. Doctors manipulate the vaccine to take into account influenza's evolution. Creationists have simply not kept up with the science, and continually refer to his book on natural selection picking apart a sentence here or there while ignoring the last 30 years of genetic research that have proven the theory again and again.

There is nothing wrong with believing in a God that created everything. Said gods could be an advanced alien civilization, or Shamoo the talking hyperspace whale, who knows.

The problem is believing in a God who is active and intervenes in the daily life of the universe. Such a god clearly does not exist, but is instead purported to exist by various shady spiritual leaders who are solely in it for power, fame and profit. This confusion leads to man-made laws supposedly directly received from a divine authority and any challengers to this power structure are burned at the stake like Giordana Bruno. Since our world is currently at it's most volatile state while we transition to a type I civilization it's easy to understand why so many are attacking progress.

If creationists want to understand or 'read the mind of god' as Einstein put it, they should put their 2,000+ yr old book of parables written by bronzed-aged nomads down and instead learn mathematics. It's clear the language of the universe is math with all it's startling symmetries, so if we are all indeed formed by a creator studying the creators equations is the best way to understand what the hell is going on.

Reply to: Randy Masters: ToE, as an explanation for this development for life up until now, is mostly a historical science. Meyer points out that Darwin, in developing "Origins" didn't do so in "the lab". He made observations of animals, yes. But his innovation was to look at a multi-disiplinary body of evidence developed over time, developed in part by others, and to provide what to him was a best-fit explanation for mechanism - natural selection.

Randy, some of your Creationist drivel is getting on my nerves.

Darwin published in 1859. No, he did not base his theory on a computer analysis of the human genome which was completed in the last decade. I am so glad you pointed that out - because you're trying to scam people into thinking Darwin isn't credible.

You're becoming one of the Bad guys. seriously. You are an example of the flim-flam and the deceit that Intelligent Design (and Lee Strobel) are trying to pull on the American public.

You were talking about:

Reply to: Randy Masters: It's not as clear cut as you think it is, is all I'm saying.

Actually, it is clear cut. The problem, you keep pretending that Evolution can'be be verified in a lab, and now we have two genomes (chimps and humans) to compare.

Reply to: And my best advice is to read the source material on ID for yourself, and don't let others tell you what it says or why it's wrong. Ask questions. Where did biological information come from? Are the ToE mechanisms really "creative" enough to increase complexity in lifeforms? More.

Yes, Randy, you keep asking these goofball questions. And then, there are legitimate scientists who answer them. Big difference.

http://brembs.net/gould.html

Stephen Jay Gould: The earth is 4.6 billion years old, but the oldest rocks date to about 3.9 billion years because the earth's surface became molten early in its history, a result of bombardment by large amounts of cosmic debris during the solar system's coalescence, and of heat generated by radioactive decay of short-lived isotopes.

These oldest rocks are too metamorphosed by heat and pressure to preserve fossils. The oldest rocks sufficiently unaltered to retain cellular fossils - African and Australian sediments dated to 3.5 billion years old - do preserve prokaryotic cells (bacteria and cyanophytes) and stromatoIites (mats of sediment trapped and bound by these cells in shallow marine waters).

More complex creatures arose sequentially after this prokaryotic beginning -

first eukaryotic cells, perhaps about two billion years ago,

then multicellular animals about 600 million years ago,

and, finally to reptiles, mammals and humans.

(Animal life is) a relatively minor phenomenon. The most salient feature of life has been the stability of its bacterial mode from the beginning of the fossil record until today... (end)

And then, it goes on to explain HOW it all... but go find it for yourself. The answer to your goofball question is right there. Twelve or thirteen books. Read them all. Don't complain that you read two and couldn't find the answers. This is a complex subject, and you pretend that you can't understand it... but the answers ARE there.

Stephen Jay Gould: (1) If our inconspicuous and fragile lineage had not been among the few survivors of the initial radiation of multicellular animal life in the Cambrian explosion 530 million years ago, then no vertebrates would have inhabited the earth at all.
(Only one member of our chordate phylum, the genus Pikaia, has been found among these earliest fossils. This small and simple swimming creature, showing its allegiance to us by possessing a notochord, or dorsal stiffening rod, is among the rarest fossils of the Burgess Shale, our best preserved Cambrian fauna.)

(2) If a small and unpromising group of lobe-finned fishes had not evolved fin bones with a strong central axis capable of bearing weight on land, then vertebrates might never have become terrestrial.

(3) If a large extraterrestrial body had not struck the earth 65 million years ago, then dinosaurs would still be dominant and mammals insignificant.

(4) If a small lineage of primates had not evolved upright posture on the drying African savannas just two to four million years ago, then our ancestry might have ended in a line of apes that, like the chimpanzee and gorilla today, would have become ecologically marginal and probably doomed to extinction despite their remarkable behavioral complexity. (end)

Are you saying there was a "designer" that caused a meteor to strike the earth 65 million years ago?

There simply isn't any evidence that our form of life (humanity) was designed.

Go watch "Planet of the Apes" and then walk through a shopping mall. Primates walking around in clothes and shoes.

Then, change the Ground Rules. Imagine how human beings could be different if there actually was a "Designer" pushing our genes around. We developed language about 10,000 years ago. So, it took 65 million years from the death of the dinosaurs to a brain capable of written language? Where is the design in that?

Randy, I've invited you to make better arguments several times, and you've failed to even try.

Because ALL the better arguments support Modern Evolutionary Theory.

Intelligent Design is a refuge for Dimwits. For people who aren't willing to study enough biology to figure out how it happened.

Go to a search engine, find the answers to your own questions and bring them back. Try it once.

"After 2,640 posts and 239,093 words"

There have been threads on Usenet that ran over five years, possibly more, and well over tens of thousands of posts. Given the way multiple threading works, unlike the linear threads here (which I prefer, in the absense of a Unix-based newsreader), it would be impossible to even define what a single thread consists of.

I accidentally and naively, in the mid-Nineties, started a cross-newsgroup thread (always a mistake, even though it was under five newsgroups) on an decades-old encounter I once had with Robert Heinlein, and the resulting threads (i.e., arguments) didn't die out until over three years later.

There are evergreen topics that any practiced online hand knows will generate as endless a thread as you have readers: evolution, gun control, abortion, operating system wars, whether Kirk or Picard is the best captain of the Enterprise, and so on.

Some topics can be kept going infinitely by the participation of just a handful of ever-stubborn and indefatigable individuals.

After a few years of seeing these evergreens always coming back, few people will find anything new ever said in them that hasn't been said before.

After a couple of decades online, this will be, of course, even more the case.

On your side here is that you are the master of your own domain. So long as you continue to find entertainment or education in a topic, enjoy. It'll still be new to you as long as it's still new to you.

Ebert: I was so naive to be impressed with our own concise thread.

ANDRE-FREDERIC on September 5, 2009 10:16 AM
I think that it is time to qualify the theory of evolution as the LAW of evolution. Therefore, ending the non-sense debate that sadly still occurs in the United States.

To be precise, a "law" is simply a kind of theory that can be expressed as an equation (or inequality). E=MC2 is a law, as is F=MA.
"Law" doesn't mean "more correct" or "more completely demonstrated." It only describes the manner in which the theory can be expressed.

The theory of evolution cannot be compressed in this way, so calling it a law is not technically correct.

(I agree with you, completely, that this debate should end, but it's not primarily a semantic debate, so changing the words won't solve the problem.)

Rather than darwinian evolution or creationism I choose to believe the earth was created six thousand years ago by a super intelligent race of female sex robots, who invented evolution as a tool to create the most sexually proficient human male possible (specifically me) whom they will one day descend from on high to take away to their sex spaceship for an eternity of intercourse.

I base this theory on now scientific evidence or "logic", but find evidence to disprove. Just cause there's no evidence doesnt mean it isn't true.

in reference to ANDRE-FREDERIC. That was a fairly good explanation of what scientific theory means but it's a bit different than that. The main difference between scientific theory and scientific law is that a scientific theory explains how or why something happens whereas a law explains more of what something is. Evolution is a theory because it explains how it is that humans and other present day species have come to be in their current states. An example of scientific law however is more like gravity, the law of gravity states that every object emits a force based on its mass that pulls other objects toward it (the weakest force in the universe if anyone care to know). The theory of relativity has been proven from experiments in aging between people traveling in space and people on earth, but it is a theory not a law because it explains how time can be relative to different objects depending on their positions and velocities in the universe. I don't see how evolution can be disproved when we see it on a daily basis.

Evolution starts with a mutation of the genes of an organism, most mutations are dangerous and kill the organism before they can pass on the trait; basically, any disease that can be attributed to damaged genes (ie. Down Syndrome) is a mutation. On a rare occasion mutations do prove to be beneficial to the species like insects who through a mistake in the DNA coding sequence have an immunity to pesticide. This mutation isn't harmful to the insect so they live long enough to pass on their genetic material, though they remain a minority of the species. When pesticide is used the majority of that species is killed and the few insects remaining are the ones with the the mutation that gains them resistance to pesticide and so they become the majority, thus they have technically evolved through natural selection.

"Some took their stand on religious grounds, but possibly not Mitt Romney, who as a Mormon must know his church has no official dogma about whether or not Darwin's theory is valid. A Mormon can be a Darwinian if he chooses. Romney chose not to."

I would read every message posted to see if anyone has corrected you on this yet, but I am entirely too lazy to do that so I will just go ahead with it.

Mitt Romney was not one of the three Republican candidates who raised his hand when asked if they don't believe in evolution. They were Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo, and Sam Brownback respectively.

Ebert: I have corrected. My bad.

I arrived at your site via Pharyngula, which is where I first heard about Ben Stien's 'Expelled', though it hadn't been released at that time. I was horrified. One of the things that distresses me, as you yourself mentioned, is how much false information gets taken for truth.

I am so glad to see you out here in the blogosphere, adding your voice. I am glad that your anger (I like to think of it as righteous indignation, because, it is an indignity) led you to write.

As a result of my link-hopping, I've discovered your journal, and am thrilled, as I am a movie fan. However, beyond the matter of movies, I am more thankful to find, that you are a great writer that loves to discuss topics and apply various movies to the themes. Excellent!

And to think, I was just wandering some sites I usually lurk in, to try out my new synonym, as I've decided to stop lurking, and start commenting.

Thanks, and please, keep writing.

Marie says:
'And since we're all related to birds, and birds are related to dinosaurs, and dinosaurs are related that icky stuff — primordial ooze? Then " McCloud" is ultimately about "what the ooze was also dreaming" and gosh who'd blame it, eh? As I'd sure like to be able to fly.'

I'm totally good with Darwin; and, I don't know about ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny; but, did you ever read 'Don Juan' by Carlos Castaneda?
Mostly nonsense; and, I think he even admitted as much ... but, he was perfectly realistic about the 'flying' I am told.
One can shed off the gravity of the earth and weight of the corporal body and consciously fly about -- perhaps not in this literal world, but a world that you couldn't 'make up'.
One can also fly in one's dreams too; but, this is different because one is conscious and 'present' in will; and, the 'I' knows how to confirm the reality of flight for themselves. No broom is needed either, as in Harry Potter.
I'll bet those who die and are resuscitated in surgery who tell of the 'out of body experience', are speaking of that kind of flying, as is so often reported; but, certain yoga exercises, it is also asserted, can get one airborne.
Perhaps not everyone can do it: but some, I would believe, indeed fly -- just like Peter Pan, with his shadow down below, to the utter satisfaction of the concept -- just, not to the satisfaction of one's ego.
Oh yes; most important! You're not supposed to tell ANYONE if flying is your goal: at least that was the sad truth for poor Brewster, if you recall.
The closest I'll ever likely get is floundering in the surf, as today -- one advantage to that extra weight of middle age; perfect weather with lazy clouds in the distance, a sea breeze, cool but not cold water, with a chocolate lab nagging for attention. Good enough ...
'Course, Though the fear of it was suppressed, I didn't get stung by a lion-fish, stabbed by a ray or bitten by a shark either -- things which might have made me want to have stayed in bed this morning. Life's weighty all right.
I was indeed fortunate today --- hmm, as Mr. Dursly might ask himself, is it really possible?

Hi Randy,

Your response was rather vague. Ignoring the Wedge Document does not change it's content. I also pointed out the (now infamous) mistyped quote from the book 'Of Pandas And People.' So where ARE those like Behe and Dembski taking ID as a "science"? To my knowledge, they aren't doing any, nor is anybody else. Behe is doing nothing to scientifically support IC (and if I recall he has stated he doesn't intend to), and Dembski (who is not a scientist) is doing his apologetics course. An apologetics course, which apparently leads to a "masters degree in ID". So what does theology have to do with science in any practical sense?

Claiming IC is a signature for "design" does not make it so. It's merely "If evolution can't have done it, then a 'designer' did it'. Yet so far, I don't know of any direct example of something which has been unequivocally shown to have been "designed" by the enigmatic "designer". And I still didn't get an answer to these questions:

If ID is a "scientific theory", then I'd like to know who or what the "designer" is, what useful scientific predictions it makes, what mechanism it used, when it did whatever it is you think it did, how it was determined, how it is tested, and (quite important) how it can be falsified. And perhaps also why an all-knowing, all-powerful universe-creating "creator" is apparently incapable of using evolution if it so desired. Thanks in advance.

It's interesting that someone like Ben Stein -- who, as a Jew, would be outraged at Holocaust deniers -- is himself an evolution denier.

Holocaust deniers are shunned (correctly so) for downplaying or denying a historical event that has mounds of evidence supporting its occurrence.

Don't evolution deniers fall in the same boat?

We SEE evolution happen every time a new bacterial species becomes resistant to an antibiotic (like MRSA), or when new viral strains show up. More than fossils, the overwhelming evidence for evolution lies in molecular genetics, making it a virtually indisputable fact.

At a very basic level of rationality, anyone who finds Holocaust deniers despicable -- as I'm sure Ben Stein does -- should avoid, for their own sake, stringent criticisms of the theory of evolution.

(Btw - Mr. Ebert - you are an inspiration to me. This is one of the best blogs on the web, and I've been reading it for ages, and am commenting for the first time.)

Reply to: Mikki Saturn: Evolution can be reconciled easily with a Deist "clock-maker" God, and to some degree it can be reconciled (though with more difficulty I think) with a personal God who might be active in the world even now. It seems to me that such beliefs are a natural way to ease the tension in the debate, and I don't know why they aren't more popular.

OK, maybe you're not understanding the debate.

ID says there is evidence of a Deist clock-maker.

Modern Evolutionary Theory says that life on earth evolved without any supernatural help, and the time frame of life evolving on earth argues strongly against any kind of a "Designer" prodding things along.

So, what you're suggesting is, those on the Darwin side should have lobotomies, ignore the evidence, and say the ID folks could be right?

Probably not going to happen. why? Because the idea of a God is silly and there's no science to support it.

Reply to: They all believed (or so it seemed to me) that not only evolutionary biology but science in general demanded that there be no God at all,

And if you spend a few more years learning about science, you'll understand why that is.

Reply to: Evolution = The belief the the entire universe is the accidental consequence of natural forces, life on earth being only one of the many random peculiarities taking place all over the universe.

We've answered this one at least fifty times. Evolution does NOT refer to the origin of the entire universe. Evolution is a scientific theory about the history and development of life. On earth, perhaps other places.

Reply to: The question I would ask is this: If evolution is true, doesn't it mean that the Western moral system (and really I would argue all morality) is worthless?

Nope. That's just Fundie Babble, Christian nonsense.

Human beings have morality because we have to invest huge amounts of time and energy in raising children. We don't want strangers murdering our children, so we pass laws against murder.

Reply to: If evolution is true what exactly is wrong with murder?

This is my complaint about Christianity. They teach this nonsense.

In order for the species to survive, humans have to produce CHILDREN. Children are valuable. Babies are lovable, etc. We pass laws against murder to protect our investment in our children.

And you really need me to explain that? Go back to your Sunday School class and throw a glass of water in your teacher's face. He's an idiot.

Reply to: Or theft? Genocide? Rape? Slavery? If human life is accidental what is the nature of its value?

There are MANY possible answers, but a sufficient one is, we love and protect our children. Humanity is the product of natural selection and random mutation, but individually, we love and value our children.

Reply to: Can human life have intrinsic value if evolution is true?

Yes.

Reply to: If life is an accidental but inevitable result of chemistry and physics than can it be more valuable than a rock and can human life be established as more valuable than any other - say a bacteria, or a leaf.

You can repeat a stupid question a hundred different ways, but it remains a stupid question.

OK, back to Randy's question about information in cells.

For over a billion years, life existed on the cellular level. All over earth, materials were pushed through cells. DNA developed.

Every one of the basic advancements probably happened thousands of times, and the cells were eaten by predators and the information lost.

If there's a problem in the way cells become more complex, it would be obvious. And... there's NO problem.

God is an outmoded concept. God is the invisible spirit that makes the wind blow.

Con Men understand that we all have memories of our parents from the first four or five years of life, and they're all the same. A parent sets down rules. A parent hands out punishment. A parent loves you unconditionally.

A Con Man creates an Imaginary God in the image of your parents... and then says, "You can't be in contact with this God unless you have Jesus as your Savior, because God is so perfect, he can't stand being in contact with your sinful nature. You need Jesus to remove the sin first."

That's a con game. A cheap, ridiculous con game. And 70% of Americans buy into it. A few decades ago, that would have been 85%.

what we're trying to do is, have an intelligent discussion about the merits of the Theory of Evolution. Are there any legitimate objections? When Randy gives you his Opinion, that slows us down. It would be so much better if Randy would post any possible legitimate objections. And if the Theory of Evolution is true, they will have legitimate answers that prove Evolution took place and we are the result.

If you look at the time frame of life on earth... it doesn't seem reasonable that a "personal God" would have needed 3 billion years to produce algae.

The time frame is the major reason why scientists say, "There doesn't appear to be any Designer speeding things along."

Keith Carrizosa on September 4, 2009 8:47 PM

"Nazism happend because Germany had no cause--no cultural, no historical, no vocational: nothing. This is what caused it. Darwin is not responsible for Germany's lack of any kind of identity. It started long before Darwin from all the way back to the 30 Years War."

To add onto the whole Hitler thing. I believe that there was a possibility that Hitler had Jewish ancestry, but he had his minions destroy his family records. I don't want to make this about that because there is no proof, but it does say something else (aside from the above) even further that the whole ancestry thing wasn't that important, particularly in relation to the all important hostility and agressiveness of the movement.

Roger, why do you bother? Wouldn't you rather read a good book than all these posts?

Ebert: I keep waiting for Chet to come back and tell me I don't receive pay checks.

Dear Roger, I blather therefore I exist.

stuff:
* Attempts to draw meaningful ties from Hitler to Darwinism – and then to blame Darwinism for Hitler – could only appeal to the biased and the dense. Hitler believed in other things, too. Including Christianity, Nationalism and marketing. Are Christianity, Nationalism and marketing also responsible for WWII and the Holocaust?
* I’m rarely troubled by this ‘What they teach my kids in school’ pseudo-issue. I’ve raised two boys and there isn’t a damned thing they are exposed to in school that isn’t influenced, filtered, re-taught or un-taught by their dad. Really, folks – as with Obama’s schoolchildren address – exposing children to ideas is nothing to be all that scared of.
* I still cannot figure out why something we cannot completely figure out is also something so many people on both sides are absolutely certain we’ve figured out.
*It was stated above (paraphrasing) that this debate does a disservice to the Theory of Evolution in that it chips away at it. I disagree. Like any debate in which there is a Truth (and there is a Truth here, right?) … it’s good that it gets kicked around, chewed on, trashed, celebrated … and if it takes 100 years (you know, 100 years for an issue that is essentially the Essence of Life is a tiny!) or 1000 years for The Truth to emerge … that’s part of the fun of it.

