Michael said:
"However, I also believe that there is a place for the theory of intelligent design in our education as well."

How can ID be taught when there is no hypothesis for it? The Discovery Institute has no textbook for what ID theory is. They do not suggest using the textbook "of Pandas and People." Some in ID, such as Behe, believe in common ancestry for humans and animals, and some think humans were specially created... so what exactly is ID? Evolution is a grand theory and there is yet no alternative. Poking holes in evolution doesn't prove another theory. To prove another theory you have to form a hypothesis and then test it- ID doesn't have a hypothesis with tests- they simply aim to discredit evolution and then claim that ID wins... but that does not logically follow.

Even the Discovery Institute is suggesting that ID NOT be taught in school- instead, "teach the controversy" on evolution. That is because they have nothing to teach regarding ID and a hypothesis... and yet they are "expelled" ???

I think that the main reason that "Darwinism" is an issue is that it has, in itself, become the basis of religious belief for people who reject the Biblical version of God. Richard Dawkins has said that Darwin made atheism seem intelligent.

Another reason is that there is an entire, vast industry in academia and the sciences whereby organizations, companies, and individuals have their entire careers, reputations, and livelihoods riding upon the supposed factualness of the theory of evolution, despite that the theory has major problems, little evidence, and is perceived to be a huge house of cards by its critics.

There is also an ideological component to the theory of evolution, beyond the mass murderers of the last century, and that is that it gives a seemingly reasonable argument: if the Bible is wrong about Creation, then it is proven false, so why adhere to Biblical teachings on morality?!

As the Bible says, "Let God be true and every man a liar." I will side with the Bible.

The author of the recent book WHAT'S SO GREAT ABOUT CHRISTIANITY, Dinesh D'Souza, says his main beef is not with the theory of evolution, but rather that both sides of the argument have religious reasons either for or against. He says his problem with the way that public schools present evolution is to actually say in the text books that we need no longer believe the Bible because evolution has proven it wrong. This is foul, because public schools should not be allowed to comment negatively against religion.

"the way that public schools present evolution is to actually say in the text books that we need no longer believe the Bible because evolution has proven it wrong. This is foul, because public schools should not be allowed to comment negatively against religion."

what a crock of shit. evolution is presented as a scientific theory. religion has no place in science classes. intelligent design is not taught in science classes because it is not scientific.

"There is also an ideological component to the theory of evolution, beyond the mass murderers of the last century, and that is that it gives a seemingly reasonable argument: if the Bible is wrong about Creation, then it is proven false, so why adhere to Biblical teachings on morality?!"

because morality was not created by the bible? because morality and religion are not the same thing?

Bryan, your comment is so full of holes I hardly know where to start. I guess I should just confiscate the legion of straw men you've set up.

there is an entire, vast industry in academia and the sciences whereby organizations, companies, and individuals have their entire careers, reputations, and livelihoods riding upon the supposed factualness of the theory of evolution

And these people will all tell you that the reason that they can do their jobs is because evolution is a fact. The entire science of biology makes no sense if you remove evolution. Much work in the fields of pest control, pharmaceuticals, disease research and many others would be impossible without a practical application of the theory of evolution.

despite that the theory has major problems

Name one.

little evidence

How about literally billions of pages of research and hard data and millions of fossils and other physical evidence? You do know how to use Google, don't you? Claiming that this body of knowledge constitutes 'little evidence' makes as much sense as saying that Homo sapiens is an endangered species.

There is also an ideological component to the theory of evolution, beyond the mass murderers of the last century, and that is that it gives a seemingly reasonable argument: if the Bible is wrong about Creation, then it is proven false, so why adhere to Biblical teachings on morality?!

Give me a link to one reputable statement of the theory of evolution that says this.

He says his problem with the way that public schools present evolution is to actually say in the text books that we need no longer believe the Bible because evolution has proven it wrong.

Again, please cite one school science textbook that makes this statement.

I don't get it...when I was a kid in school, I was taught both...creationism and evolution...guess you public school kids only get half the story???

I will say that the nuns never tried to expalin how the two theories fit together or didn't, they just laid them out there and let us figure it out for ourselves...

I kinda figured that evolution was part of it and ID was the other part...everything evolves and somewhere along the lines we were given self-awareness...and that's where the ID part of it comes in...

But why do people have to get so nasty about it? Read some of these comments and you'd think the writer was extolling the virtues of child porn or some BS like that!

This is an old BC discussion and it ALWAYS seems to be just as ugly no matter how many times it's bought up. Whether you hardcore evolutionists wanna believe it or not...it is still just a THEORY!

just a thought...

Andy, I was also taught both. I was educated in Britain, where - believe it or not - the only subject that it is legally compulsory to teach in the public schools is religious education.

Nowadays, of course, most schools get around it by teaching it as 'religious studies' - i.e. comparative religion. Students learn about the various faiths and belief systems of the world - they're not indoctrinated into any particular one.

In the high school I attended, religious education wasn't taken at all seriously, to the point of the school 'forgetting' to include it in the curriculum a couple of years. It was considered something of a joke, by both students and faculty. I remember my teacher reading out with great relish (and pretend indignation) some answers that had been given on a test: one student had written that a bar mitzvah was a ceremony in which the inductee had to read the Torah out loud while being circumcized; another, in response to a question requiring the composition of a sentence with the word atonement in it, had written, "I went to see my music teacher and he told me what a tone meant".

It was in religious studies that I learned about the Judeo-Christian ideas as to the origin of the universe. But I was not taught them in any of my science classes.

And that is the point. By all means teach the Biblical creation stories or the idea that God designed and built the universe - but NOT in science classes, which should deal only with the natural and not with a philosophical theory that has no scientific merit.

Hitler wasn't an 'evolutionist'. He sure wasn't a traditional Christian, of course, but he was sort of a neo-Pagan crypto-Christian who explicitly rejected evolution and based his racism on the idea that the 'races' had been created separately. The Holocaust owed far more to the virulent strain of anti-Semitism that Martin Luther embraced and fostered. That was certainly the motivation for the majority who actually carried out the crimes in person.

As to the Communist states under Stalin and Mao - they also explicitly rejected neo-Darwinian evolution and embraced (and enforced) Lysenkoism instead. The resulting crop failures when reality failed to match up to "worker's science" killed millions, accounting for a substantial chunk - possibly a majority - of the death toll from those regimes.

Ironically, the people under Hitler, Stalin, and Mao would have been better off if those 'leaders' had accepted neo-Darwinian evolution.

"the theory of intelligent design"

Intelligent design creationism is not a scientific theory.

Intelligent design is a childish belief in magic, and only uneducated hicks like Michael Clayton believe in it.

[personal attack deleted]

Intelligent design means "I'm too bloody stupid to understand science, therefore everything is magic."

Invoking intelligent design is the same as invoking magic. Creationism was renamed to intelligent design in an idiotic attempt to sneak religious magic into science education, as if any competent biology teacher would ever agree to lie to her students.

All I can say about intelligent design magic proponents is that they are incredibly stupid, gullible, and they are compulsive liars. They will never be allowed to stick their breathtaking stupidity into public school science education.

Biological evolution is a scientific fact. The evidence for evolution has been accumulating for 150 years. The evidence is overwhelming and rapidly growing. The newer molecular evidence is extremely powerful. There is absolutely no doubt all life is related and all species share common ancestors.

Michael Clayton, if you weren't a god-soaked idiot, and if you had any intelligence at all, you would know evolution is a fact.

Unfortunately for yourself, you are too lazy to study science, and you are too stupid to understand science. So like most liars for Jesus, you invoke magic to explain the diversity of life.

Like most creationists you're a compulsive liar, so you call your magic "design" to make your stupidity sound scientific.

You're not fooling anyone, Michael Clayton. Everyone knows your design means magically created [personal attack deleted].

Bob C.

I would tell you to pick on someone with your own intellect, but that would leave you arguing with retards and fools, for your comments indeed proclaim you as a fool - the fact that you need to repeat them endlessly implies that you are retarded.

Intelligent design is an answer to the question of "why" the universe exists. It is one of several. Intelligent design does not argue with evolution, it posits a "why" for the evolution we see in science.

