On Darwin
A couple of weeks ago, Karen Joy shared a link to Ben Stein’s upcoming documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. From the Expelled Blog:
“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” isn’t a Hollywood movie.
This is real life in America, the land of the free…and the home of the brave. It isn’t about “religious nuts,” it isn’t about politics… and it certainly isn’t only about science.
It is about America, and the unseen silent hand of repression that is taking hold of science, in our public universities and government laboratories.
I am very much looking forward to seeing this film when it comes out in the spring! I don’t think I will be waiting for this one to come out on dvd.
Ken Ham issues invitation to the Expelled tour.
but what I really want to know is how you posted that video
on WordPress! I’ve seen videos on other blogs
but have never been able to do it myself.
On Obama
Thanks to Daja for the link to Milehimama’s “Underdog Day” post. Watch the video. Bill O’Reilly is interviewing Jill Stanek. It’ll make you sick. Or at least I hope it makes you sick. It makes me sick.
When you’ve finished there, check out this blog entry on Jill Stanek’s website. Amazing! (More evidence that science does not have all the answers!!)
“But abortion is just one issue.”
January 5, 2008 at 11:00 pm
More and more this seems like a big misstep for the intelligent design crowd. It’s survived for so long trying to argue that it’s not a religious belief or creationism masquerading as science: but now with people like Ham and Stein promoting this openly, the whole edifice looks ready to crumble.
January 5, 2008 at 11:51 pm
I will check out that “Underdog Day” post. I hadn’t seen it. Missed it somehow on Daja’s blog.
OK. For the video, first I right-clicked on the graphic that led to the video to find out the URL to post it (via the “pic” button that looks like a tree — it is http://www.expelledthemovie.com/_uploads/playgroundvideoscreen.jpg and the pixel size is 462 x 254). Once the graphic was inserted, in another tab, I clicked on the movie on the Expelled website to find out the address, then copied address of the video — http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playgroundvideo3.swf. Then, I clicked on the graphic back in my write-page, and clicked on the “insert link” button, pasting the video address in. So, basically, it’s just a graphic that’s linked to the movie URL on the Expelled website.
January 5, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Hm. In my above comment, the link to the video isn’t working, but on my blog, it still is. I don’t know what the problem is.
January 6, 2008 at 4:24 pm
On the contrary, Bad. With people like Ham and Stein promoting it, it’s going to get more people thinking, and the more people think (finally!), the more they will begin to question the status quo. I don’t see how talking about it could possibly be a misstep. Why do evolutionists do everything they can to avoid answering our questions?
Thanks for stopping by, Bad.
January 6, 2008 at 5:37 pm
We’ve answered your questions over and over and over ad naseum. You don’t want to hear the answers because they aren’t the answers you want.
And in fact, if you look at this film, it’s basically an exercise in avoidance of these issues in any case: it’s as if the evidence doesn’t matter. They don’t even mention the details of someone like Sternberg’s alleged misconduct, not even to defend him.
And you probably have a different idea of what thinking is than I do. This film is pretty much the exact opposite: it’s about trying to get people worked up emotionally by making all sorts of allegations (many of which are flatly false) and build outrage. It isn’t seriously taking on science in any sort of systematic way. According to one of the first reviewers, it can’t even be bothered to explain what evolution or even intelligent design is in substantive detail. Instead of grappling with the evidence for evolution (which few creationists can even name or explain, much less think about) it blames descriptive science for the Holocaust. Godwinizing everything is thoughtful?
January 8, 2008 at 5:38 am
I think that you forget that most creationists grew up indoctrinated into the theology of Darwinian evolution. To suggest that “few creationists” have a clue is naive. I think that most of us are aware of the fossil record according to secular science, rock layers, and millions of years, for example. But we choose to consider an alternative theory. How many secular evolutionists would even consider the possibility of the account of Noah’s Ark and a global flood? Would you? or would you dismiss it out of hand because it’s mentioned in the Bible and is therefore “religious” according to secular “scientists”?
January 8, 2008 at 10:29 pm
On the contrary: the vast majority of public school students in this country get little to no education at all in biology, let alone evolutionary biology, thanks to the fear and lobbying spread by anti-science critics.
As a result, virtually no creationist I’ve ever met on the internet can even explain the core basics of evolutionary theory: but they are sure it’s wrong. The picture they have of it is a caricature. They even claim things like “fruit flies never develop into anything other than fruit flies” that far from being contradictions of evolution, are in fact exactly what common descent MEANS (it’s literally no different than saying that mammals never develop into anything other than mammals).
Then why does virtually every creationist I meet repeat claims about these things which are grossly inaccurate and bely very little understanding of how these fields work? Are you aware that the fossil record, while quite cool for its insights into the particulars of the past, isn’t really even all that critical to why evolution is considered so scientifically sound (though it is a nice bonus)?