Oh, get the hell outta here, Mark Hughes.

No, I don't mean "go away." I mean "geddaddaheah," you know I like you.

Your reply to my question had no respect for it. Nor has evolutionary theory saved your life in any way, shape or form. Vague answers like how it's enlightened you or provide "insight" or whatever are no different than the responses of someone entranced in a lunatic cult.

So? Who here has used evolutionary theory in a practical way to their benefit, apart from, as I said, and meant the rudeness, getting a hack job in a laboratory, or the like?

I wonder if there is anyone who has commented in this thread, or even anyone who's read parts of it, who have changed their "opinion" on this matter. I doubt it. The most sophisticated arguments therefore have come to naught.

My simple observation/statement (and likely ignored since it is less than 1000 words and lacking in sophisticated arguments) is this:

Intelligent design is a theory and not provable without evidence (you know, clear evidence of the intelligent folks behind the "design").

Evolution no longer is a theory and is ridiculously easy to demonstrate in your backyard (not to mention the mountains of documented examples).

Panspermia may have credibility as a theory.. perhaps I.D. too... frankly, I don't care. Regardless, lifeforms evolve on this planet. Just because there are some lifeforms who's genetic development are not understood, that does not invalidate the all other observations (facts).

Humans have evolved the most amazing ability to see the world with their imagination... not their eyes. It makes for some great movies but a poor reckoning of reality. It's cool to see a prominent individual (yeah, you Mr. Ebert) who can exist comfortably and objectively in both worlds. Cheers!

Dan wrote:

The ToE has enormous practical applications, and has had since Darwin first proposed it. You give a perfect example in your comment, namely inoculation/vaccination. When biologists develop vaccines, they must begin with a thorough understanding of the virulence and how it evolves. For example, why has HIV-1/2 evolved over the decades to assume multiple guises which differ from place to place across the globe? The virus itself is mapped out in a phylogenic (Darwinian) tree of life, and it's various progenitors and offspring are placed within that tree...

The invention of vaccines predated Darwin, had nothing whatsoever to do with Evolutionary theory and still doesn't. The mere method of "mapping out a virus" has nothing to do with this theory and more than the Theory of Relativity can be said the causator of pencils and papers. Furthermore, the well known fact that viruses can alter their characteristics does not make a case for Darwin's supposition of random origins of anything in any way.

And for the case of "HIV," although it is a popular criminal in a pop science drama: HIV is a retrovirus. It is dead. It does not attack anything. It's the byproduct of as yet undiscovered process -- unless, as pointed out by various scientists (look up Peter Duesberg), the cause of AIDS is inoculations and vaccinations to begin with -- by exhausting the immune system -- which would also not be the result of Darwin's random "selection."

Of course, the longest thread in history is deservedly reserved for the question of whether or not the newest Uhura is hotter than the older Uhura in the Star Trek movies.

(answer: she is).

Ebert wrote: Not on DVD! Damn.

Exactly! Followed by a huge WTF dudes?! I mean, I live on a planet where all those stupid Porky movies have been released on DVD in a special box-set! Meanwhile, you can't get Robert Altman's favorite movie. Or "The Magnificent Ambersons" (1942) - Orson Welles.

However and for those like me who SHALL NOT BE THWARTED:

http://retrovision.tv/browse/

Approximately 1,900 movies in flash format FREE online; they're in the realm of Public Domain! About 25% only play in the U.S. though. You can search or browse through Categories:

Adventure
Cartoons
Comedy
Conspiracy Theory
Crime
Cult Film
Drama
Educational
Favorites
Film Noir
Japanese Monsters/Godzilla
Horror
Kung Fu
Musical
Newsreels
PBS
Pirate
Horror
Sci-Fi
Serials
Sherlock Holmes
Silent
Space Films
Star Trek
TV Shows
UFO
USA ONLY
Video Feeds
Viral Video
War
Westerns
World War II
Zombies

And there's no icky porn, no viruses, it's a nice clean site. And they've got "20,000 Leagues under the Sea" (1916) in the Pirate category! How cool is that?! Oooo, I wonder if there's a giant squid monster...?

Indian Idiot (H.W.) wrote: "Don't understand why people can't just go into their garden like Marie did, take a whiff of fresh air and be glad to be alive."

Uh...'cause they're mostly men and like playing with their winkies? Smile. Meanwhile and because Roger made me curious enough to look, I've been over at Darwinima's site reading about Sexual Strategies Theory in evolutionary psychology.

I think men, more so than women, are failed evolutionary constructs - at least psychologically speaking. For they don't need to be hunter/gatherer types anymore (you can buy dinner now, you can rent shelter) but the old systems they designed are still in place and continuing to exert an influence, in terms of partly defining "what a real man is" - and so they resist change and go towards it kicking and screaming, as God forbid you should look "gay" dude.

Sigh.

As in truth, it's not just about sex vs babies, with men. It's about power. It's about being admired by other men in the process too. I have 10 cows. Really? I have 12. You only have to watch a music video to see what I'm talking about...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2tMV96xULk&feature;=fvsr

Who is that aimed at, if not other men? Who's he trying to impress? There ya go. I mention it because it's part of evolutionary psychology of the male and it factors into whether or not they get laid. IE: How they approach the female.

And speaking for myself, I find that sort of posturing bravado utterly repugnant. Whereas Billie Joe Armstrong, lead singer for the band Green Day? Totally my cup of tea!

And he's married (2 kids) and bi-sexual. :)

Note: I'm basically reacting to Darwinima's examples (what he refers to on his site) and assuming he's aka: William Tooke, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology SUNY-Plattsburgh - yes?

Question: why is it, that whenever men study anything to do with sex, they look primarily at what other men have had to say about about it?

I'll say it again:

Economics, economics, economics, etc.

It's about power and that means money. With money, a women can have & raise children without needing to marry or stay in a failed marriage. That doesn't mean the presence of a male (father) isn't necessary, it is, as kids need good examples of both genders. And if not the dad, then a friend. Rather, that "who" mom is with, won't be influenced now by needing to think about money.

Look at educated women who are able to support themselves - and who they chose to be with; it speak volumes.

Just ask Chaz. :)

@ Kevin Patterson, re: "I find the idea of fundamentalism a bit odd considering Jesus was incredibly liberal for his time."

Have you even *read* the gospels? ;o/

The fun-but-inaccurate game of trying to paint Jesus as a conservative or liberal is an old one. The records as such indicate a more complicated POV. In terms of "fundamentalism"s root value in the supremacy of the Scriptures, Jesus was very literally a conservative and fundamentalist.

But I wouldn't deign to label Him one, just because of that. I would, however, have a little more understanding of "fundamentalists," and some of the issues they grapple with internally.

Also, to keep true to the thread: a snippet of evolutionary thought for Mr. Ebert.

The connection between Nazism and Darwin is possibly not an outgrowth of "right-wingers" and all those other people you have little patience and sympathy for, but instead an outgrowth of the explosive APPLICATION OF DARWIN'S THEORY to areas of "science" outside biology, in the decades following publication.

Some of these applications were beneficial, but others (especially in the "soft" sciences like psychology and social science and economics) were/are at best suspect and at worst lead quite reasonably to eugenics, etc.

This was taking place well before Bill O'Reilly and Ben Stein and Glenn Beck, so I don't think it intellectually honest, Mr. Ebert, to lay these things at their feet, or the feet of the more radicalized right.

It was the misapplication of Darwin that produced some of the socio-economic nightmares of the 20th century.

Cheers!

Ebert: Surely many of the teachings of Jesus are at odds with new face of conservatism.

Quote....Randy;I dissented, on the other thread. The point that I made is that it seems to me that dog breeding is NOT what is happening in nature. Dog breeding introduces the element of purpose. I doubt that dog breeders take their capital investment (their breeding stock) and wait for random mutations to occur and then be acted on by natural selection. Dog breeders purposely (read: intelligently) select for traits. It is not random in any sense. It is not unguided - which is supposed to be the hallmark of ToE.

Yes, by applying our intelligence we can accomplish something very quickly. But we aren't creating the natural forces that are changing the dog. That's built into their DNA, we're simply harnassing the power of evolution for our own benefit. What you are saying is, "rocks don't fall because of the Theory of Gravity, they fall because they've been pushed off the side of the cliff". You are correct in one aspect. If you wait beside the cliff for a rock to fall, you may be waiting for a long time to see the evidence of gravity. But if you have someone stand at the top of the cliff, throwing rock after rock over the side you will have many example of 'something' happening. What I and others are trying to say is, that 'something' is still gravity. You are saying, the rock falls because someone is intelligently throwing it, with purpose. Why would the rock fall without purpose?! We're saying, the purpose has nothing to do with it. The intelligent choice to throw the rock has nothing to do with whether or not gravity is acting upon it. However, you don't have to look at animal husbandry if the presence of a human choice is getting in the way of seeing the bigger picture.

I gave you at least one very lengthy and detail evolutionary moment in our own history in the last thread. Something that happened to us, the result of random, unguided evolution. (see "By Karl on July 22, 2009 11:31 PM " in Win Ben Steins Mind thread)

This was a very clear example of how "natural/unguided" selection works just as well as "intelligent" selection in dog breeding.

This addressed your point of dissention directly, yet you had no answer to it.

"Ebert: I have corrected. My bad."

Mr. Ebert uses the phrase, "my bad." I am fairly sure that Merwyn Grote has formulated a law forbidding this, or, if he hasn't, he is about to.

;o/

Ebert: Good gravy!

Some comments on what is science, what isn't science, what is a theory what isn't a theory, etc etc.

I find Potholer54 on youtube has excellent videos on the subject for anyone interested.

From his channel.
"I've been a journalist for 20 years, 14 years as a science correspondent. My degree is in geology, but while working for a science magazine and several science programs I had to tackle a number of different fields, from quantum physics to microbiology."
He is now Semi-retired and living in Australia.

The Scientific Method Made Easy - By Potholer54
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14

and the much more entertaining

Creation 'Science' Made Easy - By Potholer54
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xO7IT81h200

Thanks, Roger, for stimulating so much animated discussion here. Films both good and bad, being mirrors of the cultures from which they spring, SHOULD stimulate discussions like this. Too bad more of them don't do that. Thanks for getting the Ben Stein thread going last year and for reviving the discussion now...

"It's alive ... it's alive!"

It seems to me that the Darwin debate is between believers and non-believers-- in Intelligent Design. Since ID can't be scientifically proven, and Evolution can be, then isn't it just a matter of faith? So shouldn't the argument move from a matter of scientific accuracy, and move onto the existence of God? And after that argument, if you have proved God's existence (for if He doesn't exist, where's the intelligence of the design?), then you would have to move into the argument of whether or not God created man in his image, or just created creation, letting the chips fall where they may, even if he knew where those chips would fall, no? So here's a few arguments for God's existence I learned in my intro to philosophy class. I know you've already blogged on this topic, but since you brought up evolution once again, why not recycle this gem of an argument? Btw, this is coming straight from my notes from class (I have a whole lotta time to waste rummaging through my things). I hope I don't appear a blowhard.

Natural Theology- trying to find God's existence through reason and experience.

3 PROOFS OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

Ontological--St. Anselm
IF "God" is that than which nothing greater can be thought; AND IF God existed in the mind only (not in reality), which would NOT make him 'that which nothing greater can be thought'; THEN GOD MUST EXIST BOTH IN THE MIND AND REALITY.
Flimsy, I know.

Cosmological--St. Thomas Aquinas
IF every event in nature has a cause, IF nothing in nature can be a cause of itself, AND IF the series of causes cannot be infinite; THEN there must be a first cause. IF there is a first cause, that cause must be our definition of God; THEREFORE GOD MUST EXIST.
I'm not sure if a first cause has to be God. It could just be an accident?

Teleological--again, St. Thomas Aquinas
IF the universe exhibits order and intelligence, and IF anything that exhibits order must have a designer; THEN the universe must have a designer. IF the universe has a designer, THEN that designer must be divine. THEREFORE GOD EXISTS.

You can see how Darwin's theory of evolution comes into play in diffusing this last argument, for Darwin said that nature orders itself, and that has been proven. We don't need another guy to help us biological organisms get our act together.

Is this post superfluous? Has all this already been talked about? Is this even the right venue to talk about this?

Ebert: It's clear that he's guilty, then it's clear that he's innocent. Texas executes more than the rest of the nation.

i believe it's more than the rest of the planet, not just the nation.

Every time a person swallows, a toxic milieu of germs, acid and food pours right over the windpipe. No intelligent creator would have designed this! Only the beautiful and strange rules of natural selection (in this case, starting with a tube-within-a-tube construct) could have led to such an astonishing and dangerous flaw. Imagine designing a car that takes wiper fluid through the gas tank, then diverts it to the wind shield. People would say you're nuts!

By Spokker on September 4, 2009 11:46 PM
Let me spark the next longest thread on your blog. Daffy Duck is superior to Donald Duck.

"would you like to shoot him now or wait 'til you get home?"

Ebert: How 'bout recipes for canard a l'orange? Marie?

No matter where life comes from, it has to begin...RE

Why does it have to have a beginning? It could have always been.

Ebert: How did it evolve from No-Time into Time?

I believe in the theory of evolution. However, I learned some time ago that arguing with creationists is a waste of time for both parties involved. Having a sensible argument requires having some kind of framework, or common ground on which to begin from. In this debate, there is no common ground. The creationists simply do not occupy the same reality that the Evolutionists do. They cannot argue, because they live in different worlds, where different rules apply.

Oh, wait, seriously now, RDS. You really wrote this:

Darwin found support for his hypothesis in observations of the traits of numerous animals -- this 'hypothesis' has proven over the years to remain intact despite attacks upon it by the likes of Hitler, the Pope or you.

Darwin found no such thing. He observed and then he preached that what he observed is what ought be observed. You either didn't read or have ignored that Darwin wrote in no uncertain terms that there was no such proof. He only hoped for it. You're going to have to concede this, Jabba.

This 'hypothesis' as you put it in quotes -- presuming upon us, I take it, that random origins and selection is the must-be Truth of a True Believer where you're concerned -- endures only because it's not provable. Yet... any day now...

There remains the fact that the only empirical proof that could settle it is the observation in nature of a series of random alterations of one species over a period of eons into what can be termed another species. Not change colors. Not a little group of bugs that have a new tweaker -- if that's been found. Change species. Do you not have this clear in your mind, RDS? Until this observation is made in nature, "evolution" is the mythic wish of a True Believer.

All sorts of proofs for the existence of God were touted, believed real hard just like these (really irate) science kids on this thread do about evolution. And as a matter of fact, these hard-believed proofs come the same way: by reading about it.

Recently a fossil Lemur which had been sitting in somebody's private collection for 17 years was found and declared the new, no kidding, finally, at last, the "missing link." O! final, god-dismissing proof positive that random selection is true and traceable.

This hoo-rah happened to be nothing but fluff for a publisher hawking yet one more book -- which sank. For how many decades now have these "missing links" finally and once and for all, by cracky, proved that the world and universe got here at random, by gum?

And just how stupid and ignorant is anyone who gets along in his little "fantasy world" without this aimless theory of random nuthin', or even PBS? I think the True Believer in evolution is of the same psychology as in any other field: Believe the Truth of Evolution, or thou art damned! For thou aren't Whole without the Truth!

I contend that official science is as dead as official religion, both of them like the charging bull who doesn't know it's been matadored. They're both making an especial amount of noise.
Here's why I contend that:

"Science" at this point is strictly "material," an application of sheerly empirical methods which those who weren't fidgeting around in grade school will remember. As some here have pointed out with opprobrium, ire and superciliousness, "Intelligent Design is not science."

Yet, as some of the Intelligent Design advocates point out just as reasonably, evolution is not science either. For one thing, evolutionary theory flunks the scientific test of probability. It's as much speculation in "how things got here," in sheerly material terms, as the Jujuba Tribe squatting under the night sky imagining gods in the stars. There are reams of chatter here about proof, but little is offered, and of course, we who reject it are infidels. Those who present it will curse us, pretend to feel sorry, etc etc, anything but take the responsibility for that burden.

The notion that "any day now Science will find the answer to this or that" is the shallowest kind of religious faith. It is made of the exact same fabric as "any day now the Fuhrer will lead us to victory at Stalingrad."

And in case any of you vehement I-buh-leeve-preachers here -- Mark -- would like to forget, the institutions you call "Science" have nearly triggered the destruction of this planet more than once. They may yet.

Go ahead and play your games about Darwin not being to blame for Paul McCartney, etc. It's in keeping with your irrational oaths of faith in Science, Evolution and Psychological Marching Music. It is no different from church worship.

And it does not change the fact that the world came within 56 seconds of nuclear war in 1962 (the launching was ordered on the Russian side). Nor that human vivisection has been performed en masse in the name of science -- not that RDS would care, but I don't much approve of monkey's skulls being stripped off and stuck with electrodes, or dogs being bled to death, and so on, either.
The sciences have done tremendous damage. It takes the arrogance of a teenager to reduce this to a little game of blame and avoidance.

And I don't even believe this "global warming" b.s.

I think Steinmetz was right, 90 years ago, the next step in the equation is psychology. Because of that, you True Believers arguing for this random-selection Truth of Everything do indeed sound like matter-bound rednecks to me with an imaginary church of your own.

And I'm sorry, those movie reviews based on "evolutionary psychology" are just dismal, Roger. They're not even a start. Assigning motives like that to the core of the human psyche is jaw-droppingly childish.

The only psychology random evolutionary materialist thought provides is literally mindless -- a mindless motive called "survival" at the very center of your most subjective being. There are those reading who angrily pretend that the Nazis didn't already try operating with a psychology like this, too. But they got right to the point. This was the Schutzstaffel, or SS.

RDS, if only randomly and without intent, pointed out other directions, even in the phony-baloney Carlos Castaneda stories. Yes Castaneda admitted he faked most of his "Don Juan" series. Some of it, he didn't. But Freud and Jung both admitted telepathy must exist. Both Freud and Jung have done damage to the gullible, if less viscerally than --

to the kid who claimed what-about-them-other-genocides; them other genocides didn't include horrible live experiments by Darwinist MDs run amok; no pogrom matched the sheer numbers of methodical mass-culling. Ancient kings stood on piles of severed heads in a village beating their chests. Hitler kept mum while Himmler and the latest greatest social Darwinists put over 20 million people to death in camps, part of a plan to create a "superior race."

Does anybody care to read up on it, rather than huff and puff about how it ain't your god-saint Darwin's fault? I'm certainly not going to kowtow at that statue, myself.

-- Freud and Jung had to admit the existence of telepathy. That's a teensy, weensy little start.

---If the psychological aspects of material sciences continue to be ignored in the institutions (I know for a fact they are being entertained, but only peripherally), the needed innovative sciences will come out of private garages and attics and workshops, as they ever have. The intellectual gravity of a given institution usually prevents it from doing anything but reinforcing the same old shit, recruiting an annual pack of human puppies to paper-train for it.

---Since I wrote things like this on the other thread, experience so far suggests it's invisible, sort of like trying to get a dog to comprehend what's on TV. It doesn't work even when you turn up the volume, RDS.

Ebert: Which pope was that?

The unfortunate aspect of this "debate," is that it belongs in a High School Civics or Social Studies class, not a Science Class. It is qualitatively identical to the other political debates, including Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice. Theological opinions inform the debate as much as they deform the debate.