Creationism, by contrast, is a faultily based attempt to force a misunderstood translation of the Bible as a substitute for the evolution that we can see as a mechanism for biological change on our planet.

Perhaps you should figure out what the hell you're talking about before opening your trap. You might have to deal with nasty people who do not suffer fools - like me. Mr. Clayton wrote an intelligent critique. Your comments are anything but intelligent.

"unyielding belief" = "total suspension of critical thinking"

Michael Clayton said "However, I do take great offense at the censorship of such theories, for I do not support the concept of censorship in general."

What censorship? Didn't you just make a complete fool out of yourself for the entire world to see? Did anyone stop you from saying you want to invoke magic?

The problem is when you morons who believe in magic want to stick your breathtaking stupidity into science education.

Not allowing the opinions of uneducated idiots like yourself into science education is not censorship. It's just common sense. We don't allow people who can't add two numbers together to decide what is taught in a math class. For the same reason we don't let uneducated hicks like Michael Clayton decide what's taught in a biology class. Scientists and science teachers write science curriculums. For a good reason we don't let creationists, with their tiny defective brains, and their total ignorance of science, stick their childish insane magic into biology classrooms.

By the way Michael Clayton, you got a lot of nerve to call intelligent design magic a scientific theory. Your belief that Mr. God created every species out of nothing is not a theory. It's not even a hypothesis. It's nothing more than a religious belief, believed only by lazy, gullible, stupid, insane, uneducated religious extremists.

Ruvy said "Intelligent design is an answer to the question of 'why' the universe exists. It is one of several. Intelligent design does not argue with evolution, it posits a 'why' for the evolution we see in science."

Intelligent design was invented to replace evolution. It's nothing more than creationism. Anyone who denies ID magic is creationism is a liar. You, Ruvy, are a liar.

Ruvy, who is the designer? Who is the magical fairy who does all the designing and magically creating?

Your fairy only lives in your tiny defective brain. I suggest you should grow up and educate yourself, and stop lying about what intelligent design is.

Your "intelligent design does not argue with evolution" is lying. Why do you think the clowns of the Discovery Institute are always invoking intelligent design magic to replace the natural mechanisms of biological evolution?

I don't care about your stupidity, Ruvy. But your dishonesty is disgusting.

Just keep your childish intelligent design magic out of our schools. I'm sick and tired of Christian attacks against science education. You can do your religious brainwashing in your churches. If you can't respect the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, then get out of my country.

One of the first sections of Stein's argument explored in the film is the exclusion and extermination of the intelligent design theory on the campuses of many prestigious colleges and universities. Stein reveals that there have been countless professors and theorists who have been unceremoniously removed from their university positions. In each instance, the reason for their termination was attributed to the individual's interest and/or belief in the theory of intelligent design. This fact in itself is one that should cause alarm among many.

In each instance??

Anyone who pursues the facts behind the five "expelled" will find that's a bunch of nonsense. Look at the Wikipedia entry for

Expelled No Intelligence

and you'll see summaries, with footnotes, of each story. Most egregious is the story of Richard Sternberg, who the movie claims was "fired" by the Smithsonian. Nonsense! Sternberg NEVER EVER WORKED for that institution; he had and still has a volunteer position with them.

The movie questions why Guillermo Gonzalez's writings on ID were considered in his application for tenure. There's an easy answer to that one: he submitted them as part of his application!

There is a dreadfully protracted piece in the film that's based on a quote from Darwin. Unfortunately, it's not actually Darwin's words; it's a gross distortion that came about by cherry-picking a quotation. Both Darwin's words and the filmmaker's distortions are shown on the webpage.

This movie failed to fact-check its most fundamental claims. It is an embarrassment. I strongly suggest that anyone look over the Wikipedia page first before spending a dime on this movie.

Don't even get me started about the *fake* lecture -- with standing ovation -- of a lecture hall that's populated with paid extras. Sheesh.

BobC:

I also disagree with Ruvy's definition of 'intelligent design', but he is right. You're not doing yourself or the cause of science any favors with your rudeness.

The errors in the creationists'/IDers' arguments can easily be shown up for what they are without resorting to personal abuse. Play nice or go away.

ASSISTANT COMMENTS EDITOR

You see though how nasty the argument gets?

I'm not gonna try to defend a film I've never seen, but I would never try to defend one using wikipedia as my source material...

...just a thought.

And one more thing...if it's a Ben Stein movie I would go for the comedic value, who cares if the story is true or not...

A little hostile for an intellectual discussion, ain't it?

Michael, that was a very well written article, better than most on this topic. You make a number of excellent points that deserve to be calmly and patiently shot down. But this attack dog stuff from some of the commentators doesn't help.

Many intelligent people believe in intelligent design, and Michael just happens to be one of them.

Many intelligent people believe in intelligent design, and Michael just happens to be one of them.

Still ID is pure belief without scientific evidence.
Comment #1 points this out perfectly and that should have been the end of the discussion. Until the religious community can draw up a hypothesis that can be tested then ID has no place in the classroom and should not be considered science!

Remember, The burden of proof falls on those that believe.

Bob,

I told you you might find yourself dealing with some nasty people who will not suffer fools gladly, and indeed you are. Not only have you got me to contend with, you have the Assistant Comments Editor telling you to play nice, and Duane, a scientist who does not agree with me at all, telling you the same thing.

First of all, I don't give a rat's ass about your first amendment. I understand the constitution of 1787 a hell of a lot better than you do to begin with; I'm a writer with a political scientist's training, and an editor. But your constitution doesn't apply to me at all.

Second of all, I'm no Christian. Try reading this article to get a better perspective of my point of view. It should answer many if not most of your pathetic "assertions". Finally, I left the United States in 2001, never to return, G-d willing. You can shout "love it or leave it" to somebody else. I just don't give a damn. I left already. Your country will sink into bankruptcy in the near future and it ain't my problem.

Duane and the Assistant Comments Editor probably disagree with my point of view, and they're entitled to. Having not seen Ben Stein's film, I'm not qualified to defend or argue with it.

But speaking to you as one who has had to judge character for a living, I can tell you that Michael Clayton, in writing this review, is not a liar. He has given you full disclosure of his own views and possible prejudices in this review, something he would not have done if he was being deceitful. And he has written intelligently and well, arguing issues of censorship, not the merits of intelligent design.

Now to return to the basic arguments, I said that "intelligent design" attempts to answer the "why" posited by evolution, and it is one of several answers. There are others, embraced by folks like Duane.

Finally, should "intelligent design" be taught as "science"? That all depends on where the science curriculum of the school is going. It depends on how far into metaphysics the physics department is willing to travel. Intelligent design tries to present a "why", an answer that I do not think can be scientifically proven. In my opinion, science should stay out of metaphysics as much as possible - metaphysics will intrude on science without scientists wandering in without training.

A simple example of this is finding neutrinos, along with all sorts of other sub-atomic particles that leave tracks when atoms get smashed. They ain't nowhere to be found. They can be inferred, but that is as far as you get with them. That inference is what I mean by metaphysics forcing itself on science.

I'm not gonna try to defend a film I've never seen, but I would never try to defend one using wikipedia as my source material...

...just a thought.

Why not? The Wikipedia is perfect for seeing something like the gross distortion of the Darwin quote: phrases removed, entire sentences missing, etc. It's also perfect for seeing the actual details of the "expelled" -- where the movie got its basic facts wrong.

BTW: I'm not defending the film. I am giving it a flunking grade. And I did see it. Any documentary having so many fundamental factual errors is am embarrassment.

And one more thing...if it's a Ben Stein movie I would go for the comedic value, who cares if the story is true or not...

If you're expecting anything remotely funny, you've come to the wrong place.

The big comedic moment in the film comes when Ben asks directions on the street for the "Discovery Institute" and nobody knows where it is. That didn't get a single yuck from the entire audience.

Oh. There is one funny moment: when Ben is looking serious at the end of his "lecture" and getting a standing ovation. It is hilarious ... if you know that then entire thing was staged.
That scene was the final insult to the moviegoer's intelligence: one more brick in the wall.

Before you ask: I find Michael Moore's mockumentaries equally revolting. I have no tolerance for any documentary that freely distorts anything and everything.