The reason that scientists, many of whom began as young earth creationists, abandoned these ideas long ago was that they were wildly out of touch with the evidence. Considered the possibility? Of course we have: and the evidence says no, not even close. Geologists long before Darwin were looking at the earth and realizing that it couldn’t possibly be only 6000 years old, or that there had been a global flood (unless of course the flood was so magical that it left no evidence, in which case you might as well argue that the entire world was filled with pink balloons for thousands of years that magically vanished when humans appeared)
This is only making things worse though. The whole point of ID was to pretend that it wasn’t religious: that it was all about the science. The fact that the primary audience for this film seems to be open young earth creationists is pretty much crumbling that whole foundation.
January 8, 2008 at 11:32 pm
No one should consider such an improbable story without a little bit of “evidence”.
January 9, 2008 at 11:08 am
Feel free to elaborate, onein6billion.
January 9, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Not only is there no evidence of a global flood, but there is very strong geological evidence that there wasn’t one. None of the patterns of ancestral population distributions, continent movement, or even genetics are consistent with the idea (for instance we’d expect to see genetic bottlenecks equally distributed across all animals that were on the ark, perhaps with distinctive differences in the few special animals that were on the ark in larger numbers: we don’t see anything like this in the genetic record). It’s scientifically implausible. The fossil record is 100% incompatible with being laid down in one giant flood, as many creationists believe. And so on.
As for public schools, it is a sad reality. Science education has a long long way to go in this country.
January 10, 2008 at 12:57 am
Where did Noah put a pair of each of the million species of beetles? How did he gather 2 million rather specific pairs of beetles is less than a decade or so without a few hundred scientists spread out over all 5 continents?
“Improbable story” means no way, no how, never, nada, insane story. Not to mention that there’s no evidence of a “global flood”. ROTFLOL.
January 10, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Whatever, onein6billion.
Of that vast number of beetle species, how many are products of natural selection?
I suppose we’re still going with the continental drift theory of mountain formation to explain marine fossils on mountaintops.
January 10, 2008 at 9:06 pm
We’re “still going with it” because that’s where all the evidence converges: all sorts of different independent lines of evidence and methods of determining past events, all converging on the same explanation.
A flood is inconsistent with the phenomenon, by the way. Floods tend to erode higher ground, not deposit sediments on them, and certainly not IN them, and certainly not deposited as they lived and died in life, and certainly not in the same patterns and layers over time as are found everywhere else in the world: a pattern which makes no sense in terms of a flood, since it bears no relation to buoyancy or any other hydrodynamic sorting principle. Much of the fossil evidence includes remnants of perfectly normal seabed activity in any case: nothing like what we find with floodwaters against high ground.
And why would the high number of beetle species be some sort of problem for a theory of speciation and branching biological diversity?
January 10, 2008 at 10:00 pm
That is not inconsistent with a violent flood at all, Bad.
My point with the beetles is that they started somewhere. They didn’t just go “BANG” and there were two million species. The parent pairs would’ve been considerably fewer.
I admire your faith. I admit that it’s much stronger than mine.
January 11, 2008 at 1:08 am
All one million of course. They evolved over millions of years. So Noah got the parent pair 50 million years ago and released them to evolve over the last 50 million years? ROTFLOL
“I admire your faith.”
Non sequitur. I do not have a “faith”. I do think that “science” will find out the “truth” about the “natural world”.
“I admit that it’s much stronger than mine.”
You seem to be defending yours. Why bother? It’s certainly quite un-defendable using the language of science.
January 11, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Actually, no. Because this is my blog ,and pretty much everything on here has a faith aspect. Faith is always relevant, yours, mine or anyone else’s.
From my perspective, that is faith. (Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.) I’m sure that you define faith another way, but I do not.
I will say that you deserve some kind of prize as the first person who has ever used the term “non sequitur” on this “mommy” blog. Too bad I don’t have anything to give you.
Oh, wait! Give me your address. I’ve got this great book I’d like to send you. It’ll change your life, but only if you read it.
Regarding the beetles, the beetle kind, along with every other kind that needed protection from a catastrophic flood, only needed the genetic information carried by a relatively few pairs. The dimensions of the ark as put forth in the Bible make the ark quite huge and more than adequate to house the genetic information needed to preserve the kinds that needed protection from flood waters. I don’t agree with you on the length of time it took for all of these beetles to come about.
It is interesting to me that you are defending the wisdom of men, which has changed numerous times over the centuries, and yet you mock me for defending the Bible, the text of which has remained practically unchanged for 2,000 years – or more, depending on the books, and which, if I remember correctly, is supported by more scientific evidence than any other ancient book on the planet.