At the heart of the matter -- for one side -- is this forgotten concern: if (in a particular tradition) we assert that God created man in His image, and if we assert that this meaning of "His image" is that man looks like God (physically, spiritually), then what do we say about God if we assert that man is half a step away from an ape? That is the heart of the theological dilemma.

Similarly, in a controversy across the pond from a few centuries ago: if we are to assert that the pinnacle of all creation (the earth and its inhabitants) is not located at the physical and symbolic "center" of the universe, then what does that mean about the relationship between God and mankind, as opposed to God and the universe itself?

Here is what it means: it it means that either our text is flawed and/or our interpretation of the text needs to be reviewed. Consider that in many ancient languages, we do not have capital letters. To translate the passage as:

God created Adam in His image

and not

God created Adam in his image

is to make an interpretive choice. But, so too is it an interpretive choice to say that "His image," does not mean, for example, "His vision."

That is the problem of this debate. The symbolic interpretations are often given the weight of authority, through which data is then selected.

Further emphasizing the politics over the science, look at the labeling. Each side chooses a label that carries an implicit accusation about the other side. Such is also the case with Pro-Life (asserting the other side disregards life) vs. Pro-Choice (asserting that the other side is dogmatically authoritarian).

As a believer in an "Intelligent Designer," my chief gripe about the ID movement, however, is that this approach stifles the joy of exploration. Admittedly, this accusation may be fired against the Evolution movement, but it is less apparent, except among those who have turned Evolutionary theory into their own theology. And, there are plenty of those people also, who somehow think that evolution disproves the existence of God, when for me and so many others, it reflects an appreciation of God's methods.

Part of the joy in science is in exploring the patterned and ordered nature of nature, yes. And, in this aspect, the ID folk focus on the wide picture, while the Evolutionists focus on the at times microscopic analogies in phenomena. But part of the joy is also in seeking out the anomalies. God's signs are not only in the patterns, but also in the anomalous, and especially the unknown. It is here that the Evolutionists tend to fare better. At least they fare better for now, for as repeatedly mentioned above, it is a theory, an interpretation, which will change.

As we say in my tradition: And God knows best.

Omer M

Peter Fawthrop wrote: "I wrote recently on a different Ebert blog thread about the evolution of the sun. I have a legitimate question, I think. How did the sun evolve, and how did the sun know that we needed its light, and how did it know how to give just the right amount of light and then to move on to a different part of the earth in order to let us sleep by the light of the silvery moon? What does the sun care whether we live in its glory or burn to a crisp in its flames? Why does the moon care enough to provide us with a nightlight?"

Scientists have a term for the answer to your question: the Anthropic Principle. It basically takes what you're saying and looks through it from the other end: if things had been very different, you wouldn't be here to wonder about it. Within limits, had things been just a bit different, some other kind of creature might be here doing the wondering.

Now that they've got the tools - and the tools are being developed and improved all the time because the findings are so tantalizing - scientists have become able to not just detect planets around other stars but also determine some of their characteristics. By now they've found 373 of them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrasolar_planet) and the big question is, of those that appear to be the right distance from their star for liquid water to exist, does it exist, and does the planet support life?

We still haven't found "Instance Two" anywhere...Mars has so far been a dead end with the major question now being, did anything *ever* live there? Europa and Ganymede, two of Jupiter's moons, may have a liquid water ocean underneath a shell of ice...could the processes we see at the bottom of our own oceans drive the presence of life there? And if ever there is an extrasolar planet that looks as though it's got the liquid water and age and other positive signs, the urge to go in for a closer look is going to be huge...but we have no projects to do any such thing.

But if I feel like discovering Instance Two will be the greatest scientific achievement of mankind for generations - bigger than the moon landings.

I just finished watching "Brewster McCloud" again. And holy cow, there's tons of stuff to ferret out! (Awesome!)

Did you know that it's got in-joke movie homages to "The Wizard of Oz" and "Bullitt" with Steve McQueen, and references other such rogue individualists who operate outside the rules and defy authority, along with numerous references to the corrupt nature of authority? And Sally Kellerman's character Louise, is Brewster's mother; an angel who fell from grace owing to having sex with a human?! She keeps him sheltered in the Astrodome (a reference to the heavens) shielding him from worldly influences and engineering the deaths of anyone who threatens him from achieving the goal of the power of flight which she has lost.

I can't exactly quote my source for this, let's just call him "a guy on the internet" who doesn't want be arrested...

"The original screenplay of Brewster McCloud was entitled Brewster McCloud's (Sexy) Flying Machine and had passed from studio to studio over the years, developing a mystique as one of the most famous non-produced scripts in Hollywood. Despite Bob Dylan's interest in the script at one time, the film project seemed doomed until music producer Lou Adler (he managed The Mamas and the Papas) took an interest in it and passed it along to Robert Altman. Brian McKay, who had previously worked with Altman on TV series like Bonanza, took a stab at revising the screenplay but soon dropped out of the project over creative differences with the director, leaving Altman to fashion his own script, often on the fly. Doran William Cannon, the original author, was denied any involvement in the film and was outraged when he eventually saw the finished version. He had also experienced severe disappointment over Otto Preminger's botched adaptation of his screenplay for Skidoo (1968). Cannon, nevertheless, confronted Altman in a bizarre telephone conversation which was later partially quoted in The New York Times" -

Altman: Your screenplay was a piece of crap!
Cannon: My screenplay was perfect.
Altman: It was crap.
Cannon: You bought it!
Altman: You sold it!

Chuckle; it's amazing what you can learn when you reads the comments posted at sneaky site; smile. Oh, and Bud Cort... man, has he ever lived an interesting life! I think he'd have been welcomed at O'Rourke's...

"I had fallen madly in love with an underground actress named Patti D'Arbanville. I took her to Spain and we had a wild time, and MGM said it was paying all the expenses and when we finally left our hotel in Madrid the hotel handed me a bill for $1000. All I had was one pound note in my pocket. So they put us in jail! In Jail! Patti had also taken the curtains out of the hotel room, and that didn't help, but she said she needed curtains. Finally MGM came and bailed us out. And that caused a run-in with Bob Altman."

"But getting back to Patti, Cort proposed marriage but Patti scoffed and said she'd never marry anybody. Cort, however, smitten by love, pulled one last caper that for sheer audacity stretches credulity. But this is what he said:

"Patti and I were dining at the San Lorenzo restaurant in London, and I was trying to impress her so much that I went wheeling over to a table where Princess Margaret and Lord Snowdon were seated. I gave the princess a big kiss on the cheek, she looked aghast, recovered and then introduced me to all the people at her table. Patti just laughed. I still lost her." - Bud Cort: Last of the Great Romantics? (May 27, 1973) By Ray Loynd, Herald-Examiner Staff Writer

And Darwin was British, and that restaurant was in London and so it all connects! :)

One more disparate voice somewhere in the chorus hoping to be recognized in a sargasso sea of posts, but...

I believe in the big bang, yet I believe in a big banger of some sort.

When I think of Christ, I believe in Christianity.

When I think of a shirtless Robin Williams, I believe in Evolution.

The two things are not incompatible and anyone who thinks they are is just afraid of the slippery slope effect shattering all their beliefs.

The days of summer are too preciously few to waste our time indoors talking about this.

Sorry, I forgot to fill in my name before.

I've noticed numerous posts from the Creationist/ID side claiming a conflict between evolution and morality, or between "survival of the fittest" and altruism. What these posters are missing is that evolution isn't just biological, it's also social, and morality is, itself, a product of evolution. We see it in other species besides ours, though ours has developed the most complex systems of morality on the planet, along with the most disagreements over what is moral. In the case of altruism, having it has proven to have made us more, rather than less fit as a species.

Unfortunately, morality tends to be hijacked by religions that claim it to be absolute and unchanging, rather than something that evolved and is still evolving. Being absolute and unchanging is, in a changing environment, not a good survival trait.

The word "theory" is a sticking point with a lot of these arguments with IDers saying evolution is just a theory and rationalists defining the difference between scientific and common language theories. What I often fail to see is a simple clarification of the term "theory of evolution" which doesn't mean "the theory that evolution occurs," but rather means "the theory of how evolution occurs." It is a small distinction but, I think, an important one.

Ebert: For all the time I've spent defining the proper use of the word theory, I've never seen it explained so succinctly.

Mr. Ebert,

I have been following your recommendations since I was a child. I value your opinion very much. Your strengths and weaknesses are like an open book. Reading a review of yours is something that I have grown accustomed to. Honestly, in the world of criticism, I value your word more than many others. I know that you are not picky and tend to enjoy a movie on its own merits rather than outside influence (A Taste of Cherry comes to mind).

That being said, I think that you have become the coolest man alive. I used to read yours reviews but your blogs are amazing!! You are not afraid of anything and I applaud you. You are fearless, my friend.

Despite your ailments, you are stronger and more insightful before.

When I heard of your cancer and heard news you might not write anymore, I wept. I wept because something in my life would be missing. When you continued strong throughout your sickness, I wept again because of your strength.

I write this acknowledging your strength and your knowledge and your determination that liberalism is not an inherent evil.

Take care.

Ok guys... After a lot of thought, I have solved the ID-evolution problem. ID proponents think that evolutionary theory "kills God" by taking his direct, literal role out of the equation... Evolutionists argue that God is still a possibility, but that the truth of his role in our development is pretty small, if anything.

What I have discovered, as if told to me by God himself, is that the totality of existence (infinite alternate universes, multi-dimensional in nature, beyond the scope of our everyday lives) narrows like a pyramid and peaks within the human mind itself. That means that God's labyrinthine, unfathomable orgasm of what we call reality can be said to have been brought into existence for one purpose (if you are someone who needs to have a purpose for reality other than the fact of its being): the existence of human beings with minds capable of experiencing its infinite wonder. And, oh, are we ever capable. Personally, we are in awe when we really take the time to reflect on it. Collectively, our governments and scientific endeavors strive to decipher it in concrete terms. Our very lives are driven by the discovery of the unknown! Therefore, if evolution did happen, it was just a biological step towards what are now collective, knowledge-enhancing scientific steps. And just like the evolution of the creature, the evolution of our ethics and methods of discovering the mystery will weed out those which are unfit (see: Hitler et. al). Evolution appears to be the mode of progress, and not only biologically. Cultures evolve, as they have and will continue to do, technology evolves, everything evolves, in a very general sense of the word. Our minds themselves evolve. We "let go of childish things." And we continue to learn and grow in our personal lives. Every moment we are moving towards becoming a different person. A more whole one, hopefully. Spiritual evolution is immensely important, and unavoidable. "Die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain." Or, on the happier side, redeem thyself. Therefore, I shall concur that if evolution did happen, which appears to be the case, it would not be out of God's hands. Rather, it would be the inevitable process that was predetermined in the fabric that formed what we call "existence." On the flip side, to say that God had to some how "form" something from nothing is an insult to God, since God, having created all of reality, would surely not go, "Oh wait a minute, I forgot to make life! Oops!"

Ebert: How did it evolve from No-Time into Time?

"A team of physicists has claimed that our view of the early Universe may contain the signature of a time before the Big Bang.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7440217.stm

Ebert: Good gravy! Thank you for that link. It is spellbinding.

I just finished watching "The Hustler" and "City Lights" for the first time. That makes me just a LEEDLE bit smarter than I was yesterday, don'tcha think? I'm going to finish reading "Much Ado About Nothing" for the first time, tomorrow. Then I'll come back and kick all your butts with my newfound life wisdom- What, in the name of Creation! :P

To many Christians, the Bible is not a textbook, but a guidebook.

Secondly, gravity, as with evolution, is a scientific theory. But we do not spend countless hours debating the physics of "walking on water".

Lastly, science is agnostic. Its purpose is not to invalidate religion nor support it. That is left up to us.

When an ID advocate says “ID is not creationism” I never answer with “is too!” That would give them just what they want. Rather, I explain to those in the audience who might not be sure:

Critics generally define “creationism” as any strategy that promotes unreasonable doubt of evolution and proposes a design-based alternate “explanation.” That includes ID. The public generally defines “creationism” as an honest belief that “kinds” were created independently, suddenly, and usually within the last 10,000 years, per several mutually contradictory “literal” interpretations of Genesis. ID does not directly support those origins accounts, so it is not “creationism” as most people understand it. Most fans of ID believe those accounts, however, and identify themselves as “creationists.” Some promoters of ID might privately believe them too, but most will grudgingly admit that at least the young-earth (YEC) variety is not supported by evidence.

More importantly, ID advocates routinely bait-and-switch the two definitions. Not everyone in the audience is a hopeless YEC. If you let them think that you can’t tell between YEC and the “don’t ask, don’t tell” ID strategy, who do you think looks more closed-minded?

Speaking of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” I’m still waiting for Randy’s answers to my follow on questions. A link will suffice of they are clearly stated elsewhere.

'There remains the fact that the only empirical proof that could settle it is the observation in nature of a series of random alterations of one species over a period of eons into what can be termed another species. Not change colors. Not a little group of bugs that have a new tweaker -- if that's been found. Change species. Do you not have this clear in your mind, RDS? Until this observation is made in nature, "evolution" is the mythic wish of a True Believer.'
----------------------------------------------------------
The pessimism you have isn't substantiated either; anymore than I'm fat or I have princess Lea on a leash. How do you get through a day with that?
Darwin was not a cult leader nor did he have any claims to the divine, as Mohammed did with Islam.

The key word is 'eons'.
But lacking direct observation of that probable process for the slow 'orderly' transitions of species, that Darwin suspected, why should that turn over his theory altogether or be cause to rail against it over the misuse of, and the lack of understanding, from others?
It's a question I've puzzled over too. I'm not a biologist; but my GUESS is the transitions into that 'box', a SPECIES, that doesn't change -- as a dog's absurd variations cannot make another species... by way of perceptible increments or lumpy traits, has a trigger mechanism that can somehow get thrown. Thrown in a rapid way, to define the group as forever of that 'species'.
I'm unclear though, after reading Gould's 'Panda's Thumb', many years back, as to how the science of Evolution has adjusted to findings that the line between species is sometimes blurred -- something appropriately about snails? Stephen Jay Gould didn't seem flummoxed at the possibility species transformed rapidly, nor did he, as I recall, challenge Darwin.
It has even been speculated that Kafaka, your chimp, if he's got certain traits, could mate with certain humans to produce a chimera. The progeny though infertile, as a mule, would suggest the existence of a transitional capacity within genes. Not that God hates fags...
BTW, The book 'Next' (2006)[that could be a good movie -- but one, all too likely to get royally botched] by Michael Crighton, delves into those possibilities of genetics; as well as an impassioned critique of the misuses and comic absurdities in play with science and medicine; particularly, in the legal realm, such as the unethical 'ownership' of someone's genes, in today's science departments.

The animals of the Galapagos that Darwin studied point to such a probability for the slow progress of transition into specie. These animals, though different species owing to isolation, are very closely related; for example the specialized beaks of related birds -- of different species.
Survival by way of mutations is the obvious explanation. Are they really 'all' unbreedable with the similar species?
You seem to jump to man's tendency to 'sin' as the reason for, evolutionary theory and to criticize it's specifics, too -- it's rather Panglossian: God sets us up to knock us down -- 'and watch out for those devils ye reprobate literalists!' It's possible, but usually the simplest most logical explanation is true.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution doesn't depend on that impossible observation over 'eons' alone, any more than OJ's guilt depended on the glove 'fitting'. Inferences and evidence with evolution, as has been pointed out, cannot be dismissed.
Just because corrupt people target evolution's ideas to leverage some evil end doesn't mean evolution is invalid -- or scientific method.

I promised not to respond anymore to you, Tom, so I'm ignoring the latest silly, rude insult. 'Bye-bye.

Indian Idiot (H.W.): "Tell me Mark, why must you and Bill Hays (don't start again Bill) jump down the throat of someone so much as casting half a shadow of an aspersion on evolutionary theory?"

Bill and I didn't jump down anyone's throats over expressed (negative) views about evolutionary theory. It is the manner and tone of certain comments -- people who insulted most everybody else posting here, mocking their intelligence, getting hostile, etc -- that garnered the "jumping down the throat".

Two simple questions for the Creationist, Divine Designer, believers or promoters:

What was the reason why your celestial designer created men with nipples? Shoddy workmanship, if you ask me!

Who created your creator?

Ebert: Cosmic ancestry rules out ID for the same reasons it doesn't work on earth. No matter where life comes from, it has to begin, and there is no way ID can account for that other than a magic trick.

Hum, looks like you might have me about cosmic ancestry ruling out ID. At least according to wikipedia's definition of Cosmic Ancestry where it states:

Cosmic ancestry holds that life is neither the product of supernatural creation, nor is it spontaneously generated through abiogenesis, but that it has always existed in the universe. It claims that the evolutionary progression from simpler to more complex organisms utilises pre-existing genetic information and does not compose this information as it occurs.

Since cosmic ancestry does not provide a theory for how life began or how it evolves, but simply that it has 'always existed', I'm not sure how they come up with the idea that they can eliminate theories that answer those questions. But I don't really care.

What I do like about the theory is that it provides a plausible explanation for how evolution occurred on earth since it is becoming more and more evident based on advances in biogenetics that life could not have evolved on earth 'all by itself' in the timeframes indicated by the fossil record.

Cosmic ancestry also provides a reasonable theory for the existance of life in the rest of the iniverse and how it is likely not much more advanced than our's. Which explains why we never see super advanced alien space travellers very often.

Cheers.

If we lived in Greek times, would this debate be about whether or not "Gods" created the universe?

The universe is too amazing to have come into existence by itself. Therefore it must have been created by...an even more amazing supernatural being that was created by...

I'm sure someone has pointed out by now that arguing on the internet is like being in the Special Olympics right?

Ebert: How 'bout recipes for canard a l'orange? Marie?

"Canard a l'Orange" Ingredients: 2 ducklings (4-5lbs. each) 2 tsp. salt 1/2 tsp. pepper 1 clove garlic, peeled and cut crosswise into halves 1/2 cup dry white wine 1/2 cup orange marmalade Sauce: 2 Tbsp. butter or margarine 1 can (13 3/4 oz.) condensed chicken broth 1/2 cup orange marmalade 1/4 cup dry white wine 1/4 cup orange juice 2 tsp. cornstarch 2 tsp. lemon juice 2 Tbsp.slivered orange peel Directions: 1. If frozen, let ducklings thaw according to package directions. Remove giblets,necks, and livers from ducklings. Reserve livers for sauce; if desired, reserve giblets and necks for soup stock. Remove and discard excess fat. Wash, drain, and pat dry with paper toweling. Rub cavities with salt, pepper, and garlic. Fasten neck skin to back with a skewer. Tuck tail ends into cavities. Tie legs together and tuck wing tips under ducklings. Prick skin generously to release fat. Place ducklings, breast side up, on a rack in a large shallow roasting pan. 2. Roast at 350 F. for 2 to 2 1/2 hours or until legs can be moved easily, basting several times during roasting and removing accumulated drippings about every 30 minutes. Remove ducklings from oven and spread surface with mixture of wine and marmalade. Return to oven and continue roasting for 10 minutes. 3. For sauce, melt butter in a skillet. Add duckling livers and saute until lightly browned. Remove and chop livers. Add chicken broth, marinade, wine, orange juice and cornstarch blended with lemon juice. Cook, stirring constantly over low heat for 10 minutes or until sauce bubbles and thickens. Stir in chopped livers and orange peel. 4. Transfer ducklings to a heated platter. Remove skewers and twine. Garnish, if desired, with watercress and orange slices. Reheat sauce if necessary and serve with duckling. 8 servings. I bet Darwin would have liked that recipe and so it's still not off topic! :)

Tom Dark -

Viruses are good candidates because they're open to the same processes of change and selection that any other creature is. Nothing you said discounts them from the discussion. Even Behe accepts HIV as a potential product of evolution - in fact, there was a discussion with him not too long ago about this very thing. Behe dismissed the HIV example as nothing special, but a "mere" grad student called him out astringently because of a nasty little protein called vpu, which has undergone such dramatic change from its predecessor in SIV that it has developed whole new binding sites that allow it to infect humans. HIV-2, I believe, doesn't have an equivalent vpu at all. Viruses are good studies because, whereas it might take tens or hundreds of thousands of years for a new species to develop, it has only taken about fifty or sixty years for HIV to disseminate into the kind of diversity we see today due to their high mutation rate.