Before slamming the Wikipedia entry, why don't you go look at it?

Bob C, I believe you have a very skewed perception of who I am and what my ideologies are. Do I believe in intelligent design? Certainly. And do I in fact believe in creationism? Sure. But I have also always been open to hearing opinions and ideas to the contrary, for I am not insecure in my beliefs. If anything, I enjoyed reading the perspectives submitted by evolutionists for this particular piece, as most of them are not only intelligent but also open to hearing other arguments, even if those arguments have fundamental differences relating to their own views. I have returned that favor by opening my mind to their opinions and views on man's origins as well. That, I believe is the very basis of intelligent discourse and intellectualism: a friendly debate and transfer of ideas and opinions for the further growth of all involved. If you had a better understanding of who I am as well, you would discover that I am also a constant supporter of ones right to speak freely; I don't believe that intelligent design should be censored, but I also would not censor a Satanists right to speak, as he is privy to the same rights as well, and I don't feel it is my place to censor someone simply because I don't agree with what they are stating. Furthermore, I have actually enjoyed the company of many who do not share my personal world view. Despite their views on religion, I am a avid fan of George Carlin, Sam Kinison, and Bill Hicks, all of whom built their comedic careers on rather controversial views on religion and sundry other topics. While I do not share their views, I can find the humor and intelligence present in their commentaries. And there are many others who have posted rebuttals in a more intelligent manner, and I fervently welcome that. As Voltaire once stated, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

As for the label of "uneducated hick", I find it interesting that I was able to articulate my personal opinions without the use of the word "retard", "moron", and "god-soaked idiot" and I also was able to do so without having a number of my postings censored for personal attacks. And while I stated before that I am not a fan of censorship, and in fact I would not have objected to your full messages being presented before me, I also respect the open forum that Blogcritics provides that allows us to debate topics in a intellectual manner, and therefore adhering any rules that they have put forth is perfectly acceptable in that instance for me.

That academia is biased against proponents of ID was well demonstrated by on-camera comments of evolutionists themselves in Expelled--No Intelligence Allowed. Actually it is difficult to deny. Of course, neither theory is provable by scientific standards, and no definitively transitional species has ever been uncovered among many thousands of fossils collected since Darwin's theory was articulated. He himself said his theory would rise or fall based on that evidence, so he, an Anglican clergyman, if he were alive today would probably say, "Looks like I was wrong!" Both theories require faith to accept, but ID is far more predictive of what actually occurs in nature and better comports with truly known science. That is a fact.

Wes Gordon wrote:
That academia is biased against proponents of ID was well demonstrated by on-camera comments of evolutionists themselves in Expelled--No Intelligence Allowed.

It would be difficult to come to any conclusion based on the short comments from the biologists in this movie. Just as the moviemakers [provably] mis-quoted Darwin, it's a near-certainty that they cherry-picked their quotations from these scientists from hours of interviews.

Have you heard: the filmmakers made those interviews under a false pretense? They claimed to be making a documentary called "Crossroads". They even claimed that they changed the name of the documentary after the interviews were conducted to "Expelled." However, the smoking gun -- the domainname "expelledthemovie.com" -- was registered on March 2, 2007 (before any of the interviews happened for this movie.

The domain "crossroadsthemovie.com" was never ever registered until after the movie was in the can. The website on the "crossroads" domain now documents this little deceit. How poetic.

Actually it is difficult to deny.

The only thing that the comments prove is that if you launch a series of interviews under a false pretense and quote a handful of sentences out of context, you're sure to create something that will upset somebody.

Wes: if you think there's an atmosphere of bias in the scientific community, how come the stories of the five "expelled" individuals don't stand up to a basic fact-check?

Do you think that the portrayal of *any* of those five stories in the film is accurate? If so, which one?

Of course, neither theory is provable by scientific standards

Creationism/ID is not a theory. It is a conjecture: a dogmatic statement that, by its nature can never ever be proven. It is based in beliefs and has none of the properties of theories: measurability, testability, repeatability, predictability.

All of science is based on theories. "Provable by scientific standards" is an oxymoron. Gravity is only a theory; we have never ever been able to detect the Higgs Boson, the particle that, based on the theories of the fundamental forces, mediates gravity.

and no definitively transitional species has ever been uncovered among many thousands of fossils collected since Darwin's theory was articulated.

I have no idea what this means. All sorts of transitional species have been found through the years. What exact gaps are you talking about?

You do realize: there is no Fossil Central that species go in order to create a fossil record. Fossils always happen by accident; it's predictable that the fossil record will never ever be incomplete. And more fossil records are being uncovered all the time.

Both theories require faith to accept

Repeating your claim that Creationism/ID is a theory does not make it one.

but ID is far more predictive of what actually occurs in nature

Can you please provide a single Internet reference where ID predicts anything about the mechanisms of biology?

and better comports with truly known science. That is a fact.

No. It's just dogma. Repeating dogma does not make it true.

I find an irony: many of the Creationist/ID crowd talk about "having an open mind." However, when we get into these discussions, that's exactly the same crowd that just repeats dogmatic statements with no evidence or thought behind them.

Please address the major question I asked: Do you think that the portrayal of *any* of those five stories in the film is accurate? If so, which one?

Thanks, Wes!

Gosh Duane, that's awefull nice of you.

;-]

Sir Thom,

Excellent!

I'll just weigh in here briefly. For years I've heard repeated ad nauseam that evolution is "only a theory."

This has been touched upon above, but what people who say such things don't seem to grasp is that the term "theory," when used in a scientific context, means just as Thom noted above; that it must have
"measurability, testability, repeatability, predictability."

A "scientific theory" is far more substantial and complex than say a supposed "theory" presented by some TV sleuth as to how "the butler did it."

Conversely, and as has been stated above, ID provides NOTHING in the way of measurable, testable, repeatable or predictable evidence.

To suggest that there is little evidence to support evolutionary theory is just ignorant.

As to the fossil record, Dawkins and others point out that actually very few living organisms wind up as fossils. It takes a particular set of circumstances which only rarely come together. It is in fact likely that much of the fossil record will NEVER be discovered because it just doesn't exist.

But wondrous things have been discovered from the record that we have found, and it all supports Darwin's original theory.

The one thing that Darwin said that would disprove his thoeries would be if certain fossils believed to be exclusive of one particular era were found in another. It's a bit more complex than that, but the fact is that so far at least, that has never happened.

I have not seen the film (probably won't,) but it seems clear that Stein and those involved in its creation (haha) manipulated statements and data and staged scenes that were apparently presented as actual events.

That is in fact what Michael Moore has done in most of his films, and I, too, find it at the very least less than honest. I tend to agree with most of Moore's positions, but I don't agree with his tactics.

It should be remembered that with both Moore and Stein, the overriding goal in making these films is profit. Apparently, truth does not provide fodder for filling one's coffers.

Further, I disagree with Ruvy in that the "whys" cannot be separated from the "hows." One cannot BE without the other. That we may never discover the "why" or the "how" for that matter is immaterial.

To believe that those answers are somehow beyond our understanding is also a bogus argument. Look at what we have come to know and understand in just the few hundred years since the Rennaisance. If humanity manages to survive for say another thousand, or five thousand years, it is difficult to imagine just how much more we will learn and come to understand about ourselves and this universe.

If there is anything that can be said to be god, we're it.

Baritone

Wes: [Darwin] himself said his theory would rise or fall based on that evidence, so he, an Anglican clergyman, if he were alive today would probably say, "Looks like I was wrong!"

He wasn't a clergyman. He did study theology at Oxford, but began to question his heretofore orthodox beliefs during the voyage of the Beagle. He clung to a belief in a cosmic designer for a time, but various events, culminating in the death of his young daughter, put paid to the remnants of his faith. He died an agnostic. (The 'Lady Hope' story, which has him recanting on his deathbed, is a legend.)

Darwin freely admitted difficulties with his theory of natural selection: he could not, for instance, provide a mechanism for the physical passing of characteristics from one generation to the next. Of course he had no foreknowledge of Mendel's work on genetics and heredity or the discovery of DNA. Were he alive today, he would doubtless be very gratified at how these discoveries have confirmed the basis of his theory.