Bad, I have responded to you here to keep beetles and geology separate.
January 11, 2008 at 3:20 pm
No: that’s quite the point: it’s not consistent with any flood, violent or not (though I’ve never heard of a calm flood). The fossil traces of past marine ecologies found in mountains are blatantly inconsistent with the actions of floods, and perfectly consistent with geological upthrust.
I’m still not sure I understand your point about beetles. Beetles evolved from more generalized insectoid ancestors. In evolutionary terms, they “banged” over the course of millions of years in the sense that they were an extremely successful form of life, leading to great diversity.
You can accuse me of faith, but the accusation is baseless. The way I’m reaching conclusions cannot be accurately described as a process of faith.
January 11, 2008 at 6:40 pm
My point about the beetles was this: quadrillions of years of evolution aside and assuming there really was a guy named Noah, that he really did build an ark and there really were at least two of every kind of living creature whose life was endangered because of the impending flood, Noah would’ve only needed the genetic information from the more generalized insectoid ancestors. onein6billion suggests that Noah would’ve needed a couple of million beetles. I disagreed stating that he’d only need enough carriers of that genetic information.
Oh, I think I understand where the confusion may be coming from. You guys are of the belief system that there is upward evolution though the evidence is not in your favor. I’m coming from the perspective that there had to have been a whole load of info in those ancestors to make the variety possible.
What is the evidence supporting the existence of insectoid ancestors, out of curiosity?
January 11, 2008 at 7:15 pm
“He’d only need enough carriers of that genetic information.”
ROTFLOL
The reason that there are a million species is because the genetic information for each one is different. It would seem that you are trying to claim that one pair of “super beetles” could produce a million different species of beetles. This is so profoundly anti-science that I have stopped laughing for 2 whole minutes.
“evidence is not in your favor”
There you go again. It would seen that the word “evidence” does not have the same meaning for you as it does for the sane people in this world.
“What is the evidence supporting the existence of insetoid ancestors, out of curiosity?”
Certain insects from millions of years ago have been found in pieces of amber. Their evolutionary relationship to current insects is obvious.
January 12, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Actually, genetically, only two individuals is rarely enough to keep a species going: there isn’t enough diversity, and inbreeding magnifies any recessive traits considerably. There really isn’t a mechanism, in genes, for two individuals to store all the information for millions of beetle variations. Any stored but presently unused information in genes tends to be corrupted fairly quickly, because it isn’t being selected for and so has no guard against mutational damage. There also just isn’t any evidence of such a storage system in the structure of genes, nor any plausible description of how one could work and overcome all the problems it would cause.
January 15, 2008 at 11:35 am
Okay, then if evolution is true and there is no mechanism to store genetic information that goes unused, how is it possible for new genetic information to show up? What your describing sounds like those annoying spice can dispensers at the store, where you can get one out but you can never get it back in once it out.
If God is real and if Genesis is true, then the genetic information would’ve been pure and free of defects “in the beginning”. If God is real and the fall really happened, then defective genetic information would’ve been minimal way back then and inbreeding wouldn’t have been a problem. If God is real and he created everything perfect in the beginning, there would’ve been adequate genetic information to make a big enough separation between families before inbreeding became a problem. If God is real and everything had a defect free start, then the way things worked then was less problematic than they way things work now because of the way things tend to wind down.
And of course this is where we hit a brick wall in the discussion because I believe things are winding down and falling apart and you think we upwardly evolve.
January 15, 2008 at 4:57 pm
I understand what you’re saying, but I’m telling you that there is no evidence of beneficial genetic mutations where information has been added to the DNA. None whatsoever. It is not uncommon for evolutionists to lump evolution and natural selection together as one and the same but they aren’t.
Not that it’s relevant, but I’m old enough that I have not been carded in quite some time.
04-12-09 Mike, I’m not going to engage in this discussion with you, however, I will clarify what I was saying, which was that genetic mutations are not NEW information, they are changes in info that was already present. Big diff.
You’re not really interested in discussing this, so stop bugging me.
May the reality of the power of Christ’s resurrection be made known to you.
January 15, 2008 at 3:59 pm
“how is it possible for new genetic information to show up?”
Maybe you ought to learn that the very first principle behind evolution is genetic mutation. Nah. You must be at least 16 years old. And it you haven’t learned that by then, then there’s no hope.
“and you think we upwardly evolve”
Yet another misconception. There is no “direction” to evolution. Using “upwardly” is an indication that you do not have the slightest idea what you are talking about. It’s certainly possible that the human species might evolve “upwardly” in another ten million years, but based on the evolutionary record, it’s much more likely it will be extinct. The more fundamental question is the evolution of “intelligence”. And the final question is: can we build artificial intelligence that is smarter that we can ever be? The jury is still out. Come back in a few thousand years.