HIV is but one example of a larger tableaux. Other organisms have emerged that, if not new species altogether, are of the sort that have never been seen before. New functions emerge out of what creationists ostensibly call immutable DNA (Lenski's citrate transporting bacteria being one example). Many mutations are actually quite neutral. They're accumulating constantly. One recent study actually compared two related individuals separated by several generations in order to calculate the mutation rates between them. There are changes, and they do occur. All it takes is for a single change to become fixed in the population, whether by selection or by genetic drift, over long periods of time. New alleles become fixed, old ones are purged from the genome. Two populations diverge from each other and become different altogether over millions of years. There are differences between humans - not just appearances, but something like, say, sickle cells (which I believe is the result of a single mutation), lethal at times but beneficial enough to be prevalent, the kind of thing that seems cheaply put together by a random process, not by an intelligent designer.

Ralph Seelke, who is a professor and yet somehow doesn't understand evolution, once said that cocktails drugs will ravage HIV because the virus can't mutate to compensate. And yet it does, resisting all drugs - sometimes it even undergo further mutations and becomes more fit than ever. This can possibly take at least four mutations. According to Seelke's own experiments, this is impossible. Adaptations that take more than one or two mutations, as he says, can't happen. So clearly his experiments are flawed.

Furthermore, part of the genius of Darwin was in noting the sheer putative pragmatism of nature - body plans and skeletal structures used over and over and over. Our entire classification system is based on the idea of evolution. This has only been strengthened as we are allowed to peer into the DNA of organisms. One of Ken Miller's (quite a religious man himself) arguments is that a blood-clotting gene, endemic to most land-based mammals, is sitting in the whale genome, totally inactivated. Clearly, descent with modification is the best and perhaps only answer. Every creature is a modification of the one before it.

The rest of what you said is scattered like a creationist minefield with various fallacies. I'll go through them one by one. The tactic of the creationists and ID proponents to make evolution look like dogma, replete with capitalizations, I think stems from the misunderstandings of evolution and the incredulity that follows when said creationist just can't understand why others dismiss his misunderstandings. Behe and Dembski and the like have been discredited by scientists many realms above them. Dembski still can't figure out Dawkins's WEASEL program, which is something a programmer could create in a day. And instead of recalibrating their own theories when presented with new information, they have to rage against spectral anomalies that aren't there, a kind of strawman of evolution they've created in their minds. I think that it's dishonest.

Many scientists actually decried the way in which the Ida fossil had been turned into an evolutionary carnival. It's an interesting fossil that shores up our understanding, but it's just one of thousands of interesting fossils. That distinction has to be made. They were not pulling rank. They're autonomous individuals voicing their own concerns.

Many mathematicians have used the probability argument, but it tends to fail without a greater understanding of biology. Most importantly, it ignores adaptation, or at least exaptation (moving away from deleterious effects). The whole point of the Dawkins program is to illustrate (rather crudely but effectively) that a string of characters, which would take all the time since the Big Bang until now to find randomly, would instead with some kind of selection take a lunchbreak. Maybe the program's off and it would take a day. Or a week. Or a month. It doesn't matter. Its purpose is to show that evolution could occur within a reasonable timeframe.

It's also contradictory to absolve evolution for some behavior and yet blame it for others. The entire argument is absurd anyway. Evolution is merely a process, and science is merely a tool. Because of the process we have evolved to be as compassionate as we are aggressive, and because of the tools we can do as much good as we can evil. How about blaming the people with the hands on the trigger? The same hands that could potentially save lives or help others. The Nazis themselves fundamentally misunderstood this entire concept (evolution is not about who is stronger), and it's funny because Hitler was actually quite religious and believed in the immutability of species (foxes remain foxes, as he says). But it wasn't religion that drove Hitler. It was Hitler that drove Hitler.

Nor is evolution some nihilistic, atheistic paradigm. It is quite compatible with a designer. ID does not have sole privileges to that idea.

Quote...C. ClarkWhat I often fail to see is a simple clarification of the term "theory of evolution" which doesn't mean "the theory that evolution occurs," but rather means "the theory of how evolution occurs." It is a small distinction but, I think, an important one.

Excellent. You've boiled it down into gravy.

And by comparison. ID is not a Theory, scientifically speaking, because it can only focus on 'that' something happened and cannot give any insight whatsoever on 'how' something happened.

Trying again: who here has a personal story about how evolutionary theory has improved their lives personally?

I don't have Polio.

If we blame Darwin for the things the Nazis did, maybe we should start blaming Newton also, because if there was no gravity the Nazis would have been too busy trying not to float towards outer space to be thinking of causing the Holocaust.

Roger,
Thanks for taking the time to write your initial review of this movie and carefully monitor the thread that developed from it. I'll try to stick to the main points. I remember reading your initial review of this movie and respecting your courage and honesty in stating how bad it really was and why you thought so.
I personally got curious about this movie from reading about it in blogs like Pharyngula, Respectful Insolence, Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy, and Expelled Exposed and hearing about it in podcasts like The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe and I have mainly continued to follow it in those sources.
I remember being disgusted by the film makers' lack of integrity when they kicked P.Z. Myers out of a promotional viewing of a movie that they had recruited him to be interviewed for and included him in the final cut of. I also admired the creative way that P.Z. used his computer from the mall outside the theater to spread the word about what was happening.
However, I don't follow Pharyngula very closely now because so much of it seemed to be about making fun of religious beliefs and encouraging his readers to pester people who have religious beliefs.
There is a running argument in scientific and skeptical circles about whether science has to be anti-religion or whether it is possible to be an intellectually honest scientist and still have religious beliefs. This popped up again last month when Francis Collins was being confirmed for director of the NIH. There is an interesting discussion of this in Respectful Insolence from about August 15.
Personally, I firmly support the view that it is possible to be an honest, effective and productive scientist and still have religious beliefs, provided that you have a clear understanding of what science and religion are and what they are not.
As I see it, science is our attempt to learn as much as we can about ourselves and our world and the universe that we exist in using methods that can be repeated and confirmed by other people. With these methods, we observe and measure ourselves and the universe around us and develop theories that explain and fit those observations and measurements and make predictions about further tests that we can make that will tell us if those theories are correct. Evolution is one of those theories and it continues to be so because it passes those tests and makes useful predictions.
Religion is our attempt to answer the questions that science cannot answer because the answers cannot be observed and tested with the methods of science. These include questions like why are we here, what happens to us after we die, and what should we do to be “good”?
Many religions like the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church support the idea that science and religion are not necessarily contrary to each other. This also fits well with my religious beliefs which come from being raised in a denomination that was based on the idea that the churches should agree on the fundamentals required for salvation and leave everything else up to the conscience of the believer. (That is a very different concept of a fundamentalist from what is currently prevalent.)
I will conclude by suggesting two books that I have read recently for a more detailed discussion of these issues. The first is Evolution What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters by Donald R. Prothero. This has some very amusing illustrations and is well written, but the second part in particular can be heavy reading because it is written about paleontology by a working paleontologist. The second is Monkey Girl Evolution, Religion, and the Battle for America’s Soul by Edward Humes. This is told more from the point of view of a journalist and covers the Creation/Intelligent Design/Evolution debate in the Kansas State School Board (which seems to have moved to the Texas School Board) and the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case, which will probably set the legal precedent for this issue for years to come.

Hi Roger,
A little off the subject perhaps, but I'd like to declare a moratorium on people exploiting the evil of Nazism to make spurious points. There is surely nothing easier than claiming your opponent in some way mirrors Nazi ideology to score cheap points. I've heard it so many times in various different arguments, and it's invariably incorrect, not to mention lazy and insulting.
John

Ebert: Somebody told me there's a web law stating:

Whenever you evoke Hitler in supporting your argument, you've lost.

For Peter Fawthrop,

The sun is not a biological organism, so the theory of evolution does not apply to it. The sun is a giant fusion reactor out there in space that our planet orbits around. It may change over time as it runs out of hydrogen to fuse to make helium and switches to fusing helium and then other elements. Those changes will affect us, perhaps even in the next few hundred million years. But, those changes are not evolution, any more than your hair falling out or your eye sight going bad as you get older is evolution.

For good information about the sun, the planets, their moons and the myriad other objects in our universe, I suggest Astronomy Cast, http://www.astronomycast.com/. It is very listenable and only semi-technical.

Also, the theory of evolution tells how life changes once it gets going as something that we could see and recognize and define as life. It does not attempt to tell how or where that life came from. Those are different questions and the methods of science may be able to address them, but the evidence to test and check those answers will be very difficult to detect.

"Looking down a microscope at a human cell, there is not a lot that it seems to share in common with a bacterial cell. But just as linguists have been able to establish that all human languages have a common origin, so it turns out that all cellular life has a common origin. The ancestor of all life on Earth today has been dubbed LUCA, short for Last Universal Common Ancestor. The fact that there must have been a LUCA was first made clear in the 1960s when the genetic code was deciphered and found to be universal. Almost forty years since the code was cracked, the emphasis is now on trying to reconstruct LUCA, but the emerging picture is substantially complicated by new insights into the evolutionary history of life."
- Anthony Poole - http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/poolepaper.html

Ebert: Papers like this are so exciting.

Inherit the Wind- Man I love that scene. I probably shouldn't, but my own mind wants to relate that scene and the struggle between "thinking" and "faith" to the health care crisis. I suppose it's natural since that play was written in response to McCarthyism. We're living in sort of a McCarthyistic fantasy right now with health care reform and a President trying to make a difference without appearing to (or outright trying to) take over the legislature.

How does a people move forward in the world, when there are so many who choose not to think? Health care for all? The thoughtful would say "yes" without question. Rush Limbaugh is the William Jennings Bryan of our time. I give more credit to the sponges of the world.

DR

A modern day eugenicist would favour a health care scheme in which the economically unfit are unable to receive care.

Is it not fascinating that "Darwinism false" and "no free ride" are mantras of the right, while "Darwinism true" and "socialize benefits" are mantras of the left?

In other words (and of course, I'm simplifying), at one pole we have: "I want a nice guy social theory, and a tough guy social policy", and at the other, just the reverse: tough guy theory, nice guy policy.

What's consistent is the urge to balance niceness & toughness in our constructed self-image. (I'm not claiming the two positions are equal. I'm also not claiming that I'm not prone to self-constructed fantasies.)

Are we moving in the direction of seeing ourselves with the clarity necessary to prioritize sustainability and effectiveness over constructed self-image? I'm not inclined towards optimism.

Ebert: The more right wingers complains abut the poor and helpless getting health care, the more they sound like eugenic supporters.

Ebert: On theology, I prefer someone like George Bernard Shaw to Dawkins. He upholds the British tradition of bemusement.

Long have I liked the Shavian wit in this my short life, but let's keep this between us because if Chet the working class hero, who works paycheque to paycheque turns up, you know what the headline in ChetWorld Gazette is going to be..Roger Ebert outs self as SOCIALIST!! Ebert outs self as Nobel laureate admirer!! The Horror!! I particularly like Shaw's Three Plays For Puritans among several others.

Ebert: How did it evolve from No-Time into Time?
I'll tell you how - Imagine me and you, I do, I think about you day and night, it's only right..happy together..how is the weather..get it? The Turtles..LOL it's turtles all the way down..I'm thinking of starting a Lord Byron, Charlie Kaufman, evolution, turtles, Darwin and god cross thread coincidence/synchronicity chain..nah, I'll save it for another day when my boredom/apathy has grown slightly worse..

Re: Majority of Tom's comment on September 6, 2009 12:00 AM - Thank god, thank Darwin, thank evolution, thank whatever happy accident or, design that made people like you Roger, Marie and a fair few others around here..the saner of our lot..we poor humans. LOL at teaching dogs to comprehend telly.. It is mighty difficult 'nay impossible to teach a dog to comprehend TV, but maybe, just maybe if you turn on a woofer/sub-woofer channel they will stop shedding all over your carpet.. :) unless you have the shedding kind, like Boatswain perhaps..nudge..nudge..wink..wink..smile..smile

Other than that silliness, were'nt Hitler & co. i.e. Goebbels etc., more eugenicists than social Darwinists? Karl Heinz above points out some relevant things I thought. Believers..believers..either they're completely unwilling to change/abandon their beliefs, or if they do, they'll spend all the energy and time freed up from feeding the previous belief monkey, go to the polar extreme and start feeding their new monkey 'bananas of interest' 'tee'hee, in which case they might as well have not changed.
Good times 'ye 'ole chimp lovin' contrarian bully 'ye :)

Re: http://retrovision.tv/browse/
Thanks loads for that Marie, as soon as my internet connection is fixed, which is probably going to be the next 2-3 months, many an evening shall be spent on this website accessing at least those which are available outside the U.S./North America region. LOL at men playing with their winkies - 'tis true 'tis funny, 'tis funny 'tis true. The masculinity crisis is hardly fresh off the presses though is it? I'm not sure men are failed evolutionary constructs, let's say most of them are around a D/E grade. I think it's merely having the ability to spread their seed with men that gets them down, whereas women are the earth that bears both seed and fruit. I get the whole hunter/gatherer thing, I also think that "the shame" that religion put on the flesh both male and female has something to do with it as well. The whole original sin, leaf-loincloth deal is probably one of the major things that led to the elaborate sexual politics and weird mating rituals that exist today.

Re:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2tMV96xULk&feature;=fvsr
Holy Moses, Jesus-Darwin-Lovin'-Christ, did you see that Rog? Over 47 million views and over 40,000 comments..!! How's that for a slap in the face for you clever people up here..Like the last lines of An Old Leaf/Manuscript say - "This is a misunderstanding of some kind and it will be the ruin of us." Makes you kind of think how men have convinced women they are "free/liberated" to parade themselves so sexily i.e. objectify themsleves for male sexual gratification & money, huh? I often think that we are all actually devolving back to ancient civilisation, which helps me segue nicely into the shortest mention of the circularity of life that us Indians so like to harp about.

Me likey Green Day too Marie, me no wanna be Indian Idiot or American Idiot, nor Basket Case, nor Dookie.. :) I think the whole power thing is sort of visible in the animal kingdom too and is to a degree justifiable, a lion has a whole harem of lionesses and fights violently to keep them his, even his own boys, the reason being to prevent in-breeding, fighting off nasty pariahs like hyenas etc. Bear in mind most coppers are male as are most criminals, so hunter-gatherer has sort of evolved into cops n' robbers, men mostly playing both the antagonists and protagonists. They've always outfoxed women criminally and physiologically. Bad times. Talking with you..good times again.

Note to RDS, Mark Hughes & others who're shouting antibiotics, virus treatment etc., did it ever occur to you that this is interfering with natural law and therefore perhaps weakening evolutionary processes? Observing a phenomenon immediately changes it, even before you start meddling around with it's DNA, in which case you might've FUBAR'd things as they stood in the evolutionary schemata. The fittest are'nt necessarily those who survive, it is those who most successfully adapt. Adaptation is the key.

RDS Harry Potter is'nt flying on a broom, he's flying on J.K.Rowling's disgust with men, who did'nt think her pretty enough as a girl (which is a shame really because she actually is quite pretty). This is why all major male characters in Harry Potter are potentially gay, if you did'nt already get the "riding a stick" metaphor. Funny how the pure little Hermione who is largely based on her clever little self does'nt so much as get on a broomstick, nor does any other girl apart from the broomstick flying teacher lady, who is made to look distinctly mannish (not that she is, I quite like her in My Family) .. .. She is clever though Rowling is, I particularly like how she constantly slips in Roman/Latin references into her work, like the werewolf is named Remus Lupin, as in Remus of Remus and Romulus supposedly raised by wolves, who supposedly built Rome; and Lupin as in the latin name of a herb, Remus Lupin drinks a potion of herbs to cure himself come full moon time.. I know the most pointless things.. the result of half of, a half of, a half of, a half of, a half decent education I s'pose. I would echo what Tom said about Castaneda, with the warning don't let yourself get too carried away with it, he both wrote and did some pretty kooky stuff, like topping himself off, probably. The only thing I can say I definitely agree upon with Castaneda is his comment on planes of reality and even that allegorically, not literally, as many of his readers have been known to.

Mikki Saturn: "If evolution is true what exactly is wrong with murder? Or theft? Genocide? Rape? Slavery? If human life is accidental what is the nature of its value? Can human life have intrinsic value if evolution is true? Isn't eugenics a logical endeavor?"

It kept me up all night Mikki, but the hat I specially made for you as reward for your fine post is now finished, why don't you look in this mirror here and see if it fits..no, no.. the mirror's a little to your left, no..a bit to your right, it's just by that corner area over there..later we'll go on a special ride around town on a donk..erm, pony..

HipHopScotch: Hate to rain on your parade there, you make some good points, but they are arguments, not proofs. Therefore, saying god exists is sort of redundant from a proof perspective, just as shouting "..evolution explains everything, all worship at the feet of ye almighty lord Darwin" is redundant. What is with all this compunction about not picking a particular belief system? By the way, god is preparing to re-manifest soon, in the image of a black forest gateau. I'm really looking forward to meeting god, I have fashioned a special tool of worship, a spoon. I'd start on that most famous line from Thus Spoke Zarathustra, but that'd probably gross you out, so I'll leave it be. ;)

I'm off to try and evolve an extra new set of eyes, all this reading is tiring my existing pair out.

Always, a pleasure folks,
Indian Idiot (H.W.)

P.S. Someone please give Bill some holy water, his throat must be parched from all his sermons and incessant preaching of them.

Ebert: Hey, Indian Idiot, who the heck are you? Not that I want your address or phone number or anything, but give us a clue.

Reply to: Indian Idiot (H.W.): "Tell me Mark, why must you and Bill Hays (don't start again Bill) jump down the throat of someone so much as casting half a shadow of an aspersion on evolutionary theory?"

Reply to: Anonymous: Bill and I didn't jump down anyone's throats over expressed (negative) views about evolutionary theory. It is the manner and tone of certain comments -- people who insulted most everybody else posting here, mocking their intelligence, getting hostile, etc -- that garnered the "jumping down the throat".

Yeah, maybe I went a little overboard on Mikki. She wasn't party to the earlier conversations in the other thread.

Reply to: Mikki Saturn: The question I would ask is this: If evolution is true, doesn't it mean that the Western moral system (and really I would argue all morality) is worthless? If evolution is true what exactly is wrong with murder? Or theft? Genocide? Rape? Slavery? Can human life have intrinsic value if evolution is true?

You have to start someplace. Most people start from the premise that Evolution is true AND human life has value. It's just Christian nonsense that evolution somehow makes human life worthless.

What do I mean by Christian nonsense?

Open your Bible to the New Testament, near the back, the Epistle of Jude:

Jude 7 (But I want to remind you that the Lord... destroyed those who did not believe) and the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left for their own habitation, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day.
AND...