Baritone offered:
Conversely, and as has been stated above, ID provides NOTHING in the way of measurable, testable, repeatable or predictable evidence.

Baritone: hear, hear! You're coming in loud and clear.

The trailer Sexpelled that ... arrived ... a week or so after this film was a rather wonderful piece of humor.

My favorite part is at 0:15 where one sentence from the "Richard Dawkins" character is spliced together from five different cuts. That says it all. Then the final little snippet is just gravy for anyone understands his "ultimate 747" argument.

Even better than "Sexpelled" is The Onion's article which answers the question:

What would happen if the Creationist/ID community questioned gravity the way they question evolution?

The answer is a wonderful parody about Intelligent Falling.

I hope the Creationist/ID crowd appreciates the irony of the words there. Gravity is only a theory. Really. We have no idea how it actually works. Nobody has ever seen a Higgs Boson.
As far as I can tell, "intelligent falling" makes exactly as much sense as "intelligent design."

One other comment: the term "intelligent design", with its contemporary meaning, came into existence at the end of the 1980s. What if that phrase and meaning had existed in the late 1930s? In such a hypothetical world, who could imagine a hypothetical Hitler saying:

"The Aryan Race was created by an Intelligent Designer to rule the world!"

"The Intelligent Designer created these other people to be [...]"

Here's the question: what would this hypothetical Hitler's statements have meant about the Creationist/ID community?

Thom - I recently started taking some courses at the local CC. I've been told by my teachers/professors that wikipedia is NOT a source to be used for ANY research on any work I do while in school.

On another note, our local morning radio show here pulled a little stunt a while back where they created an entry in wikipedia and watched it grow like a snow ball for three days before wikipedia finally shut it down.

The problem with wikipedia is anybody has edit priveledges and to many stupid people use them.

And lastly, I didn't even know this was a documentary until I read this...

While one must take what one reads on Wikipedia with a grain of salt - especially with regard to controversial topics such as this, I have found that the majority of information found there is essentially accurate.

In this particular instance, it is Wikipedia that reveals the lies and distortions purported by "Expelled..."

B-tone

BTW, I, too, have long been troubled by the supposed "law of gravity." There are other "laws" that will no doubt by put to serious question as true believers rise up flipping through their bibles to find further "proof" that god is the answer to all questions.

What laws will likely come tumbling down in the wake of righteous proclamation? How about the "law of diminishing returns?" Or perhaps "Murphy's Law?" I'm sure the list could go on ad nauseam. I wait with baited breath (or is it breath that smells like bait?) Whatever.

B-tone

Andy Marsh writes:
Thom - I recently started taking some courses at the local CC. I've been told by my teachers/professors that wikipedia is NOT a source to be used for ANY research on any work I do while in school.

And what exactly do you think that means for our discussion here?

Do you doubt that Darwin's quote was, in fact, grossly distorted by "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"?

Do you doubt that Richard Sternberg was never ever an employee at the Smithsonian Institution and the filmmaker's claim that he was "fired" from that institution is outrageous?

Do you doubt that the lecture filmed at Pepperdine University for "Expelled" was filled almost entirely with extras and that the "standing ovation" at the end was staged by its producers?

Andy: did you actually go and look at the Wikipedia entry? You see, there's a fundamental problem with your statement above; I strongly suspect that's NOT what your professors said.

For your research papers, Wikipedia articles should never ever be cited directly. However, there's absolutely no reason that you can't use the citations to other works in a Wikipedia entry as a starting point for your own papers and research. At the instant I'm writing this, the Wikipedia entry for "Expelled" has 153 references. And, BTW, I never instructed you to stop your reading at the Wikipedia article itself; I always strongly suggest that you chase down references for anything that you doubt.


Critical thinking is A Good Thing; my only question for you is why the first and only thing you question here is this Wikipedia entry. Do you have any questions about the claims in the documentary? Did you go to the website for this film -- expelledthemovie.com -- to look for a list of references? I did; at the time of this writing, there is no list of references there. Aren't you bothered that a twenty-first century documentary fails to provide a paper trail to document its claims?

In his article launching this discussion, Michael Clayton repeats many claims from the film. He seems to take the film's claims -- especially the claims of the five "expelled" -- at face value. Doesn't that bother you? I personally can't see how anyone doing an "analysis" of this film can ignore the mass of evidence questioning the veracity of those five core stories.

In the last paragraph of his article, Michael claims that Intelligent Design is a theory -- a peer with the theory of evolution. Never mind references, he fails to provide a single argument to back up that conjecture. You didn't object to that, either. What exactly would your college professors say about the legitimacy of the unsubstantiated claims in that paragraph?

Please go back and look at the three questions about this film that I started this message with. Do you have any response?

Anyone? Anyone?

Bueller?

On another note, our local morning radio show here pulled a little stunt a while back where they created an entry in wikipedia and watched it grow like a snow ball for three days before wikipedia finally shut it down.

I'll take your claim at face value. Please explain to use why you think that should have us doubt the veracity of the information presented in the Wikipedia entry for "Expelled".

The problem with wikipedia is anybody has edit priveledges and to many stupid people use them.

That's hardly the full story. Gratuitous edits in articles will indeed be undone. If an article suffers from excessive gratuitous edits, it can be locked so that gatekeepers must approve any changes. And it's a total non-sequitur to our discussion here: I haven't seen gratuitous edits happening to this particular entry. Have you?



And lastly, I didn't even know this was a documentary until I read this...

The movie is still on in ~400 screens. You should be able to find it near most major cities. But you should go this weekend: Price Caspian is gobbling 3,800 screens next Friday; this movie will essentially be gone from US theaters then.

I would welcome a serious discussion -- an actual analysis -- about the five "expelled". As far as I can tell, none of those five stories of "persecution" add up. If anyone scrutinizes the claims of this film and doesn't find an embarrassment, I'd love to hear about it.

The Wikipedia article is indeed an excellent source for that investigation.

What laws will likely come tumbling down in the wake of righteous proclamation? How about the "law of diminishing returns?" Or perhaps "Murphy's Law?" I'm sure the list could go on ad nauseam.

Heh. This reminds me of the Colorado Version of Murphy's Law:

The better the 4-wheel drive, the closer to the continental divide you'll go before you get stuck.

Disclaimer: Murphy's law is not even a theory. ;-)

Thom makes some more good points in his #33.

I often start at Wikipedia if I'm sitting in front of a computer. It's just too convenient to ignore. Of course, it's not to be taken as the ultimate authority but it's usually a decent starting point.

Yesterday I looked at the wiki article on "academic freedom," and found that to be quite a can of worms.

I'm mildly interested in this claim that denials of tenure or terminations of academic positions because of belief in and "teaching" of ID represents a "bias," which, by implication, is on the same plane as gender or racial discrimination.

I do know that in top universities gaining tenure --- even getting on the tenure track --- is very difficult. There are many factors involved and the competition is fierce. I'm sure that the faculty committees should have the right to approve or deny positions as they see fit (modulo racial or gender discrimination).

Disgruntled academics who are denied advancement sometimes claim unwarranted biases, but more often than not, it's a simple matter of losing out to someone who is better suited to the position, and sometimes just an insufficient level of competence. It looks to me, after a cursory read on the issue, that, for example, Carolyn Crocker was dismissed for general incompetence, and not because of her philosophical beliefs per se.

But I could be wrong....

And it's "bated," not "baited," but B-tone might just be messin' around.

I realize that the Law as expounded by Murphy is unquestioned and hard fact. But that should not dismay any true believers from diving in. If one is gullible enough to believe in virgin birth, miracles defying all known "laws of physics" and resurrection, going after Murphy should be a piece of cake (and eat it too,) which btw brings to mind another old saw: Too many cooks... yada, yada, yada. I guess that's just the pot calling the kettle... well, you get my drift. Or not. (I don't think any of the last couple of lines here make any sense, but I have never let that deter me in my quest - whatever that may be.)

B-tone

B-Tone - better hope none of the guys in Politics read that last bit. They'll be using it against you for years to come...!