1 Peter 3: 18 (For Christ, being put to death in the flesh but quickened (made alive) in the Spirit) by whom he went and preached to the spirits (PNEUMASIN) in prison who in the past were disobedient...

A few times, I've referred to the Bible as Nonsense. If you're a Christian and you want to argue my use of the term, I'm going to start with these two verses. (I started to write this post about Noah's Flood and how Stephen Jay Gould replied, but that can wait.)

When we talk about Creation in the Bible, it's a series of events.

In the days of Noah (Genesis 6:1) There were giants on the earth in those days, when the sons of God mated with the daughters of men...

James C. VanderKam writes of 1 Enoch 1-36: "The Book of the Watchers (BW) is best known for introducing the strange story about the angels who sinned by marrying women and fathering giants. The story in various forms appears in a surprisingly large number of other works both Jewish and Christian." (An Introduction to Early Judaism, p. 91)

Martin McNamara writes: "The Book of the Watchers (i.e. the Angels) recounts the sin of the angels through their sexual union with earthly women. We are then told of the doom pronounced by God on the angels (6-11),

e.g., 'And .. the Lord said to Raphael: "Bind Azazel by his hands and his feet, and throw him into the darkness . . . and let him stay there for ever . . . that on the great day of judgment he may be hurled into the fire"' (10:4-6).

'Bind them for seventy generations under the hills of the earth until the day of their judgment and of their consummation, until the judgment which is for all eternity is accomplished. And in those days they will lead them to the abyss of fire; in torment and in prison they will be shut up for all eternity' (10:12-13)." (Intertestamental Literature, p. 55)

Chapters 17-19 and 20-36 describe the regions of the earth, the heavens, and the underworld, with special emphasis on the places where sinners and fallen angels are punished. These chapters probably belong to the second century B.C. also." (Judaism Outside the Hebrew Canon, p. 138)(end)

thus endeth the lesson for today.

Yes, I still get headaches when I try to read through this nonsense, in order to post something new about Creationism for this thread.

when you talk about "the Bible," you've got to include the creation of the angels, and how some of the angels have been imprisoned, and how Jesus proclaimed his message to them....

And yes, I did jump down the throat of someone who told me that the story of the Bible can be reconciled with Modern Evolutionary Theory.

Where does the idea of angels in chains and darkness, and sons of Gods mating with human women to produce giants... fit with Darwin's theory?

Reply to: 3 PROOFS OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD Teleological--St. Thomas Aquinas IF the universe exhibits order and intelligence, and IF anything that exhibits order must have a designer; THEN the universe must have a designer. IF the universe has a designer, THEN that designer must be divine. THEREFORE GOD EXISTS.

One of the worst arguments I've ever read.

And yet, this is the BEST you can do, if you're trying to prove God exists.

therefore, god does NOT exist.

What I tried to say earlier (and got sidetracked) is it's always popular to post your BELIEFS, such as

I Believe God Exists.

But we (the Darwin side) don't want to include silly beliefs and Imaginary Beings (like Zombie Jesus and the fallen angel Azazel) in a discussion of science.

the theory of evolution is trying to figure out what really happened. Our TRUE history.

Not our Imaginary History as told by Trinity Broadcast Network.

"Ebert: The more right wingers complains abut the poor and helpless getting health care, the more they sound like eugenics supporters."

You mean like the woman who founded Planned Parenthood?

Ebert: Yes. The theory has shifted rightward.

Anon: "people who insulted most everybody else posting here, mocking their intelligence, getting hostile, etc"

I'm assuming that's you Mark, a bit of levity is very, very good for the soul. I think those who can't laugh at themselves pass on 'cretinitis' to their offspring. Joke. Lighten up dudes.

From S.M.Rana's link: "a universe could form inside this room and we’d never know" Professor Sean Carroll.

That's well interesting S.M.Rana. There's a South Park episode ripping on Nintendo Wii, Richard Dawkins, atheists and sea otters, that makes precisely this point, only the analogy it employs is that of lice living atop a fourth grader's head, the fourth grader's head being the universe. It is silly funny and a must watch. It is things like this, which make me state over and over that relativism is probably one of the best tools any thinking person can have. Thanks for the link, very interesting. Physicist Michio Kaku did a 3/4 part documentary on Time, which is quite interesting.

Marie, I just saw that Tarantino clip on Xena, confirmed what you say and what I've thought about him ever since I saw Jackie Brown. He is one clever chappie is Tarantino. Jackie Brown is one of my favourite Tarantino characters, why I think Mr. Wolf is the strongest I mentioned on the other thread (I've got a bit of a screwball reason, as usual). I like the legit interviews too, I'll even (somewhat embarrassedly) admit to watching and liking Inside The Actor's Studio & some of the interviews that Charlie Rose does.

Ebert: Somebody told me there's a web law stating:
Whenever you evoke Hitler in supporting your argument, you've lost.

Godwin's Law and there's a little more to it than what you understandably briefly mention, here -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

and here -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

It's nearly 03:00 a.m. and I have'nt had a wink of sleep yet.

I'm off to sleepy-town folks.

Indian Idiot (H.W.)

P.S. Old Lipton sure likes you Rog, he's constantly referring to you.

Ebert: You know, ever since I read those words on S. M.'s comment ("a universe could form inside this room and we’d never know" ) I've been haunted by them.

John in Dublin --

Your well-meaning moratorium smacks of censorship. Hitler was fond of such practices.

Ebert: Ancient folk saying: "He who evokes Hitler in an internet argument loses.

The bottom line is that we will never know how we were created. You can argue how was God created and even with the big bang theory how did that really start? What began the beginning? Is God the big bang theory or vice versa? Darwin's theory fits anywhere as it shows how things adapted and maybe had to change to survive. What really needs to be done is to have every human respect every other human and start working together and stop wasting our time on these arguments before we destroy ourselves and this world we profess to love.

Christopher Clark

"I often fail to see is a simple clarification of the term "theory of evolution" which doesn't mean "the theory that evolution occurs," but rather means "the theory of how evolution occurs." It is a small distinction but, I think, an important one."

Ebert: For all the time I've spent defining the proper use of the word theory, I've never seen it explained so succinctly.

Regarding the first distinction ("THAT"): in this day in age of astronomy (although, I think we may have knew of it back in Darwin's time) that today it DOES mean that. What I mean is that we come from stardust. This is proven. Therefore, there was a transition from that form to the present form, and though evolution, meaning GRADUAL change, may not be a sufficient option (it being a theory), the other option would have to incorporate as its theory INSTANT change. Therefore, Intelligent Design, if it really going to be opposed to the theory of evolution, would have to supply a theory of instant change from space dust to what we have today. And I don't see naked cave people flying around in space; so NO CHANGE is really not an option either, which also implies predetermination, which would mean we are all mechanical things.

Basically, what I'm saying is that if it isn't SLOW, GRADUAL change, it MUST BE instant. I can't imagine space dust instantly becoming people, and all the other species around us--and that's what it [Intelligent Design] really is implying by being opposed to evolution. Opposing evolution is opposing slow, gradual change, which means instantaneous morphing.

Trying again: who here has a personal story about how evolutionary theory has improved their lives personally?

Well, perhaps not so much due to the theory but the fact -- but I have evolved into a higher life form, particularly in intelligence, though certainly not excluding charm, wit, looks and ways with women.

oh, cmon people, its obvious!

also,

not to diminish the other contributions, but I think Karl-Heinz has earned an Ebert dime for his contributions to this thread.

Nathan Black said:

"Before the Big Bang it is theorized that all of the matter that would become our universe was compressed into a sigularity. Something caused that sigularty to burst forth and "create" our universe. I think that something was God. "let there be light" BANG!!!!!!!!"

1. There was no "before" the big bang. Time AND space existed post-Big-Bang. Without time there was no before, and without space there was no "place" for there to be any nothingness. When you think of "before" the big bang you imagine it like a blank sheet of paper BEFORE a picture is drawn on it. But there was no paper.

2. "Singularity" just means a dimensionless point in space. Nothing can be "inside" it for there is no space for it to be. The mystery of just how matter and energy precipitated from this point (or in String Theory, a 1-D "string" is not known. It may be a pointless question because there may be no reason, as quantum mechanics has demonstrated, since particles pop in and out of existence seemingly at random, without any "reason" or "creator" making it happen. Since a singularity is lies in the quantum, it does not seem so odd that it happened.

3. How do you know that "something caused the Big Bang?" All we know of cause/effect (determinism) exists WITHIN the space-time of the universe we inhabit. Such notions might be nonsense outside of this realm. Creation is an active event, which describes a change of some sort. As we know it it takes time to do this. If there was no time "before" the Big Bang then "when" did the creation happen, or was even thought "in the mind of god" to happen? It is much simpler to state that the universe had no cause, because one must ask "what caused God?" and if the answer is "nothing" then why not so for the universe? Other implications of causality are that if you say the universe MUST have a cause, you exclude causal phenomenon in other instances. For example, to you, nothing "caused god," and perhaps you think of yourself having free will, i.e. the ability to do something OTHER then the causal factors within and without you before you act. If both god and a lowly human making a "decision" need no cause, why then the universe? Finally (as if you thought it were not possible to refute this much), it has been theorized that in the very first second(s) of the universe the dimensions were "flattened out" (like a 3-D cube depicted on a 2-D surface) - TIME was one such flattened dimension which emerged "later" - or rather, a reverse film of the universe would stop just short of the big bang because prior to a certain point there was no time - such a state was "timeless" and as such infinitely "old" - or existing forever. There was no before.

4. "Let there be light." The problem with that is that light did not exist until the universe cooled down enough for 1) atoms to form and 2) there to be space enough between them for the light (photons) to travel. Probably not before the first stars ignited was there anything that would have given off any light.

Intelligent Design doesn't really oppose evolution when you look at its definition, which means, "All that stuff you're doing, (you know, that "science")--you know an intelligent being created it? You may have noticed that I'm speaking with hostility as I say any sentence with the word evolution in it, which means I'm opposed to it, damn it! You idiots doing that stuff (that "science") don't need to do anything, cuz the intelligent designer's got everything under control, man; you can just coast the rest of your life; why do anything?--the intelligent designer has everything predetermined--there's no need for responsibility, believing in free will, thinking--the intelligent designer is behind the wheel, man."

Roger
re Use of Hitler example in online discussions:
A guy named Mike Godwin (God win?!) created it. "Godwin's Law' and the way its viewed means, as you say, 1) the discussion is over, 2) the discussion has been ruined, and 3) the person who stooped to the cliched use of a Hitler example has lost the debate.
Stein is guilty of Nos. 2 and 3.
No. 1 will only happen temporarily.

Ebert: Ancient folk saying: "He who evokes Hitler in an internet argument loses.

Not that ancient actually. "Godwin's Law" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law) was proposed by Mike Godwin in 1990, and is an adaptation of Leo Strauss' (1953) "Reductio ad Hitlerum" fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum).

HTH

Trying again: Who here has a story about people being killed over faith?

Ebert: Who doesn't?

Mikki Saturn -

Legitimate questions. However, I would frame that as a matter between theism (or even deism), with God as a sort of moral anchor, and atheism; evolution is only a periphery issue.

Second, we evolved to be pack animals and contain in volume what we call the human spirit. We are our own, no analogy or comparison, so it doesn't matter if lions battle for mates (which, if you think about it, we kind of do anyway) or that spiders eat members of their own species (mammals don't tend to do that at all). Each species is different.

Third, the end of your comment at which you addressed the Iraq War is a good place to start. You can make the argument that the morality we take as precepts is actually nothing more than a system of positive or negative circumstances that help or hurt us. The negatives of the Iraq War are immense: we did little to secure safety at home, and we did nothing to improve the situation in that region (we might have agitated the people even further). Chaos creates discontent; after all, we still have to answer to our fellow man, and much of the evil that is perpetrated often comes about because others allow it, for whatever reasons. I think that harmony in general benefits populations of people. Therefore, the golden rule is perfectly pragmatic here. I believe very much that the way in which we reason actions through plays a big part in morality. It's no coincidence that those who are myopic also make bad decisions.

Sure, you can't always stop from evil an individual or group who genuinely doesn't value others, but then neither does any God. More importantly, religion often offers justification. Do not murder, the Bible says, but there is definitely justification for righteous killing. And since many religions say that we are sinful, capable of no better, deserving of death, that creates a volatile situation. I find it much more elegant to think that chaos is inherent in the universe, that it's something we can transcend by our rationality and emotions, that goodness isn't some ambiguous spiritual value but is instead a product of human psychology and what people choose to do.

Furthermore, I don't think that any logical conclusion follows from the process of evolution. Evolution may control our DNA, but it's the DNA that says what organisms we are, not evolution. We are compassionate creatures, we can empathize (I doubt that any sort of civilization would be possible if we weren't; we're barely holding it all together now). Treating life like evolution, I dare say, is well beside the point. It would offend most of our higher sensibilities. After all, it's not a conscious effort on the part of the species to make it more fit. We're doing perfectly fine on our own, and putting to death those people for the sole reason of preserving life, I think, is self-defeating. It's essentially like saying that you're going to improve their conditions by killing them. All you're doing is improving the fitness of the species, but no one thinks about it like that. It's not our endeavor to consciously select who lives or who dies.

However, DNA isn't the whole story either. You can't tell how someone is going to develop, their likes or dislikes, just by looking at their DNA.

Lastly, evolution doesn't say whether life has any intrinsic worth. Even if we evolved in a Godless sort of world, we think that we have value, and that subjective inclination is the only perspective we may have. A chair is just wood, but it has value to us. Life has value to us. And that to me is what matters.

Well then Roger, (assuming you support Planned Parenthood, which I'm sure you do) maybe there is hope. I mean, if something founded by a monster like Sanger can "evolve" into something useful, maybe something useful can evolve from policies supported by conservatives.

Nah...probably not.

Some posts ridicule anyone who takes this topic seriously owing to the numerous poorly written posts upon either side of the issue; but, as Roger notes, Evolution is one topic that engenders passionate debate, even if the 'Creationists' have no real support for their claims.
This is a water shed topic in regard to how society and perhaps the human race will go -- the question arises: can even humans implement 'intelligent design' on their own species, let alone the planet's?
Things in that regard are not going well, or would give rise to serious reservations tha we should even try.
It's is easy to slip into one unintended offense or another too, in this debate. My 'peccadillo' in my last post stated, in obvious reference to speciation between close mammals, such as with chimps and humans It was; were we to conclude or rather, jump to the conclusion; and, rude one at that, with that comment 'God hates fags'...[?]
Yes; poor writing, but, the idea was: 'Why would 'God', create species so close in development so as to even make it possible to have progeny; let alone, why the numerous poor designs?
Not that others haven't 'ably' tackled the idea and shown clearly it's because the 'design' is not so 'intelligent'.
The idea that God would create the homosexual only to have them tormented and scorned in human societies, and not clarify their presence in almost all other animal groups would be another whole topic. And, this would gravitate more to the 'nature of God' that; if so considered, would give a believer pause as to his own presence here on earth; or perhaps which idea of 'god' is valid after all.
I can only assume too, that many just don't care whether the THEORY falls or is forbidden by their particular faith whether they themselves believe it or not.

Ebert: I believe you're correct. I've never heard of an I.D. scientist who isn't American. Most of them are Christian fundamentalists. Christians in general are okay with evolution. Even the Pope. All other religions have no problem with it.

Roger, as I pointed out in the original Ben Stein post, Creationism is big in Muslim Turkey. Why do you continue to say that only fundamentalist Christian America has a problem with evolution?
http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2008/03/turkey_creationism_secularism.php

Ebert: Creationists and Muslims agree on something?

I know that you are not in particular a fan of Douglas Adams, and all that is The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. But I find a lot of his ideas - even if they are not meant to be taken seriously - are actually quite smart.
He doesn't talk about the theory of Creation or Evolution much, but when he does, he slaughters, if that should be the correct word to use, Creation and sort of pokes fun at Evolution, while at the same time at least agreeing with it.

If you remember the film, then you already know some of his theories about Creation, such as: "Some of God's Mistake, Some More of God's Mistakes, and Who Is This God Person Anyway?" and also the monologue that's actually before that in which tomatoes are thrown at the "God" who created the Universe because it was a bad idea. This entire narrative is actually the opening chapter of the second book, which is where some of the fun is poked at Evolution. I don't want to spoil anything, but Arthur and Ford basically discover that humans evolved from moronic space-human aliens, because the ape/cavemen were dying off. They know this because they go to "prehistoric" Earth.

But he talks about Creation more often, and lists simple questions that really can't be answered.

And as you said in your review of the film, basically die-hard fans can appreciate it more than those who are not familiar with the material, and I myself thought that the film was good, not great, but definitely good. But that's only because I'm a fan. If I wasn't, who knows what I might think.

"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened." I just like that quote in particular, it doesn't really have much to do with this topic though, unless you can find some way to use it in defense of anything.

I love our countries most recent comparison to Hitler- That is of Obama wanting to socialize healthcare the same as thy evil tyrant did. I've seen poster's being waved by right wing fundamentalist christians of a picture of Obama with a Hitler mustache??? Yeah, because he too is exterminating Jews on a mass scale based on Darwinian theory. Lol, people kill me..

Ebert: Hitler socialized health care? Actually, it was Winston Churchill.

About cockroaches and insects "evolving" due to insecticides - my as yet to be made point is not a disproof of evolution, mind you, just a refutation of a suggested proof - as of yet, we have not seen a single new specie (specius?) of insect, only hardier ones of the type we already have.

Thank (appropriately enough) God.

Ebert: No theory is accepted as a fact. I'm not sure you understand the difference between the scientific and everyday use of the word.

Theory accepted as fact? Since when? The dictionary agrees with me.

Ebert: What does it say?

hey mr ebert,

Evolution is science, creationism is fantasy. but i think you already established that

BTW, i have a question. Did you appreciate the movie "once" a lot more the second time? i just watched it and have no idea what to think. i know the part where theyre in the music store singing is brilliant tho.

ID and creationism are not the same thing. That "somebody" designed life is not satisfying. But is the universe a dead chunk of matter (us apart) and is the distinction between life/non-life so hard and fast.( Nails and hair, for example show a smooth transition between living and non living.)

I am tempted to quote the famous Goedel's theorem in mathematics, which shows that certain mathematical truths are unprovable. I like to believe(ofcourse I can't prove it) that life after death or not is such, though it has nothing to do with maths.

Godels Incompleteness Theorem: "The more famous incompleteness theorem states that for any self-consistent recursive axiomatic system powerful enough to describe the arithmetic of the natural numbers (Peano arithmetic), there are true propositions about the naturals that cannot be proved from the axioms."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del

Wow! What a discussion. I see you posted the trailer for "Creation" which I am highly anticipating as a Darwin fan. You'll find debates like this raging on in the imdb message board and the youtube trailer for the film.

It's funny, because so many of the prominent bloggers are overlooking Creation in terms of awards season possibility and I'll tell you...I think it's a mistake. It wasn't given the honor of opening the Toronto film festival for nothing, imo. Darwin's story is extremely compelling. I mean, these bloggers don't even realize the passionate debate Darwin continues to stir in discussions such as this. As for his personal life, there is so much fodder for movie drama, you really can't get any better.

You add two very capable actors in Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly and you've got the possibility of a very good film. Personally I think this will be a big year for Bettany, his films are both opening (Creation) and closing TIFF (Young Victoria) and I've heard he is good in both.

The directors of TIFF said they selected Creation to open the festival because they really believe in the film and think it will set the tone for debate at the festival. I truly hope it does so. I also hope, Mr. Ebert, that you will be able to review the film for us....there are many of us eagerly awaiting it. I have been pleased with what I've seen of it so far. I hope it does Darwin's story justice.