Duane writes:
I often start at Wikipedia if I'm sitting in front of a computer. It's just too convenient to ignore. Of course, it's not to be taken as the ultimate authority but it's usually a decent starting point.

Were you also amused that Andy took everything else discussed here at face value -- and chose to question the well-researched and well-documented Wikipedia article about this movie?



Yesterday I looked at the wiki article on "academic freedom," and found that to be quite a can of worms.

The value of the Wikipedia varies on the topic. A largely-abstract concept like "academic freedom" is somewhat tricky. On the other hand, a fact-finding article about a documentary is far more likely to be right on target.



I'm mildly interested in this claim that denials of tenure or terminations of academic positions because of belief in and "teaching" of ID represents a "bias," which, by implication, is on the same plane as gender or racial discrimination.

However, there is a credible case for the denial of tenure for Guillermo Gonzalez, one of the Expelled Five, the Iowa State University Assistant Professor who was seeking tenure:

1 His record of academic publications dropped sharply after he became an Assistant Professor.

2 His record of academic publications is even worse if you exclude his ID writings.

3 The documentary's narration claims that Gonzalez's ID writings shouldn't have been considered in his application for tenure. But that's just plain silly: Gonzalez submitted those publications himself to the tenure committee!

If this is best that the Creationist/ID community has to offer the world as an example of tenure discrimination, then they deserve to be ignored on that topic. In fact, I'm quite surprised that nobody in the Creationist/ID community is griping about what an embarrassingly bad job this film did making the case for discrimination. All that one has to do to shoot down those claims is look up the basic facts on the Five.



Three noteworthy things about "Expelled":

Articles coming out on this movie continue to ignore its obvious flaws (including, by the way, its lack of a webpage to document the documentary).

Writers of those articles fail to engage in the discussion about those flaws. While the movie talks about the need for more "open discussion", these writers are individually stonewalling their audiences. That's strange.

The real story is not the movie; the real story is the Internet's response. Its Wikipedia entry is indeed a well-researched and well-documented article. Other articles -- Scientific American's "Six Things" article, the expelledexposed.com website, Richard Dawkins's blog entry "Lying for Jesus?" -- all paint a rather incredible picture of both the superficial and deep deceptions of this movie. The website crossroadsthemovie.com documents another deception with its deliciously-chosen domain name.

The Internet's response to the claims of "Expelled" remind me of a healthy human's immune response: a broad and comprehensive reaction. That immune response is indeed well-designed -- by a blind watchmaker.

Doc,

I think they've already found me out. On the other hand my stuff is no less drivel than most who post over there. It's pretty much a level playing field in that regard.

B-tone

I guess I should have thrown a little caveat in there...wiki is a shitty source for references for everyone EXCEPT thom here. because HE knows when shit is right or wrong...

...you act like I'm defending this movie or some such shit. I could give a fuck about any ben stein movies. My pooint is that your reference sources suck ass and I stick by my point!

Andy Marsh wrote:
I guess I should have thrown a little caveat in there...wiki is a shitty source for references for everyone EXCEPT thom here. because HE knows when shit is right or wrong...

Where exactly should we go to get the actual facts about the "Expelled Five"? Surely you're not suggesting that we take the movie at face value.

The movie's official writeup of the facts on its official website would be a good place to start. Unfortunately, this movie failed to provide one.

Where would you go, Andy? How about going to a source that footnotes any claims it makes, so you can go scrutinize those sources yourself and come to your own conclusion. If you were writing a paper for a Community College course, you wouldn't use that article as a source. However, you could indeed use references that that article cited for your paper.

In short, claiming that claiming that the Wikipedia is a "s....y source" is just plain wrong. In this case, you're talking about a paper that is indeed well-researched and well-documented. If you don't think so, you should provide specific criticisms of that article.

I guess I should have thrown a little caveat in there...wiki is a shitty source for references for everyone EXCEPT thom here. because HE knows when shit is right or wrong...

Andy: you know we're talking about the Wikipedia and not wikis in general, right?

I know when a specific Wikipedia article (or an idea) has, as Philip Morrison famously said, the ring of truth. I can verify that hunch by going to its sources and scrutinizing them myself -- as I've done with this particular article. Have you done that?

On the other hand, your statement from article #30 above is suspect:

Thom - I recently started taking some courses at the local CC. I've been told by my teachers/professors that wikipedia is NOT a source to be used for ANY research on any work I do while in school.

This claim doesn't have the ring of truth. Why would your teachers/professors fail to let you use a Wikipedia entry as a list of sources to examine for your own papers? It makes absolutely no sense.

...you act like I'm defending this movie or some such shit.

In this discussion, you have indeed defended the teaching of creationism as an alternative to science. See below. Also, you failed to engage on any of the points I have discussed about this film:

Do you doubt that Darwin's quote was, in fact, grossly distorted by "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"?

Do you doubt that Richard Sternberg was never ever an employee at the Smithsonian Institution and the filmmaker's claim that he was "fired" from that institution is outrageous?

Do you doubt that the lecture filmed at Pepperdine University for "Expelled" was filled almost entirely with extras and that the "standing ovation" at the end was staged by its producers?

Instead, you make an indefensible claim about this movie's Wikipedia article. You fail to talk about any of the other points I make. If I were a betting man, I'd give long odds that you won't engage on those questions now. All you did was try to undermine my argument.

I could give a fuck about any ben stein movies. My pooint is that your reference sources suck ass and I stick by my point!

You repeat your claim, but you cannot explain it. That reminds me of people who say that Creationism -- or Intelligent Design -- is a [scientific] theory. They will repeat that claim over and over, but they will never ever present a credible argument why that is the case.

Repeating dogma doesn't make it true.

Repeating dogma with scatological terminology doesn't make it true, either.

BTW: if you really believed what you said about the Wikipedia, you wouldn't cite it In your own damn blog. Sheesh.

Also, in #5 above, you said:

I don't get it...when I was a kid in school, I was taught both...creationism and evolution...guess you public school kids only get half the story???

Your "half" comment speaks volumes. Andy: it's only "half" if your Catholic classes taught only one of the creation stories. You didn't attend a school that failed to provide you with a diversity of all cultures' creation stories; you actually got less than 1% of "the story".

None of those creation stories have business in a science class, because none of them are operating in the domain of science. They lack measurability, testability, repeatability, and predictability. The creation story -- all of those creation stories -- should be taught somewhere other than a science class.

Any questions?

Thom - I really don't care if you don't believe that my english prof told the entire class not to use wikipedia as a source, FOR ANYTHING. You can believe what you want, but I don't usually make shit like that up. I do have a tendency to make a lot of shit up, but that ain't one of them...

it's not an indefensible claim...wikipeida sucks as a source. that's a period after that statement.

As far as siting it on my own page....I don't usually...maybe I did prior to taking up classes again...but i guess if you say I do then I must...

...and I say your evolution theory lacks a lot of those same premises that you say are required for it to be science...until time travel is possible, it'll remain exactly what it's called ...a theory.


and to all of your other claims...whatever they may be...I don't give a rats ass about them either. I have no desire to debate the merits of either evolution or ID with anyone. You believe what you want as will everyone else in the argument. Andthat's pretty much how it will stay. I have had my opinion changed thanks to BC, but I doubt that anyones gonna change my mind about how I think things came to be...like I said, I subscribe to the theory of...let's call it intelligent evolution...

My point still remains that wikipedia is a shit source for anything and whether or not there's a "grain of truth" in anything on the site really doesn't matter. The fact that it's full of erroneous bullshit makes the whole thing worthless. But I guess, being the brilliant mind that you obviously are, you're able to discern bullshit from truth no matter where it hides.

I'd say, truth be told, anyone that uses wikipedia as their main source for an argument is probably just lazy.

You know, I once got burned by a match and I came to the conclusion that fire is hot...not that only matches are hot, but that fire is hot...I once looked up something on wikipedia and found out is was dead wrong...now, wikipedia is dead wrong...not just that one article, but the whole freaking site...but you keep using it...it works for you.

Andy, Thom has repeatedly explained to you that he is not citing Wikipedia itself, but the thorough list of sources in the Wikipedia article on Expelled, which he has explored and deemed to be sound.

I, too, have been advised not to cite Wikipedia in college papers. That doesn't invalidate the sources to which Wiki provides links.

If my stockbroker happens to be a Jehovah's Witness, but also provides sound financial advice, do his crazy religious beliefs automatically invalidate any investment information he might give me? I don't think so.

Thom - I really don't care if you don't believe that my english prof told the entire class not to use wikipedia as a source, FOR ANYTHING. You can believe what you want, but I don't usually make shit like that up.

Andy: it's not a question of what anyone believes; it's a question of how nonsensical your shouted "FOR ANYTHING" claim is. If one can't use any of the sources cited in a Wikipedia article for a class paper, then the inclusion of a source in a Wikipedia article would effectively eliminate it as a potential source for references for a "legitimate" paper.

Do you realize how goofy that would be?

Imagine you wrote a paper, turned it in, and then a Wikipedia article on that same topic was expanded with references that you also used in your paper?

"Gee, Mr. Professor, those references weren't in the Wikipedia article when I wrote my paper. Those references were added later! I don't deserve a flunking grade!"

it's not an indefensible claim...

Nope. Sorry. It is completely and utterly indefensible; it is dogmatic spew. If Philip Morrison were around, he would be hitting you over the head, repeatedly, with a metaphorical stick.

As far as siting(SIC) it on my own page...but i guess if you say I do then I must...

And that's almost as bad. More whacks with the metaphorical stick, please. You don't have to take anyone's word for it, just learn how to use the "site:" keyword in google, and you can see for yourself.

...and I say your evolution theory lacks a lot of those same premises that you say are required for it to be science...until time travel is possible, it'll remain exactly what it's called ...a theory.

Um, no. Time to break in a new metaphorical stick.

All of science is -- and will always be -- a theory with measurability, testability, repeatability, predictability. No part of science ever gets promoted to something beyond a theory.

Back in message #5 in this discussion, you said:

I don't get it...when I was a kid in school, I was taught both...creationism and evolution...guess you public school kids only get half the story???

As far as I can tell, you actually didn't get get it. ;-) You don't understand what a scientific theory is, and you don't understand the scientific method.

The material science to build Navy ships is only a bunch of theories.

The chemical and nuclear engineering to propel those ships is only based on theories.

The SONAR that's on many of those ships is only based on theories.

Evolution is a theory. It always has been, and always will be. Saying that evolution is "only a theory" says nothing about evolution but much about the person making that statement.

I'd say, truth be told, anyone that uses wikipedia as their main source for an argument is probably just lazy.

What source did you use to come to your understanding about the nature of scientific theories?

A quibble about Thom's remark that Creationism/ID "is based in beliefs and has none of the properties of theories: measurability, testability, repeatability, predictability."

Of those four, only measurability is technically an absolute requirement for science. The problems of repeatability date to Heraclitus's observation on rivers; some tests are beyond any potential human or moral scope; and the meaning of "predictable" is questionable when time and accuracy computational limits are approached.

The heart of science is ultimately the competitive testing of hypotheses for explanatory and predictive power. If one grants the assumption accpting as philosophical principles the validity of formal propositional logic, self-consistency of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, and that it is possible to relate one piece of evidence to another via a finite chain of reasoning (EG: the Strong Church Turing Universe Thesis), then a formal criterion for the testing of candidate hypotheses as to their comprehensive explanation of a set of evidence may be rigorously derived. Those interested in gory details should check out "Minimum Message Length and Kolmogorov Complexity" by C. S. Wallace and D. L. Dowe, and "Minimum Description Length Induction, Bayesianism and Kolmogorov Complexity" by Paul M. B. Vitányi and Ming Li.

Thus, no theory (or more formally, candidate hypothesis) is EVER "fully proven". However, that doesn't change that there is a basis on which one hypothesis can be accepted as "proven" as valid Theory until a superior contender or substantial contradictory evidence arrives.

Evolution results in a shorter induction length encoding, and is thus more probably correct than ID. ID proponents need to go back to the lab to find more evidence, or back to the drawing board for a better theory; either way, they should stop pretending that ID should be treated any better than any other hypothesis substantiated only by religion and not by evidence.

Evolution/atheism enthusiasts have no scientific support for their creation myth.

The typical theory is that primordial soup + lightning bolt = single cell life form.

This has the advantage of being testable, yet, has never yielded substantiation of the hypothesis.

Variation in bird beaks does not equal spontaneous, accidental life forms.

So, there's that.

Did anyone catch Richard Dawkins interesting disclosure at the end of the documentary? He acknowledged the scientific possiblility of intelligent design, but was adamant that it could only be the work of hyper-intelligent extraterestrial influence. Themselves being accidentally manifested.

That's the sort of dogmatic closed mindedness typical of Evolution/atheists.

If it's measured, tested, repeated and predictable, it ain't a theory. I don't believe that evolution can say that it's been measured, tested, repeated, or most of all predictable...does that mean it's not science?

Maybe you can find the answer for me in wikipedia...

I've never seen anyone get so upset over a freaking reference! Okay fine, wikipedia is the best source on the net. Happy now?

"Is it fact or is it theory?" is an ancient game played throughout history by philosophers. Apparently, some people here are not familiar with the material, readily available to all, and accessible on the internet.

For those who have neglected their lessons and have fallen behind I suggest starting with The Sophists and proceeding up through Bertrand Russells "Sense data", at least. Advanced students might enjoy Wittgenstein, Carnap and Goedel, etc.

Dan: Evolution/atheism enthusiasts have no scientific support for their creation myth.

Well, of course not, Einstein. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. That would be the theory of abiogenesis.

Nor does it have anything to do with atheism.

The typical theory is that primordial soup + lightning bolt = single cell life form.

Not in any science book I've ever read. Typical - or something you made up?

Variation in bird beaks does not equal spontaneous, accidental life forms.

Whoever said it did?

I dunno about spontaneous creation of life, but there seems to be a lot of spontaneous creation of straw men going on in your comment...

Thom (#44) No part of science ever gets promoted to something beyond a theory.

Hallelujah, Brother Thom! I wish that once and for all the anti-evolution crowd would get this simple bit of terminology under their belts.

abb3w (#45) Thus, no theory (or more formally, candidate hypothesis) is EVER "fully proven".

Hallelujah, Brother abb3w! A bit subtle, but crucial to understand modern science.

What is an "induction length encoding"? Just wondering....

Dan (#46): Evolution/atheism enthusiasts have no scientific support for their creation myth.

See Dr. D (#49). It's rare to see the nature of the beast so plainly on display --- you (Dan) equate a scientific theory with atheism. Do you see a cause and effect link? Do atheists reflexively and uncritically embrace and promote evolution or does evolution breed atheists? What's your "theory"?

Andy (#47): If it's measured, tested, repeated and predictable, it ain't a theory.

You could consider the theories of gravitation as a test case.

Measured: check
Tested: check
Repeated: check
Predictable: check

It's still "just a theory."

Bliffle (#48): For those who have neglected their lessons and have fallen behind I suggest starting with The Sophists and proceeding up through Bertrand Russells "Sense data", at least. Advanced students might enjoy Wittgenstein, Carnap and Goedel, etc.

Good golly, man. Could you maybe synopsize all this egghead stuff into a paragraph or two. I doubt that anyone will have time to read all that before this thread peters out.

Andy Marsh wrote:
I've never seen anyone get so upset over a freaking reference!

I'm not upset. OTOH, you launched into personal attacks and scatological terms in message #40. Why the nastiness?

Okay fine, wikipedia is the best source on the net. Happy now?

No. You're still not getting it.

No research paper anywhere -- including the large number of very fine articles on the Wikipedia -- should ever be taken at face value. On the other hand, if you were to write an article about the gross deceptions and distortions of the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," it would be perfectly proper to use the sources that the Wikipedia article cites as one starting point for your own paper.

Even the content of the Wikipedia itself is far better than many other sources. For example, someone seeking to understand what a scientific theory was should NOT go to dictionary.com to look up the word "theory." A far better choice would be to look up "Theory" in the Wikipedia and then scroll down to the three paragraphs in that entry describing "Science." That might prevent blog-writers from making silly errors based on incorrect assumptions.