Ebert: I'll be writing a more or less daily blog from Toronto.

You certainly do host interesting conversations, Mr. Ebert. I generally find the topic of evolution vs. ID too exhausting in which to participate, particularly for a topic which really is not a debatable issue.

I did want to note on your "longest thread" concept that I am a participant in a thread on a "Business of Hockey" board (THERE is an esoteric topic for you!) which is somewhere in the 13,000's (!!) and has no probable end in sight. It pertains to the bankruptcy proceedings surrounding an NHL team and their potential relocation to Canada. Mind you, the board's system is such that a new thread must be created to continue the conversation every 1000 posts or so, but the thread has remained unbroken except for that merely technical reason. Many of the posters are less urbane than your group here, but the posters include several lawyers (myself included) and serious businessmen (along with a few lunkheads).

Ebert: Can anyone more or less comprehend the whole thing?

Responding to "stuff" from above, who rites:

>>>Roger, as I pointed out in the original Ben Stein post, Creationism is big in Muslim Turkey. Why do you continue to say that only fundamentalist Christian America has a problem with evolution?
http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2008/03/turkey_creationism_secularism.php

Let's not conflate the views of a mass within a population to the views of the population itself. There is a global, highly prolific populist movement (cited somewhere in the comments way above) led by a Harun Yahya. Among their publications is a book that regards Darwin as a conspiracy. I have met some of his followers and they seemed to be dedicated, humble people. But, even though his followers are very active, let us not think that his following is massive or influential.

Further, Turkey has a very vibrant democracy, including its own equivalent of the Neo-conservatives. So, my point is that we should definitely assume that we'd find the whole spectrum of ideas and idealogues there.

But, regarding Islamic history, the notion of what we call evolution is not new. A famous philosophical movement known as the Ikhwan al-Safa (Brotherhood of Purity) had a notion of the "origin of species," which (summarized) is as follows. Keep in mind that I'm giving you a summary from memory, though it might sound like a paraphrase of Genesis:

God created matter and water, mixed it with "energy," and from there formed basic basic vegetation. This vegetation eventually led to higher forms of vegetation. Eventually, this process led to the first animals, and eventually the human. The human embodies physical perfection, and then next phase of development is intellectual and spiritual development (which is at the individual level).

The Ikhwan al-Safa were believed to have been from the 900s C.E.. Their alleged treatises were translated into English (~1812).

Keep in mind that the philosophical/theological includes the moral. The point here is that to destroy animal or vegetable life for something impious (i.e. selfish) is step towards destroying the self.

I suspect that if were to look in ancient Hindu texts, we would also find something comparable to evolution, with emphasis again placed on our interconnectedness with the world around us.

Omer M

Ebert: Islam was there first in so many things.

Does natural selection preclude ID or merely make it unnecessary? There is a difference in proving something to a degree of reasonableness(as lawyers say) and really proving it 100 % (as mathematicians say). "Proof" has different meanings. Degree of proof varies, as for a situation involving capital punishment.

"Ebert: Surely many of the teachings of Jesus are at odds with new face of conservatism."

Absolutely! To me that is obvious. Christ was about as much interested in Liberation Theology as He was in Neo-Conservatism. Whatever those things are.

When I meditate upon the life of Christ, I can't think of him as "liberal" or "conservative" or what-have-you. He had not very much interest in being a politician, though He did have a few words to say about politics.

S.M.Rana,

Natural Selection does not preclude ID. One of the beefs I have with the Creationists is their insistence on an either/or dichotomy

Well, I thought I would be joining the intelligent design debate by now, but after doing the reading here and elsewhere I can't really find a debate in that.

Intelligent design is clearly not a scientific theory, but a religious belief, since it proposes that a nonspecific supernatural entity that knows everything and can do anything (and, as George Carlin added, "needs money") designs life. Given that belief, why try to find the reason or genesis for anything? This is entirely apart from the fact that essentially all scientists consider the proposed explanation of ID ("irreducible complexity") as laughable phony science.

There is also the "From Darwin to Hitler" issue. I liked JoeRu's refutation above that blaming Darwin for the Holocaust is like blaming the Wright brothers for Hiroshima. I am reminded of Paul Samuelson's statement as to whether the market system results in "fairness", as opposed to mathematical efficiency, as "the attribution of virtue to partial derivatives [which are used in math to find optima]". (And maybe the scientific method has something going for it, as I found this sixty year old, obscure quote by googling - and only a single reference to it in the billions of pages indexed).

So I'm thinking, "how about some meta-debates?" As one example, we could debate the issue of why folks keep insisting that ID is not just their religious belief but also a credible scientific theory - and I'm assuming it's for more than just money or straight political reasons, as they do seem passionate. Our nation would seem to have many of these clashes in which reason and facts are thrown out the window.

I was going to write something about our education system and values, and also about the "authoritarian personality" issue, but I'm going to bed now instead. Maybe later.

To those discussing a singularity above, it's a theoretical space-time anomaly. I, for one, always thought the universe could be traced back to a singularity was a naive product of extrapolation. String Theory now suggests that the "singularity" actually had volume and mass, that it was a tiny and extremely dense, but not a point before space and time.

By S.M.Rana on September 7, 2009 12:38 AM
Does natural selection preclude ID or merely make it unnecessary? There is a difference in proving something to a degree of reasonableness(as lawyers say) and really proving it 100 % (as mathematicians say). "Proof" has different meanings. Degree of proof varies, as for a situation involving capital punishment.

Hi Samantha.

ID and natural selection can co-exist. We know man has invented things like random-number generators. Though the actual numbers generated aren't specifically designed, the mechanism for it certainly was.

ID works the same way, in relation to natural selection.

As far as "proof", nothing can really be "proven". For example, Newton's Law of Gravity seems "proven", but on the quantum level, it really isn't accurate. It suffices to say, that there is a lot of evidence for certain things, to allow us to make reasonable conclusions on those things.

Reply to: Does natural selection preclude ID or merely make it unnecessary?

Intelligent Design is a religious BELIEF. It is not science. It is NOT credible.

Intelligent Design has a sordid history. When a law professor converted to Christianity (Phil Johnson at Berkeley, now retired) he searched for a way to 'break the monopoly of materialism."

In other words, some NutJob wanted to introduce the possibility of "supernatural causes" into high school science classes. He wanted high school science teachers to say, as part of a science class, that there might be supernatural forces at work in the universe.

Intelligent Design is nonsense. Intelligent Design is an evil plot by a small group of fundamentailist Christians, trying to dumb down the next generation of American children.

Reply to: There is a difference in proving something beyond a reasonable doubt (as lawyers say) and proving it 100 % (as mathematicians say). "Proof" has different meanings.

There are several new books coming out, about the secrets discovered by comparing the chimp and human genomes. It's getting closer to 100% every day.

When Darwin published (1859, 150 years ago) the Catholic, Anglican, various Christian churches had a story based on Biblical teachings about how humans got here. It was called "Special Creation" and it said humans appeared, created through supernatural means, about 10,000 years ago. That's the nonsense Darwin had to fight against. Today, it seems incredble that anyone would take that concept seriously... until you look at the people in the Creationist movement.

You have parents. And grand-parents. And if you go back far enough, you will reach a point where your ancestors were not humans. They were a smaller species of primate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1935000/images/_1935558_primate4_300info.gif

Robert Martin, of the Field Museum in Chicago, US, said: "Our calculations indicate that we have fossil evidence for only about 5% of all extinct primates so it's as if palaeontologists have been trying to reconstruct a 1,000-piece jigsaw puzzle using just 50 pieces."

According to the new work, the earliest common ancestor of all primates was a nocturnal, tree-living creature with grasping hands and feet. It weighed just a few pounds and dined on fruit and insects.

Co-author Dr Christophe Soligo of the Natural History Museum in London, UK, said: "The world 85 million years ago was very different to the world 65 million years ago. What we demonstrate is that modern orders of mammals appeared well before dinosaurs disappeared so the initial divergence of modern orders of mammals cannot be the result of the extinction of the dinosaurs."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1935558.stm

We now have a federal court ruling, so we can now say "Intelligent Design is ONLY a religous belief" without fear of nuisance lawsuits from the ID camp. The next step is to convince people that's true.

Thank you, John R Harstine. Your information about the non-evolution of the sun and stars was nice and clear. I confess that I am ill-informed about evolution. You want to talk about ill-informed? I mentioned this thread to my Saudi friend and he had never even heard of it. Granted, Saudi Arabia is home to fundamental Islam. It just was never taught or even mentioned in all his 27 years there. He said, "If I put a dollar in a box and don't open it for 100 years, it will be the same. Did it put itself in that box? No, a hand put it in that box." I realize that an inanimate object is not the best argument against evolution; I'm just giving the perspective of someone who had never heard the concept before.

I believe in forms of adaptation (to environment, for example), but I don't believe that humans descended from the same species that apes descended from. Even if I were proven wrong, and believed that proof, it would not shake my faith. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father, but through Me." This gets into the debate of Liar, Lunatic, or Lord. I choose the third. I choose this based on the way that he lived his life, the love and compassion that he showed, and the miracles he performed. I was not there to witness any of it. I go by a book. But the book penetrates my heart and soul, and really, I go by those.

There are many Christians who do not live up to the principles of Christianity. They may go to church every week, and talk about God to everyone, but they are lacking in the essence of love that Jesus taught. Roger Ebert claims not to believe in God (but also not to believe that there isn't a God) and exemplifies Christianity better than most Christians I know. That's good for Roger, and sad for the state of Christianity. I was baptized at age 8, by my own choice. It was premature. In high school, I questioned the very existence of God, and my mother told me that God encourages questioning. I had an angry, rebellious time after that in which I sat in my garage alone in the middle of the night, watched serial killer movies, and wanted to be a vampire. I ended up feeling miserable, and eventually had a breakdown. I walked up the street to a church, threw rocks at the window and cried out, "If you're there, you bastard, then show yourself!" Quite dramatic, but you know what Hitchcock said.

I was raised a Christian, rejected it, and then found it for myself on my own terms. I seem to spend more time with Muslims than with Christians. I have never preached to them to my knowledge, except for playing Tammy Faye songs in Riyadh the day she died and explaining who she was to my friends. Of course creationists and Muslims share much in common. The Koran teaches of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and how God created them from dust, and made Eve from Adam's rib. Muslims always raise their eyes and drop their jaws when I tell them that the story is also in the Bible. In fact, when I am in Saudi Arabia, I almost feel like I'm in church sometimes, minus the choir and jocular sermon bits.

Actual Roger, the Evolutionary theory and theory in general is not accepted as fact (by any real scientist). By way of background, I am an atheist and I have a physics degree.

Now let's be clear, there is Evolution in fact and Evolutionary Theory. It is inarguable that observers have witnessed some species evolve in response to changing environments. Evolution of life has been observed and is not debateable. It is fact and not a theory at all.

On the other hand, the Evolutionary theory that all life can trace it's roots back in time to an origin is a theory and not fact.

Even though Evolutionary theory is "just" a theory, it is an extremely well-tested theory that explains the evidence we observe better than any other theory currently. No other theory comes close. It is generally accepted, because it is so well-tested. For the same reason quantum mechanics, despite its counter-intuitive aspects is accepted becaue it has been very well-tested.

However, either theory could change or be replaced if (1) new evidence contradicting the theory is discovered, or(2) a theory is developed that explains everything as well as the currrent theory and makes testable predictions different from what the current theory predicts.

Granted, both Evolution and quantum mechanics are unlikely to be replaced and most people treat generally accepted theories as fact, but technically they are not.

Ebert: My point exactly.

S. M. Rana: “ID and creationism are not the same thing.”

Keith Carrizoza: “Intelligent Design doesn't really oppose evolution when you look at its definition, which means, "All that stuff you're doing, (you know, that "science")--you know an intelligent being created it?”

See my comment of 6 Sept. 6:50 AM.

To be clear, I am referring to the ID strategy promoted by the Discovery Institute, not the mere belief that “something in nature screams design.” Those who believe only the latter are not likely to be fans of the DI, and may be critics, like Ken Miller. Miller and others have in fact expressed serious doubt that, had Rev. Paley been alive today, he would use his watchmaker argument to misrepresent evolution as the DI does.

S. M. Rana: "Does natural selection preclude ID or merely make it unnecessary?"

If by "natural selection" you mean the current explanation for the origin of species, which is not just NS, but the genetic variation without which NS would have nothing to do, it rules out the DI's vacuous "explanation," as well as the YEC and OEC falsified ones. It does not preclude a designer as the ultimate cause. It makes it unnecessary in the explanation, but so would YEC and OEC if their proponents chose to do so. There's no reason an "evolutionist" can't say "God fused these 2 chromosomes," and there's no reason a YEC can't say "millions of organisms assembled from nonliving matter on dry land 6014 years ago."

The idea of intelligent design is so vehemently supported i think because a lot of the people doing the defending are trying to reconcile their beliefs with that rational part of their brain telling them evolution makes sense. Hence they try to ground their belief (which requires faith- faith by it's very definition being belief without proof) in something logical.

And the reason i admit for even posting in the first place- a quote from the man himself. I'd be surprised if no one else has already written it- it is so very apt.

"It is worthy of remark that a belief constantly inculcated during the early years of life, whilst the brain is impressible, appears to acquire almost the nature of an instinct; and the very essence of an instinct is that it is followed independently of reason."
—Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871

(I think we have little doubt what type of thought he is referring to)

For those enquiring about creationism in other countries, it is true the creationist movement as we know it (with the exception of Muslims) is an American phenomenon, but it has made it over to the other side of the pond. There are small creationist organisations in France and Germany I believe, possibly in other countries in Europe. But for the most part (and quite rightfully) they have little influence.

In the UK, although we have an established church, creationism is by and large ignored also. However, as noted by Channel 4's 'Dispatches' programme last year, there are approximately fifty private religious schools across the country, the establishment of which was supported by Tony Blair's government. These guys DO teach Biblical literalism, no evolution, 6,000 year old Earth, yadda yadda yadda. One of the more well known schools is one owned by wealthy businessman Peter Vardy in the North East. They deny teaching Biblical literalism, and according to OFSTED reports they get good grades.

We have our own version of AIG or the DI, laughably called "Truth In Science" headed by YEC Andrew McIntosh. A few years back they sent a load of "information packs" to lots of public schools across the country. In it were DVD's and leaflets containing a bunch of creationist misinformation. On the back was the address of the Discovery Institute in Seattle. It seems the creationist movement across the pond has American support.

I really enjoyed your article on Ben Stein's "documentary", which I was absolutely frustrated by after watching it. I had the same thoughts as you: how could anyone possibly believe some of the stuff he says? But, apparently these people do exist, and it really makes me quite sad. As a young scientist with a background in evolutionary biology, I find it very hard to understand the positions that creationists take against natural selection. It all makes logical sense, and is so much more reasonable than what the creationists can possibly come up with.

In this article, you mention how Randy Masters kept trying to come up with different ways to "stump" natural selection by providing evidence of something so intricately put together in nature, that it must have been an intelligent designer who created such a thing. I'm not sure if it has already been mentioned in the previous thread (I did not have the time to read it all), but this is simply the classic watchmaker argument disguised in new trappings, an argument that David Hume has already pretty much refuted in "Dialogues concerning Natural Religion." You are right in thinking his argument cannot be won.

With regards to Hitler and Darwinism, I think the clearest way I think about it is summed up in this Buddhist proverb (from Richard Feynman's book): "To every man is given the key to the gates of heaven; the same key opens the gates to hell". This is how I view science and all of its wondrous, but potentially harmful, advances. Do we condemn Alfred Nobel as a mass murderer for his invention of dynamite?

I can find no reason to introduce Intelligent Design into a science classroom alongside the views of natural selection. The biggest failure is simply that ID is not even a theory, for how could one go about testing it? The beauty of science is that things are falsifiable and supportable through rigorous testing, but with ID there is absolutely no science behind its inception or any of its support. A critical criteria for any type of theory is that it must be able to be tested, in at least some manner, for it to be even considered. I would like to see any ID supporter address this.

Many Americans are ignorant of science. When in college, instead of taking Molecular Biology or Electromagnetism, they studied Economics or Communications. Many use their religious beliefs to compensate for their ignorance. They also believe in free speech, are proud of their beliefs and their ignorance, and view Intelligent Design as being on an equal footing as Evolution. By that same logic, Astrology and Magic might as well be viable alternatives to Astronomy and Physics.

Yet when scientists present the people with a new antibiotic or advanced electronics, they'll accept it wholeheartedly. They don't know where it came from, they're ignorant of the science, but they want to live longer and they like the new gadgets. They don't realize that the biologist who gave them the new drug used his knowledge of Evolution to develop an antibiotic that was effective against bacteria that had evolved into a drug resistant strain. They don't realize that Evolution is as central to modern science as Gravity, Electricity, Genetics, or the Greenhouse Effect.

Most people won't debate the existence of Gravity, Electricity or Genetics. But the more ignorant among us won't let their ignorance stop them from debating the existence of Evolution or the Greenhouse Effect. To religious fundamentalists, learning about Evolution would force them to question their beliefs. To the complacent, learning about the Greenhouse Effect would force them to question their habits as consumers.

Combating ignorance isn't easy because many ignorant people don't want to learn, and they have the political power to resist changes in education. It didn't have to be this way, but science has become part of our nation's cultural wars and scientists like myself can no longer be neutral.

Ebert: Many people are afraid of new knowledge and hostile to education, and such as Sarah Palin cater to them.

Ebert: Do you know the great man himself posted a comment the first time I used that?

Really? Cool! Where? Link me up, dawg!(Smile)

And the Daffy vs. Donald question: yes, Daffy in his Chuck Jones days beats any Donald cartoon, but Donald in a Carl Barks/Don Rosa comic book beats Daffy in any media.

Turkey has a very vibrant democracy, including its own equivalent of the Neo-conservatives. So, my point is that we should definitely assume that we'd find the whole spectrum of ideas and idealogues there.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Turkey is also home to those who walk upon all fours. Obviously, a family with some kind of genetic malfunction, that like so many cruel disorders, is passed to offspring.
A few years back this family was considered by some scientists as possibly an example; in albeit a twisted way, of ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny, in that we all crawled about in our genetic past. It was suggested that study of their malady might shed some light on that crucial point humans made from all fours the upright posture we now enjoy. I don't think anything ever was concluded from genetic investigations.
News teams flocked to this households door steps for photo opportunity, and would toss money to this impoverished mentally retarded group for the right to take photographs. The Turkish government sent in ARMED soldiers to disperse the reporters from all over the world. And, as I recall, the scientists too.
The Turkish government is now run by an Islamic oriented president and party hoping to reestablish Islamic 'traditions' back into this once 'Western hopeful' society. It does not want the West or the world to make any discoveries at Islam's expense. There is nothing currently 'vibrant' going on in Turkey.

On a side note, Omer; in truth, the army is the force that has maintained this facade of democracy, along with the suppression of 'Islam' in Turkey. Turkey too may be on 'all fours' before too long.

As Omer has also pointed out, I, too, would hesitate to declare ID is "big" in Turkey. The amount of crappola that Darwinists such as yours truly have to contend with pales in comparison to the barrage of piffle that our American counterparts are subjected to each and every day. In fact, I was in fifth grade, and must have been ten-years-old, when I was first taught about the Theory of Evolution during biology.

In fact, many Muslims try to identify how the Koranic view of the origins of life can be reconciled with Darwinian theory. All my R.E. teachers during middle school, for example.