The other question that you ignored: why are you giving everything else happening a pass? Why all the criticism of the Wikipedia, but not a single word about Michael's article? For that matter, why did you take this movie on face value?

If it's measured, tested, repeated and predictable, it ain't a theory.

I asked you in the previous post, and I'll ask again now: What source did you use to come to your understanding about the nature of scientific theories? It's interesting, but it has absolutely nothing to do with science.

I don't believe that evolution can say that it's been measured, tested, repeated, or most of all predictable...

Well, that's pretty honest. You don't believe in evolution, so it couldn't possibly have those properties.

How much time have you spent researching what biologists have been writing for the past 10-15 years? Have you read any books by evolutionists?

does that mean it's not science?

Of course it's science. But your question is actually different:

Could a Creationist/IDer be convinced that it's science?

I have no idea what it would take to convince a Creationist/IDer that it's science. I have personally witnessed Creationists/IDers base their understanding of the concept of a scientific "theory" by deliberately picking wrong definitions from a dictionary and then arguing against that straw man. I have no idea how to teach a person like that how to think critically and with an open mind about evolution.

Andy: what source did you use to come to your understanding about the nature of scientific theories?


Bliffle wrote:
"Is it fact or is it theory?" is an ancient game played throughout history by philosophers. Apparently, some people here are not familiar with the material, readily available to all, and accessible on the internet.

It is an old game, but there are some fascinating recent happenings.

In the late 1980s, the term Intelligent Design came into vogue. Where did the term come from? What happened to creationism? There is much to discuss there, but my favorite happening is the phrase:

"cdesign proponentsists"

From Panda's Thumb:

You might be interested to read about a very rare transitional fossil between creationism and "intelligent design" that was recently discovered by Barbara Forrest during her exploration of some exhibits filed in Kitzmiller v. Dover, namely drafts of the original "intelligent design" book Of Pandas and People.

The brief story: early drafts of "Pandas and People" used the term "creationism" (and other forms). Later versions had substituted "Intelligent Design". "cdesign proponentsists" is an example where one of the global substitutes from term one to the other went awry: the transitional fossil.

Hypothesis: An educated guess as to the nature of a phenomena or thing based on related evidence.

Darwin's "On the Origins of Species" is a good example of an Hypothesis.


Theory: An Hypothesis that has been tested, and found to be durable. Plate Tectonics is a Theory. Evolution is a Theory, Decay of radioactive elements into daughter-elements is a theory (a damn reliable one, so far.) Selective Breeding of Livestock is a process based on experience, and codified into a theory by Gregor Mendel-that theory is Eugenics, and it formed some of the basis of Darwin's Hypothesis. (Selective breeding, or "Survival of the fittest")

Dogma: A statement accepted as always true, without requiring evidence or testing. Original Sin is a dogma, the existence of god, little green men, faeries, Miracles, human caused global warming, Creationism, (Capital E) Evolution, and the infallibility of any public figure whether Pope, activist, or Scientist, Priest, Mullah/Imam, or Guru, is an example of a Dogma.

Dogmas do not tolerate challenges, dogmas do not demand supporting evidence or acknowledge evidence not in support of their statements/heroes/gods or Idols. People like dogma, it makes them feel secure and safe and like they know what's going on.




Fact: an Elusive thing indeed, made moreso when people insist on embracing dogmas unquestioningly instead of testing their hypotheses or challenging theories.

Thom - to answer your last question in #51...I used wikipedia...of course!

I asked:
Andy: what source did you use to come to your understanding about the nature of scientific theories?


Andy Marsh wrote:
Thom - to answer your last question in #51...I used wikipedia...of course!

If anyone follows the links that you have at the top of your posts, they'll see that you made an entry in your personal blog on May 12 2008. In that entry, you said:

[...] Well, dictionary.com defines a theory as contemplation or speculation, or guess or conjecture. That's two of the definitions anyway. The other ones are a lot more wordy, but mean basically the same thing. Using those definitions, Evolution as a theory, could be a guess or maybe even speculation.

You used the sixth and seventh definitions of "theory" from dictionary.com. Look at the first definition from that source:

"a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity."

That definition is clearly talking about scientific theories. Not only did you not use the Wikipedia to come to your understanding of scientific theories, you deliberately chose an inappropriate definition of "theory" -- and then you argued about the absurdity of that selection.

This was already all covered in #51:
"I have no idea what it would take to convince a Creationist/IDer that [evolution is] science. I have personally witnessed Creationists/IDers base their understanding of the concept of a scientific 'theory' by deliberately picking wrong definitions from a dictionary and then arguing against that straw man. I have no idea how to teach a person like that how to think critically and with an open mind about evolution."

I really don't know what it would take, Andy. I am clear that a prerequisite for the discussion is intellectual honesty, and it doesn't look that you're willing to participate that way. This is your personal "cdesign proponentsists".

You know...no where on here or on my blog have I ever said that I don't believe in evolution...I said I take it a little further...my way of explaining the unexplainable to myself...

I think you're still pissed that I slammed you reference...you really need to get over it already!!!holy fuck!

But it is good to know that somebody's reading the freaking stuff (crap) I write...

Andy Marsh wrote:
You know...no where on here or on my blog have I ever said that I don't believe in evolution...

Your actions are speaking for you, Andy.

You told us that you used the Wikipedia to learn about scientific theories, but anyone who looks at the March 12, 2008 entry from your blog knows that's not the case.

I said I take it a little further...my way of explaining the unexplainable to myself...

Apparently, your way of "explaining the unexplainable" is choosing an inappropriate definition from dictionary.com and then arguing about the absurdity of that selection.

Why didn't you choose definition #1 of "theory"?

I think you're still pissed that I slammed you reference.

I was mystified -- and am still mystified -- why you still have the quaint belief that it's inappropriate to use the Wikipedia to find sources for research papers.

I pointed out the absurdity of your belief in #44, and you never ever addressed those points.

Another reader did exactly the same thing in #43; you didn't address that either.

Andy: it's clear that you misunderstood what your English professor told you. He wasn't telling you to dogmatically avoid referencing the sources that were listed in Wikipedia articles. That makes absolutely no sense.

I don't know how to say it any more plainly than that.

She Thom...SHE told me not to use wikipedia...period...SHE didn't mention using any of the references I might find in wikipedia...she explicitly said DO NOT USE WIKIPEDIA AS A SOURCE.

Now, if I was to go to wikipedia as you suggest and then find another reference on that site, I wouldn't be using wikipedia as a source, would I? I'd be using the other reference as a source, wouldn't I? But I guess, symantically, I'd be using wikipedia as the source for my source....but I wouldn't really be using it now would I?

I guess I'm just a quaint kinda guy, what can I say?

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.

You can take any one of those defintions and get the same meaning from them. Why'd you pick the first one and not the second one? Why do I have to use the definition that YOU say is correct...I guess for the same reasons I have to accept YOUR references as valid...because you say so!

I also said in what I wrote on my blog that there are other definitions but they pretty much mean the same thing...just a little more wordy...

And again I'll say, nowhere, not here, not on my blog, not anyplace on the planet, since I was about 10 have I ever said that I didn't believe in the theory of evolution...and before I was 10 I doubt I even knew what it was!

And lastly, I still think you're lazy for using wikipedia.

In comment #15, you don't site references from wikipedia, you site wikipedia itself. So stop trying to be disengenous yourself!!! Here's the comment: Anyone who pursues the facts behind the five "expelled" will find that's a bunch of nonsense. Look at the Wikipedia entry for That's using the site as a source, not a list of links or references. So, blow your smoke up someone elses ass...I don't like the feeling!

Andy, definition #1 is the definition of a SCIENTIFIC theory. Not all theories are scientific, which is why all those other definitions are up there. (Just as not all sets are parts of a tennis match. Try looking up 'set' in a dictionary and have fun for the next few minutes wishing you hadn't!)

By any reasonable interpretation, the theory of evolution falls under that first definition.

Or, here's another, more detailed, definition of scientific theory which frames it in just about the same way. (Don't worry, it doesn't come from Wikipedia...)