Ebert: Case closed, I think.

Insanity: same behavior expecting different results.

"Bueller? Bueller? Bueller? ...."

Roger:

Time is the interval between events. Space is the interval between objects. If there are no events, and no objects in the pre Big Bang non-universe, then time and space don't exist.

Re: Trying again: who here has a personal story about how evolutionary theory has improved their lives personally?

Thanks to evolution my Prefrontal cortex is proportionally larger than other animals, which allows me to have higher reasoning skills, social skills, and intelligence compared to other animals. These reasoning skills have helped me not take any of your (Tom Dark) posts seriously or personally since all you seem to want to do is attack people on both sides of the argument who just want to discuss ideas on a blog. Huzzah for evolution!!!

Having just traveled to Italy and France, while I didn't get the sense that there were Creationists, or proponents of Intelligent Design, I didn't exactly get the feeling that these cultures were particularly putting the question up to debate. One thing that is worth noting about the "debate," which is as silly as the one about Obama's birth certificate, is that in America we have such freedom of thought. The question of God being the ruler of all things is such a strong force in Italy, for instance, that it seemed to be taken for granted, religion. On the other hand, science is science too and the twain do not have to meet. Why should they anyway; they should absolutely be separate.

Argh, not to bring it all back home - just to point out that I think it's a good thing maybe that in America we even have these debates, or have the freedom to do so. We are such an inventive, lively country -- for better or worse.

My evolution thought of the day was when a squirrel found its way onto the main highway and nearly got squished into a pancake by an SUV in front. I thought, can't the poor things evolve already to know not to run into the roads? And then I figured, they breed so prolifically it is not a necessity for one to survive so there would never be natural selection. Or something. Anyway thanks for the best writing on the net.

Darwin is to Hitler as airplanes are to Osama Bin Laden.

The evidence is clear that evolution took place. Also the evidence is clear the world is round. As is, the Earth revolves around the Sun. But I'd say it's fair enough to hold out hope for an afterlife because the evidence is not clear. It may seem like a strange, hard to imagine world, but think about it. There is nothing about the universe you know that isn't strange and hard to imagine if you hadn't seen it with your own eyes.

Objectively, there is more evidence that there is some unexplainable reason to our existence, than there is evidence that it is a mere accident. Scientists are increasingly bewildered by the amazing and incredible coincidences necessary to have a functional universe that could possibly support life. I find this article in Discover Magazine to be eye-popping. http://discovermagazine.com/2009/may/01-the-biocentric-universe-life-creates-time-space-cosmos

Excellent comments Joe Young, M, P. Chen and Scientist.

This is refreshing. We're getting some nice clear comments from people that are actually in the sciences directly. I love seeing that. We second stringers can go around in circles over and over again but you simply have to ask a scientist "is I.D. of any use to you?". The answer is either a resounding No, or silence (from I.D. supporters).

P. Chen, as to the motivation of entire I.D. movement, I think you can gain an insight from Randy's quote above..

"So, is "common descent" flexible enough to incorporate the periods of innovation where a designer is working and also with ToE in the acts of change over time within species? If so, I'm with common descent. If not, I'm not"

In other words, if your science can accommodate my God, then I'm with you. If it cannot, then I'm not. As soon as a theory posits an idea that makes it possible to work without their version of god, it must be rejected. In the words of I.D advocate William Dembski, god is being robbed by the ToE.

Unlike science, religion has very inefficient self-correcting mechanisms. Bad or wrong ideas can last for centuries. Take the bible for example, and how many people hold it up as the inerrant word of god? Meanwhile, large tracks of it should have been thrown away a long time ago. The book of genesis for example. There are people today who scoff at the idea of evolution, but accept whole-heartedly that woman came from Adam's rib.

All that being said, you will never convince the shepards of this flock, you must concentrate on the sheep. That's why I admire people like Eugenie Scott and other Americans who are consistently defending science in that most important of arenas, the classroom.

As a commentator succintly says, a theory is how things could have happened, not how they did. A murder mystery is an example.

Hence, the situation seems to be:

Says ID: It couldn't have happened without an intelligence at work.
Says NS: I'll show you it can be done, and this is how.

So one is left with a choice and I go for a mutually supportive mixture of faith and science.

I would go along with Hamlet:

There's a divinity that shapes our ends
Rough hew them how we will.

Rough hewing would be NS at work.

Ebert: What does it say?

the⋅o⋅ry
  /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
Use theory in a Sentence
See web results for theory
See images of theory
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

Ebert: It is #7 that is the misleading vernacular meaning.

To create a thread of truly gargantuan length, simply include your thoughts on video games alongside your thoughts on creationism, and round it all off with a dash of Transformers 2. Voilà!

Ebert: Hitler socialized health care? Actually, it was Winston Churchill.

Sorry Roger as a British socialist I have to correct you

Clement Atlee and the British Labour Party socialized health care in 1948. Churchill's Conservative party opposed it and their arguments against it may sound very familiar to you.

If you have time the bbc website has a number of excellent short documentaries regarding its creation.

These may also help you fight Obama's corner in The States

http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/nhs/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/nhs/5147.shtml?all=1&id;=5147

Ebert: It appears that Churchill was on board:

http://ffrancsais.blogspot.com/2009/08/beveridge-churchill-and-nhs.html

Quote...Randy Masters;Also, I hold the fairly standard ID view that ToE mechanisms for micro-evolution are correct, but not for macro-evolution.

This of course, is a distinction without a difference. It's like saying, "I concede that that there is such a thing as a millimeter, but you have not yet proven the existence of a meter".

Once you have conceded that living things are not exact copies of their parents, and that they have the ability to diverge, you have conceded macro-evolution. If a finch's beak can evolve to different shapes and sizes to better eat the food on an isolated island, then so can every other part of its anatomy. What is there to stop this process? If you have two rocks floating through space, side by side, but on a slightly different trajectory they will diverge and diverge until eventually they are no longer in sight of each other (gradualism). Likewise, even if they are only slightly apart, an outside event (like another rock) can crash into one but not effect the other, causing it to drastically change course (punctuated equilibrium).

Creationists by contrast, do not accept that there are two rocks to begin with. Instead they insist that all finches form one 'rock', and so any force that acts upon it must act on the entire 'kind'. But this is not the case. Each living thing is on it's own trajectory.

Words like 'Species, Phylum, Variety, Kingdom and Class', are simply units of measurement that we use to judge the distance between each individual living thing. Those words are not barriers to the process of evolution, they're simply tools we have invented so that we may take a snapshot of the world as it is and as it was. The process of change over time does not butt it's head up against the great wall of Species for example. This isn't even a speedbump to evolution, as demonstrated by the various ring species we have already discovered (which I reference in the other thread).

Indian Idiot (H.W.): "Note to RDS, Mark Hughes & others who're shouting antibiotics, virus treatment etc., did it ever occur to you that this is interfering with natural law and therefore perhaps weakening evolutionary processes?"

We responded to an explicit question about what evolutionary theory has done for us. You're raising other questions, but we aren't "shouting" -- I think the question was being "shouted" at us, wasn't it? Characterizing it as us "shouting" when we were explicitly asked to respond is

Critical insights into virus evolution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fR2O2O27eNc#t=1m47s

I put up a post on that old entry a long time ago asking how you explained how the eye came into existence and your answer wasn't very convincing because you used another sense (touch) to explain how that sense was created. I udnerstand your logic but where did the sensation of touch come from? Anyways I think the most important question that is avoided is not how the senses developed but how did the mind develop? That is something that cannot be proven and is the biggest hole in the evolution theory (emphasis on the theory)

Ebert: Here's an interesting video on the evolution of the eye:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

And here is Scientific American on the evolution of the mind:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=four-fallacies

When you say "emphasis on theory" you're using the word in the misleading vernacular sense, and not according to its strict scientific meaning.

Roger - I agree about Sarah Palin, she appeals to people's anger and fear.

Joe Young - I like your distinction between theory and fact. I also have a physics degree.

Karl-Heinz - Interesting comments on micro/macro-evolution.

Regarding the Nazis and Social Darwinism...

The Nazis agreed with scientists that Evolution was a viable theory explaining the origin of species. The Nazis diverged from scientists by applying Evolution to society in a simplistic way and concluding that Social Darwinism justified their belief that certain races were superior to others.

If one were to draw an analogy between Evolution and Nazism, one could consider the development of cancer cells. The human body is like a society of cells whose members obey the principle of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Rather than competing with each other for precious resources, healthy cells work together for the benefit of the rest of the body.

If, on the other hand, one of these cells adopted the philosophy of "survival of the fittest," then the cell would begin to monopolize the resources around it. It would also multiply rapidly and attempt to metastasize - spread from one part of the body to another. These cells would become cancer cells and if left unchecked, would destroy the whole body in an effort to out-compete its neighbors. Nazis who believe that Evolution justifies the unmitigated pursuit of "survival of the fittest" are really like cancer cells, bent on achieving racial superiority, unaware that their actions could lead to the destruction of society.

In reality, nature puts checks on the development of species. Populations of organisms pursue their best interest, but if they breed too quickly then they exhaust their resources and destroy their local environment, causing them to die off (a path that humans have begun to take).

Hi Randy,
Glad to have your input. You write,
"ID is not Creationism. It's just not. You can't read Dembski's "The Design Revolution" and get creationism out of it. Move past that argument, already!"

You are wrong. It frustrates me to enter the same argument here that I have with parents at conferences, but here goes:

If you trace the history of the ID movement, you will find that its advocates are the creationists of 20 years ago. Please, I implore you, watch this:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

In Behe's testimony, he freely admits that ID is an "scientific" as astrology.
There is no evidence that beings were "intelligently designed."
Consider:
1. Over 99% of all living beings on earth are now extinct.
2. Over 1/3, if not more, of all peer-reviewed articles in biological journals address the mechanisms of evolution.
3. Every piece of evidence that has ever been found has supported biological evolution.
4. No piece of evidence that has ever been found supports anything other than biological evolution.

I think if you are going to try and falsify evolution, you should follow the example of Lynn Margules. She actually spent time in the laboratory formulating her theory ("theory" used correctly here) of Acquiring Genomes. Margules joins nearly every scientist is the world in readily accepting evolution through adaptation that leads to mutation that leads to speciation.

Here's more from the lit review of my dissertation I referred to in an earlier post:

The term “intelligent design” (ID) is often erroneously used in conjunction with theistic evolution/evolutionary creationism. Intelligent design is not part of Scott’s
spectrum of creationism, as ID resembles a political movement more than a belief system (Williams, 2006 ). Intelligent design is addressed here for 1) it’s frequent mislabel for “theistic evolution” and 2) its relationship to the Kitzmiller et al vs. Dover Area School Board case in 2005.
The Kitzmiller case is the most high-profile case surrounding the inclusion of creationist curriculum into public schools since the John Scopes trial in 1926 (Forrest, 2005 ). The case directly addressed public policy regarding science instruction.
Intelligent design incorporates some of the creationist viewpoints, but it is not in itself a belief, but rather a movement based on belief. Intelligent design (ID) is the result of advocacy of the Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture, a political action group whose aim is to implement creationism into school curriculum (Shermer, 2006). Intelligent design is embraced in varying degrees by both NE creationists and OE creationists, because of its relative success in implementing curriculum into America’s public schools (Forrest, 2005 ).
The crux of the current intelligent design argument lies in the publication of Michael Behe’s Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (1996) and William Dembski’s No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence (2002). A simplified summary of Behe’s and Dembski’s argument lies in “irreducible complexity,” or the idea that there are organisms, or parts of organisms that are too complex to not be “intelligently” designed (Behe, 1996) (Dembski, 2002).
The concepts behind “intelligent design” began with the publication of William Paley’s Natural Theology; or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity in 1802 (C. Smith & Sullivan, 2007). Paley argues that the universe, like a watch, is “ordered.” Paley extends his “watch analogy” to the idea of a “watchmaker” because, reasons Paley, the universe is so ordered that it require a designer to construct it (Paley, 1802).
Hooykas (1972), and many others, preceded Behe and Dembski in noting these common “designs” found within nature, and cite this as an example of “supernatural” evidence. Hooykas included evidence from ancient Greek philosophers to back his argument that God and Nature are intertwined. He argued that the universe must be a machine model which is made and fabricated by an omnipotent being (Hooykas, 1972).
As of this writing, there has been one peer-reviewed article endorsing intelligent design, titled “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories.” The author, Stephen Myer, was a senior fellow at the intelligent design think-tank Discovery Institute and professor at Christian Palm Beach Atlantic University. The review of the article was highly contested by the scientific community(Meyer, 2004). Soon after publication, a statement was issued by the publisher of the journal in which the article appeared, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. The article was quickly retracted by the journal. In the retraction, the publisher noted that the peer-review was completed by only one person, Richard Sternberg, an associate of Meyers. The Society also stipulated that ID holds no credible scientific evidence (D. Smith, 2005).

It is no coincidence that the writers of
Of Pandas and People are the same writers of a very similar textbook called Creation Biology.

Intelligent Design is creationism in a cheap tuxedo. (R. Dawkins.)

Ebert: I believe you're correct. I've never heard of an I.D. scientist who isn't American. Most of them are Christian fundamentalists. Christians in general are okay with evolution. Even the Pope. All other religions have no problem with it.

Ken Hamm's from Australia.

Do me a favor, will ya, Randy?

Let me know which of these staements you "most agree" with, then let's proceed:
1. “The earth and all of the earth’s inhabitants were made in a relatively short period of time, thousands of years ago, by a Supreme Being (e.g. God). Human beings were created by God as whole persons and did not evolve from earlier forms of life.”
2. “Each ‘day’ listed in Genesis assumes extremely large amounts of time (millions of years). Scientific evidence is strong that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. The fossil record indicates different kinds of animals that are described in the book of Genesis. Evolution has not and does not occur.”
3. “Over billions of years all plants and animals on earth (including humans) evolved from a single-celled ancestor, but a Supreme being (e.g. God) observed and guided the process.”
4. “Over billions of years all plants and animals on earth (including humans) evolved from a single-celled ancestor. “

No, I'm not trying to do my homework here, but this gives me a frame of reference. I confess I stopped reading the original blog after about Post 500.

Someone had written earlier that the people at Andrews (Berrien Springs, MI) were New Earth creationists. This isn't quite the case. I found out recently that many of them believe in the literal account of Genesis, but include the caveat that the earth is as old as all the evidence supports it to be. This caveat is very revealing. One doesn't get caveats in science. There is either evidence or there isn't. One doesn't get miracles, either.

ID and Darwin's theory are NOT equal but opposing theories. The theory of evolution through natural selection is overwhelming in its breadth and depth. It is natural, testable, repeatable, observable falsifiable. All evidence points to evolution. Contrast this with ID: It isn't natural, testable, repeatable, falsifiable, nor observable.

This is to Bill Hays.

Your comment "Intelligent Design is nonsense," seriously, is that necessary? You're making the same mistake of some creationists who believe that EVERYONE that accepts evolution is a God-hating athiest. Not all ID supporters have an agenda to "dumb-down" children. Many IDists (like myself) are supporters of evolution.
You seem like that man on the witness stand in that "Inherit the Wind" clip.

ID at it's core, isn't science, but a philosophy. It's also a rational one, if you would simply remove your bias and preconceived notions.

OK, some questions for the afternoon:

Does anyone believe that intelligent design is not based upon a belief in God? (For the moment, let's ignore the thought that we were designed by something like intelligent extraterrestrial aliens who do not meet anyone's implicit definition of God; this would complicate a simple issue by introducing the recursive, then-who-designed-the-aliens-?-etc-etc issue.)

Does anyone believe that intelligent design is not simply a retelling of essential parts of the creation story in Genesis, albeit rewritten into modern day pseudo-scientific language?

Does anyone believe that intelligent design should be taught in any public school in the United States as a scientific theory in the physical sciences or biological sciences curriculum?

Now I am back to work on my project. Enjoy your last holiday of the summer!

Arikan says:
'In fact, many Muslims try to identify how the Koranic view of the origins of life can be reconciled with Darwinian theory. All my R.E. teachers during middle school, for example. [How old are you? I'll bet the curriculum is changing]

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

You do mean 'Muslims'; as in those 'Muslim' countries, merely to say 'people' might include the polytheists, the people of 'the book', the idolators, the Kuffar (the n word for us) and unclean, or mere Jews!
Heck, just any old non-Muslim; and, non Muslims happen to be second class citizens in most Islamic countries, even if they do get by with a small jizyah.
Perhaps Turkey knows better since they are almost as fiercely anti-Arab as they are fiercely anti-Greek, and they do try and hide their hand in human genocide and butchery, as with the Kurdish; and do so want to get into that rich European club across the Bosporus.
Then we have this presumption of reconciliation with the Koran -- right! Yea, I guess Mohammed was tuning into this subtle 'Evolution' theory when he speaks of this nasty 'clot' . 'The clot' that is the oft claimed suggestion he didn't need a microscope to reveal from Allah the early phases of pregnancy.
I doubt too that Islam intends to 'reconcile' anything that's not already included in the centuries approved vetting process.
This also gets back to one's view of 'God'. What such unassailable logic as Darwinism inspires with fanatics -- if they do reconcile Evolution with Islam, it'd likely be long the lines of reconciling Darwinism with the 3rd Reich. I think, too, the attempt at reconciliation of Islam with Darwinism has been duly noted in earlier posts, and they reveal a strong similarity with 'Intelligent Design'.

Ebert: RDS, don't you have anything positive to say about Muslims?

Finally, you've settled a debate I've been having for years.

Was Scrooge McDuck from Donald's paternal or maternal side. Now I know - and I owe a friend 20 bucks.

Once again, thank you for your valuable assistance.

Ebert: If you peer closely at that tree, it appears that Huey, Dewey and Louie's parents are Donald's twin sister Della and...an ordinary duck.

Sasha Stone wrote, Having just traveled to Italy and France, while I didn't get the sense that there were Creationists, or proponents of Intelligent Design, I didn't exactly get the feeling that these cultures were particularly putting the question up to debate. One thing that is worth noting about the "debate," which is as silly as the one about Obama's birth certificate, is that in America we have such freedom of thought. The question of God being the ruler of all things is such a strong force in Italy, for instance, that it seemed to be taken for granted, religion. On the other hand, science is science too and the twain do not have to meet. Why should they anyway; they should absolutely be separate.

Argh, not to bring it all back home - just to point out that I think it's a good thing maybe that in America we even have these debates, or have the freedom to do so. We are such an inventive, lively country -- for better or worse.

You are correct that the "debate" is entirely non-existent in France. The reason is partly that science and religion are indeed two entirely separate entities, and treated as such (France, and urban France in particular, also happens to be much less religious than Italy).
Perhaps more importantly, religion is kept apart from both politics and education. Creationism and ID make such a splash in the US in large part due to the people who want to add them to high school curriculums, as well as to the politicians who try to use it to further their agenda. No one would ever think of teaching creationism in French public schools, which largely explains why the Evolution vs. Creationism or ID debate doesn't exist over here at all. That is not to say that such a debate would not be possible, if it were ever relevant (however, it is true that the French Constitution, unlike its American counterpart, does not explicitly guarantee freedom of speech, which is a damn shame if you ask me).

All that doesn't mean that the French public is smarter or better educated that the American public. I don't doubt there are things in our public life that would be as puzzling to Americans as this debate is to Europeans.

There is an awesome 11-part documentary with interviews with tons of leading professors and physicists on YouTube about string theory, including its implications for the origins of the universe (Hint: its existence is nothing special). I implore everyone to watch it.

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7FV9aaiwKQ&feature;=related

Part 10 (with info about the big bang and its theoretical origin. Skip to 0:57): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zgxvGaei6o&feature;=related

If you don't watch the videos leading up to it (which I highly suggest, but watching this last link first or even exclusively is better than nothing), when they say "branes," its short for "membranes," a theoretical form of string. They're not saying "brains."

Reply to: David Jerome: This is to Bill Hays. Your comment "Intelligent Design is nonsense," seriously, is that necessary?

When you're having a discussion, if you start from a FALSE PREMISE, then none of your conclusions are valid.

Find out the FACTS, and start from there.

In my case, I read the ID literature. One of their goals is, to introduce "God," "theism," and "the supernatural" into high school science classes and have them replace atheistic views about how life began on earth.

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

Phase III. Once our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of design theory, we will move toward direct confrontation with the advocates of materialist science through challenge conferences in significant academic settings.

Governing Goals

To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

Twenty Year Goals

To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science. (end)

Reply to: You're making the same mistake of some creationists who believe that EVERYONE that accepts evolution is a God-hating athiest.

Never came close to making that mistake.

What I'm saying is, IF we can get enough God-hating atheists together, we don't need to worry about anyone else.

Reply to: Not all ID supporters have an agenda to "dumb-down" children. Many IDists (like myself) are supporters of evolution.

Then you don't seem to understand what ID is.

The Fundamentalist Christian groups who start and run the ID movement have an agenda, and that is to dumb people down by throwing "God" into scientific theories.

Reply to: You seem like that man on the witness stand in that "Inherit the Wind" clip.

That trial was a historical event because the leaders of two different philosophies met... and the Christian was forced to answer questions on a witness stand under threat of perjury. Christianity lost that day.

Reply to: ID at it's core, isn't science, but a philosophy. It's also a rational one, if you would simply remove your bias and preconceived notions.

ID is NOT a rational philosophy. but plenty of gullible people have been fooled into thinking it is.

We have a long history behind humanity. There was no God pulling strings and helping us along. The story of HOW IT REALLY HAPPENED is fascinating, historic, and deserves to be honored without the religious fundamentalists throwing "My God is an Awesome God" into the conversation.

When a movement publishes its' agenda, and that includes replacing "scientific materialism" in the minds of Americans with a religious belief.... we need to explain what's really go on... to all the gullible folks who haven't done the background check.

Some further clarification on the word "theory."

First of all, though it is a hard pill to swallow for many, the dictonary does not carry the authority of God when it comes to the English language. It is simply a reference to current popular usage, and if "theory" is widely used to mean "conjecture" or "speculation" then that definition clearly belongs in the book. However, that doesn't mean that all definitions apply in all cases. Scientists, for instance, need so many (often complicated) words because they are dealing with more precise qualities than the rest of us, and so they need more precise meanings. What most people mean when they say "theory" is probably closest to what a scientist means by "hypothesis."

In the sciences, "theory" refers to our intellectual understanding of how something works. In a way, it's sort of the opposite of "fact" in the same sense that "mind" is the opposite of "matter" or "body." Imagine a billiard table. There is the table and the balls scattered on its surface, all right where they are and looking the way they look and generally existing the way they do. All that is fact. Now - without touching them - there are things you think you know about the nature of these objects. How heavy they would be if you lifted them. How they would respond if you pushed them, or struck one ball with another, or turned the table on its side. All this is theory - the concept of a thing, not the thing itself.

Of course, the better your theory, the better your pool game. Like a hypothesis, theories are validated by practice. But they also need practice to develop - so calling them "proven" or "unproven" is a bit silly. Degree of accuracy is a better measure. Here comes the inevitable mention of gravity. Newton's theory wasn't that gravity exists. That much is obvious. He described how it works, and how we can use it and predict it "theoretically" - i.e. "on paper." And he did so with enough accuracy that his equations are still used today for simple calculations. But for more serious work, his theories have been replaced by Einstein's much more accurate General Theory of Relativity. Even that theory falls apart at the quantum level, and will hopefully soon be replaced by the Grand Unified Totally Awesome Theory of Everything. But, as TalkOrigins eloquently put it, apples will not suspend themselves in mid-air pending the outcome.

Regarding the compatibility of ID and the Theory of Evolution: A person's scientific background is no guarantee of the strict use of Reason. For example, here's Richard Feynman speaking at the Caltech commencement in 1974:

Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It's a little bit off, because he had the incorrect value for teh viscosity of air. It's interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of the electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that
one is a little bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher.

Why didn't they discover that the new number was higher right away? It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of--this history--because it's apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan's, they thought something must be wrong . . .

There is a fellow, D. Russell Humphreys by name, who despite a solid physics background insists that 6000-odd years is about right for the age of the Earth. He is smart enough to know what contradicts that, and so he'll tell you that the speed of light changed, and that the Earth magnetic field changed polarity hundreds of times during the Great Flood, etc. I heard him speak and he seemed 100% sincere. For more info on him, here's the Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Humphreys

"Man is not a rational animal; he is a ralionalizing animal." --Robert A. Heinlein

Duncan: "Does anyone believe that intelligent design is not simply a retelling of essential parts of the creation story in Genesis, albeit rewritten into modern day pseudo-scientific language?"

Yes, and I'm a staunch opponent of ID and creationism. See my comments above. Michael Behe is one of the most cited ID promoters, and he clearly states that he accepts a 4-billion year history of life and common descent, and thus does not believe any version of Genesis that could be called "literal." But he nevertheless misrepresents evolution and the nature of science. Of course no ID promoter ever stops anyone from fantasizing that ID arguments validate one of the mutually-contradictory literal interpretations of Genesis.

Hi Roger

I am a big Oliver Stone fan and I agree with his political views on Hugo Chavez. I think it would be an interesting topic to chat about on your blog. Will you be able to write a review on Oliver Stone's documentary picture "South of the border"?

"Creationism is big in Muslim Turkey."

Can I put this on a shirt or something?

Frank J, thanks for your reply and reference to Behe. I understand that you do not believe in ID or creationism.

Without having read any of Behe's work, this is what I think I know about his beliefs:

1) Certain living systems or subsystems are "irreducibly complex", and could not have been produced by any natural selection (or possibly, more generally, any evolutionary) process.
2) Therefore, these systems or subsystems must have been produced by an intelligent designer.
3) He makes no speculation as to who or what the nature of this designer might be.

My reading and knowledge tells me that #1 is not true, and that essentially all scientists consider his claims of "irreducible complexity" bunk and many cite numerous methods by which the noted complexities can be produced by evolutionary processes.

I'd say the following is the essential part of the Genesis story as far as the discussion here goes:

26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...
27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

In my mind I think the essential issue is whether human life was designed by an intelligent designer.

So here is my revised question (and I'm making a few jumps here, to be sure):

Does anyone wish to debate the statement that "a belief in intelligent design is logically equivalent to a belief in the essential parts of the creation story in Genesis"?

Omer M. Mozaffar: "Let's not conflate the views of a mass within a population to the views of the population itself."

I didn't. Nor are the views of American Christian Creationists conflated with the views of all Americans.

Omer: "There is a global, highly prolific populist movement (cited somewhere in the comments way above) led by a Harun Yahya. Among their publications is a book that regards Darwin as a conspiracy."

Which confirms my point that there are Muslim Creationists too, not just American Christian Creationists as Roger said. Thank you. Case closed.

On the issue of 'death panels,' I'd say this is definitely the direction our society is heading. Maybe it's not in Obama's health care plan, but you can see it coming regardless. Everything points that way, in fact it is already happening. We are only one small step away from it becoming an everyday reality. It won't take much- set up a series of medical guidelines under which a patient in certain circumstances doesn't qualify to receive this medication or that, and bingo! The decision is automatic; no one need feel guilty about it. And make no mistake, it will be old people, not cute kids and babies, who will bear the brunt. 'Survival of the fittest' will be the rule, so why spend a lot of money keeping people alive who's usefulness is gone and not coming back? Old people are on their way out... so to speak.

I did a little research myself into whether there was any Darwin-Hitler connection, for an article in the student magazine I help edit. The answer is pretty much no. If you think of 19th/early 20th-century racism, eugenics, and imperialism as a melting-pot, it's fair to say that Darwinism was one thing that went in and Nazism was one thing that came out. But if you took out of the pot everything that has scientific validity, and everything that actually came from Darwin, all of Nazism would still be left inside.
Darwin was, by the standards of his own day, an extreme anti-racist. In his time the popular theory was that each "race" of "man" had been created separately; there was no common ancestry between a white and a "Negro". Darwin opposed this completely. His "Descent of Man" (1871) not only concludes that all "races" have a common origin, it also argues that any differences in intelligence and morals -- unfortunately Darwin was not brave enough to deny these completely in the face of data he didn't know was flawed -- are minimal. In Darwin's view, "racial" differences in appearance arose from selective breeding over generations due to long-standing cultural standards of attractiveness. 128 years later this hypothesis has yet to be improved upon.
Darwin's ideas were selectively picked up by Herbert Spencer, who coined the phrase "survival of the fittest" as more manly and ruthless than Darwin's preferred "natural selection". Spencer, like many evolutionists of the time, smuggled in ideas from the earlier evolutionary thinker Lamarck, who thought species were "improved" by conscious striving toward goals. Thus the "fittest" were not (according to Spencer) merely those who survived best, they were in some sense more worthy.
From Spencer to Haeckel: although Haeckel, the German eugenicist, certainly did support Darwin's idea of common descent (and did a great deal of valuable work on it), his idea of the mechanism of evolution was almost purely Lamarckian. Also contrary to Darwin, he claimed that the different "races" of man had arisen separately from ape ancestors. However, in his view the White race included Jews and Arabs -- the Jewish debate was already arousing passions in some quarters of Germany, and Haeckel stood on the pro-Jewish side.
Nietzsche, who originated the idea of the "Ubermensch", was also pro-Jewish. His Ubermensch were not a race but consisted of the rare geniuses in every population who rose above the common herd. He explicitly preferred Lamarck to Darwin on the grounds that anyone could see that the "fittest", that being the Ubermensch, didn't prevail over the mediocre in terms of numbers.
The economist and philosopher Eugen Duhring also preferred Lamarck; to him, Darwinism was an act of "brutality against humanity". His racial eugenic theories set him on the anti-Jewish side of the debate.
Duhring's ideas were picked up by the Christian Social Party of Germany and Austria. They didn't think much of evolution in any form but they were the core of the anti-Jewish movement and were keen to pick up any anti-Jewish theories that were going around. And the Austrian leader of the Party, Karl Lueger, was Hitler's inspiration.
So, while there was a trail of sorts from Darwin to Hitler, at every step it involved rejecting and removing scientific Darwinism in favour of Lamarckian race romanticism.

Dan Brown: "There is an awesome 11-part documentary with interviews with tons of leading professors and physicists on YouTube about string theory, including its implications for the origins of the universe (Hint: its existence is nothing special)."

String Theory is a failed idea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Woit
Peter Woit: "For the last eighteen years particle theory has been dominated by a single approach to the unification of the Standard Model interactions and quantum gravity. This line of thought has hardened into a new orthodoxy that postulates an unknown fundamental supersymmetric theory involving strings and other degrees of freedom with characteristic scale around the Planck length. [...] It is a striking fact that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for this complex and unattractive conjectural theory. There is not even a serious proposal for what the dynamics of the fundamental ‘M-theory’ is supposed to be or any reason at all to believe that its dynamics would produce a vacuum state with the desired properties. The sole argument generally given to justify this picture of the world is that perturbative string theories have a massless spin two mode and thus could provide an explanation of gravity, if one ever managed to find an underlying theory for which perturbative string theory is the perturbative expansion."
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/

Reply to Bill Hays:

"Then you don't seem to understand what ID is.

The Fundamentalist Christian groups who start and run the ID movement have an agenda, and that is to dumb people down by throwing "God" into scientific theories."

^ You are failing to do, deliberately it seems, is to separate Fundamentalists IDists, from IDists who completely disagree with their agenda. Don't lump is all into one catagory.

"That trial was a historical event because the leaders of two different philosophies met... and the Christian was forced to answer questions on a witness stand under threat of perjury. Christianity lost that day."

^ Christianity is not only alive and well, but practiced by more people than any other religion on earth.

"ID is NOT a rational philosophy. but plenty of gullible people have been fooled into thinking it is."

^ ID centers on the teleological argument, which was promoted by WELL respected philosophers such as Aristotle, Plato and Descartes. These men were champions of rational thinking.

"We have a long history behind humanity. There was no God pulling strings and helping us along. The story of HOW IT REALLY HAPPENED is fascinating, historic, and deserves to be honored without the religious fundamentalists throwing "My God is an Awesome God" into the conversation. "

^ The funny thing is, that no scientist will claim that we know how it "really happened". We have evidence to support certain ideas, but we have a long way to go. Your claim that we do know how it "really happened", is erroneous pomp.

Your argument basically amounts to shouting, insults, and false premesises. I see this tactic a lot from creationists. It's no less appauling just becomes it's used by someone on the correct side.

I celebrate your stick-to-it-iveness with this debate, Mr. E., but even when confronted with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, a true believer must continue to believe. To do otherwise would compromise more than just a single idea about the beginnings of our existence – it would mean having to concede a few thousand year’s worth of their ideologies and doctrine. That’s going to be a tough sell. Even in the latter part of the 19th century, Samuel Rowbotham, aka Parallax, was still on the British lecture circuit insisting the earth was flat. He based his theories on a mix of biblical references, his own experimentation and a plethora of mathematical contrivances that supported his presumptions. His boisterous public dissertations about a flat-planed earth with a layer of fire below, a ridge of ice around the edges, and a moon and stars a few hundred feet above were hailed by many as genius. After reading his Zetetic Astronomy treatise ‘Earth Not A Globe' (it’s both fascinating and frightening) I’ve no doubt that, were he alive today, he’d have his own show on Fox News.

As a species, I don’t think we move forward very fast; human evolution is a painfully slow and incremental process. If it took our ancestors tens of thousands of years just to stop slouching, imagine how long changing our minds will take. The Scopes Monkey Trial was held over 80 years ago and the only thing anyone has technically succeeded in doing since then is reversing the argument. Instead of the creationists trying to keep the evolutionists out, it’s the other way around. I suppose that’s progress of a sort, but just barely.

Although, we have to give credit where credit is due. Shifting the trade name from ‘Creationism’ to 'Intelligent Design' is so brilliant it would make Don Draper drop his glass of whiskey and cry like a little girl. It’s the ultimate in rebranding: Take a well-established product that isn’t selling the way it used to, repackage the concept and create new buzz. It’s the Real Thing. It’s the Pepsi Generation. It’s the Breakfast of Champions. It’s creationism you can believe in without all the religious overtones that used to make you unpopular at cocktail parties. And, if I may be so bold, it’s very American. Intelligent Design appears to be sponsored by the same people who brought you witch hunt trials re-dubbed as the House Un-American Activities Committee and side-stepped civil rights by re-labeling the abuse of them ‘The Patriot Act’. Perhaps the citizens currently drawing Hitler moustaches on Obama and freaking out about him ‘indoctrinating’ their children with a back-to-school pep talk are their direct, but less eloquent, descendants. If nothing else, you do keep the rest of us vastly entertained by showcasing the craziest amongst you on television 24 hours a day. It's definitely worth the price of my cable bill every month.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Hope you enjoy the TIFF up here next week. If I happen to pass by you on Yonge Street between venues, I’ll throw you a big kiss a la Dinah Shore.

Frank J,

"More importantly, ID advocates routinely bait-and-switch the two definitions."

Looks like you beat me to it. That's what I was trying to get across; that there are multiple definitions that get tossed around as a debating trick to distract from the actual issues. I was trying to clear the air of the madness of some of them, which I'll do again here:

Barebones definition of ID

1. An intelligent being did it. This implies space faring: meaning we would have to travel through a wormhole to the other side of the big bang to find a literal Mother Nature creature (not exactly something we can prove on Earth).

Purposefulness definition of ID

2. We are also created towards a purpose. What purpose is not stated. Notice the rich yet perplexing irony of how this definition is the exact same definition of naturalism, which they oppose (Darwin being dubbed thusly...by THEM, but anyway what they actually mean is scientism).

Spiritual defintionS of ID

3. ID is not associated with religion. It having never stated what the pupose of ID is, this would have been the logical conclusion anyway.

4. ID is a religious theory. Aside from this being an oxymoron (since religion deals with strictly spiritual matters) and the exact purpose of ID having never been stated, this would have no basis in reality because we would either have to be subhuman things or suprabeings on the same level as god. This implies we're mechanical predetermined things in the former ("things" once again being the very thing they are opposing with naturalism, but actually meaning scientism) and omniscience in the latter of knowing, of being on the level of some god that controls the predeterminism, which makes no sense of titanic proportions meaning that it is to be mutually understood that time is to do our bidding where we can change the past, present, or future however we feel like.

Opposing Darwin definitions

5. Darwin's theory of evolution, which has no purpose, but neither do they.

6. Darwin's theory just isn't right with the slow, gradual change. This would have to mean instaneous transformation...like "Transformer". This would be in agreement with the god-as-partner-omniscience.

That's a lot of bait and switching.

Hi Dave Van Dyke,

I can understand your frustration, re:ID, and of course you are right that it is nothing new.
I found this talk by Eugenie Scott to be a nice synopsis of the history of creationism and it's evolution into ID. At least, it's evolution as a legal argument, which is so critical to their movement.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OeoGPpe1CI (7 parts in total)

From these videos, it's very clear that ID is actually a legal strategy. Having lost a key case in regards to creationism, it's no longer legal to teach this particular form of religion in American schools. The solution? Repackage it as ID. And so Of Pandas when through it's metamorphosis and we were presented with the second addition, which deleted the word Creationist and replaced it with Intelligent Designer.

This is not news to you and most of the people reading this. It was made famous rather dramatically with the Dover trial, which you link to in your comment.

BTW- As I'm sure Randy will tell you, he has seen that program. I believe he has also read the entire Judgement.

I too, have watched Nova's excellent program several times, I've read the judgement, and most of the trial transcript. There is an enormous amount of information there. For example, the fact that most of the expert witnesses for the ID side dropped out of the trial at the last minute. Why did they do this? Because they knew they were backing the wrong horse (Dembski was one of those experts, after a couple of years of praying for the chance to express his views on the witness stand, and FORCE evolution backers onto the very same stand so they couldn't run away, he had his chance---but sadly, chose to run away himself). They knew they were going to lose big and wanted to cut their losses. The discovery institute even tried to persuade the offending school board to back off with Pandas. Philip Johnston is no fool and a legal expert, he knows that you often only get one shot at these sorts of things and would have preferred to fight the battle on his terms. But he failed.

And interesting fact you get from reading the court transcript and following the work of Eugenie Scott is, the creationists are not done with the Panda's book. There is a third addition out. At least they had the sense to change the name to "The Design of Life". Authors? None other than one of Randy's favorite creationist scientists, WIlliam Dembski. And co-author Jonathan Wells. The kicker is, Eugenie Scott has already shown that this rewrite is the exact same manuscript as the other two with only minor changes. So they changed the title but not the content, making it just as unacceptable to school-boards. That is unless they have since seen the light and taken out the 90% that was legally unacceptable. Something I pointed out in the other thread.

As I'm sure you're aware, this is not the only battle between science and religion. You may find this entry I did in the other Ben Stein thread amusing, By Karl on August 13, 2009 11:59 PM .

It's a comparison between the modern ID movements arguments and the arguments of the flat earth society in Darwin's time vs Newton. What's old is new again.