She Thom...SHE told me not to use wikipedia...period...SHE didn't mention using any of the references I might find in wikipedia...she explicitly said DO NOT USE WIKIPEDIA AS A SOURCE.

Aha. That's different than what you told us before in #42:

Thom - I really don't care if you don't believe that my english prof told the entire class not to use wikipedia as a source, FOR ANYTHING. You can believe what you want, but I don't usually make shit like that up. I do have a tendency to make a lot of shit up, but that ain't one of them...

Now, if I was to go to wikipedia as you suggest and then find another reference on that site, I wouldn't be using wikipedia as a source, would I?

Precisely. That's exactly what I was trying to tell you in #44, and what another reader was trying to tell you in #43. I think you finally understand what we were saying.

The only question remaining: why exactly were you complaining about our use of the Wikipedia in the first place?

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. 



You can take any one of those defintions and get the same meaning from them.

That is a dogmatic statement, and it's not true.

Why'd you pick the first one and not the second one?

Because the first one tells what it means to use the word "theory" in the context of a scientific theory, and none of the other ones do.

Why do I have to use the definition that YOU say is correct...

The clue, Andy, is the inclusion of "Einstein" in the first definition.

I guess for the same reasons I have to accept YOUR references as valid...because you say so!

Why do you ask a question if you're not going to listen to my answer?



I also said in what I wrote on my blog that there are other definitions but they pretty much mean the same thing...just a little more wordy...

Exactly. That's a dogmatic statement, and it's wrong.


And again I'll say, nowhere, not here, not on my blog, not anyplace on the planet, since I was about 10 have I ever said that I didn't believe in the theory of evolution...and before I was 10 I doubt I even knew what it was!

In #47, you said:

If it's measured, tested, repeated and predictable, it ain't a theory.

That dogmatic claim is wrong; it demonstrates that you don't understand how the word "theory" is used in science.

You also tell us:

I don't believe that evolution can say that it's been measured, tested, repeated, or most of all predictable

And you don't explain that claim, either.

And lastly, I still think you're lazy for using wikipedia.

Why?



In comment #15, you don't site references from wikipedia, you site wikipedia itself. So stop trying to be disengenous yourself!!! Here's the comment: Anyone who pursues the facts behind the five "expelled" will find that's a bunch of nonsense. Look at the Wikipedia entry for That's using the site as a source, not a list of links or references.

You didn't go quite far enough, Andy. Look at the next phrase:
"and you'll see summaries, with footnotes, of each story."

So, blow your smoke up someone elses ass...I don't like the feeling!

You still haven't reconciled why you told us in #54 that you used the Wikipedia to come to your understanding of scientific theories. Anyone who goes to look at your blog will note that you actually used dictionary.com to get a completely inappropriate definition of "theory".

There's really no point in continuing if you're going to be intellectually dishonest with us, Andy.

Wikipedia is not a primary source (no one does original research in order to publish in Wikipedia), but rather just an encyclopedia or compendium that one may use to find primary sources.

Not many years ago people would use citations to an Encyclopedia because the primary sources were difficult to access. But nowadays primary sources are often available directly on the internet.

So it would be quite reasonable for a teacher to insist that a student not cite wikipedia directly but simply use it as an index to get to the source material in it's context and richness.

duane: the two papers I mentioned explain the idea more exactly. Roughly, however, "encoding" indicates the information is being conveyed as a compressed message from one person to another, "induction" refers to the fact that the data is being rebuilt, "length" means the number of symbols in the total message, and "minimum" means we want it short.

Consider Alice and Bob. Alice has a data set. She wants to convey it to Bob. She could simply send the data one by one by one, but that's relatively wasteful. Instead, she can devise a compression scheme, compress the data, and send both the decompressor (as a universal Turing Machine representation) and the compressed message. So, if the data is a falling Newtonian body's position at one second intervals relative to time zero at rest, she can encode the data set as "s= -gt^2; t=0,1,2...n", which is a lot shorter for large "n". By "induction length encoding", I mean to refer to the decoder-plus-message.

The papers show that if the data source is a Turing machine, the shortest compressor is also the one most likely to correctly continue predicting forthcoming output from the Turing Machine. (Roughly speaking, anyway. This leaves aside some possibly pathological edge cases. It also neglects essentials involving the inherency of observational uncertainty; essentially, though, it's still "cheaper" to send the small set of deviations from measurement as a correction. The two papers have the full details, and are available online in postscript format.)

The Strong-Church Turing Universe Thesis explicitly claims reality is only Turing (RE class) complex; any scheme of rules allowing finite inference between reality and evidence implicitly assumes the same. Thus, if you accept the prerequisite assumptions (Logic, Mathematics, and SCTUT), testing on this basis -- which is essentially Occam's Razor given diamond-hard mathematical rigor -- provides a basis for Science to do competitive testing and scientific "proof".

Dr. Dreadful comment#49:

"Well, of course not, Einstein. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. That would be the theory of abiogenesis."

The theory of abiogenesis, the question of the origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth emerged from non-life in a naturalistic way. Evolution is a theory that attempts to give plausability to the progression of life through natural causes, thus abiogenesis would be a component of Evolution's earliest stage.

"Nor does it have anything to do with atheism."

Atheism requires it.

"Not in any science book I've ever read. Typical - or something you made up?"

I'm surprised you've never heard of the classic Miller-Urey experiment. The 2000 edition of Kenneth Miller and Joseph Levine's Biology, a popular high school textbook, includes a drawing of the Miller-Urey apparatus with the caption: "By re-creating the early atmosphere (ammonia, water, hydrogen and methane) and passing an electric spark (lightning) through the mixture, Miller and Urey proved that organic matter such as amino acids could have formed spontaneously."

"Whoever said it did?" (variation in bird beaks = spontaneous accidental life forms)

If evolutionists/atheists actually stuck to the bits of evolutionary theory that are supported by the evidence, instead of claiming the mantle of "science" for every conjecture, and, wishful back-fitting they can dream up to support their faith, no one would be arguing with them.

It may be that we are incapable of distinguishing between 'fact' and 'theory'. Maybe ascertaining 'fact' is simply beyond us. Maybe the best we can hope for is a pretty consistent set of 'theories'.

Gee. I wish I was the first to say that.

Oh well.

The theory of abiogenesis, the question of the origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth emerged from non-life in a naturalistic way. Evolution is a theory that attempts to give plausability to the progression of life through natural causes, thus abiogenesis would be a component of Evolution's earliest stage.

You're missing the important point that the theory of evolution does NOT attempt to explain how life began, but how it developed - or, more strictly speaking, develops. You're also confounding - as many anti-evolutionists do - Darwinian natural selection with other forms of evolution (abiogenesis being the one you mention, but stellar evolution, Big Bang theory etc are also often dragged into the mix).

Atheism requires it.

That's a rather foolish statement. There's no logical reason why an atheist should of necessity agree with the theory of evolution. Indeed, there were atheists in the world long before Darwin or Wallace published their research. Also - and on the other hand - there are also many, many Christians, Muslims, Jews and followers of other faiths who accept evolutionary theory.

I'm surprised you've never heard of the classic Miller-Urey experiment...

Actually, I have.

..."By re-creating the early atmosphere (ammonia, water, hydrogen and methane) and passing an electric spark (lightning) through the mixture, Miller and Urey proved that organic matter such as amino acids could have formed spontaneously."

But not single-celled organisms (or anything that could by any stretch be called 'life'), which is what you claimed. Clearly you're trying to formulate an illustration of how evolutionists resort to wild leaps of logic. I spy strawman.

If evolutionists/atheists actually stuck to the bits of evolutionary theory that are supported by the evidence...

They do.

...instead of claiming the mantle of "science" for every conjecture, and, wishful back-fitting they can dream up to support their faith...

Examples, please.

...no one would be arguing with them.

Then how come we're arguing?

If you can demonstrate that your definitions of 'conjecture' and 'wishful back-fitting' are not just 'stuff scientists say that I disagree with', then perhaps we can be on the same page.

Dan wrote:
The theory of abiogenesis, the question of the origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth emerged from non-life in a naturalistic way. Evolution is a theory that attempts to give plausability to the progression of life through natural causes, thus abiogenesis would be a component of Evolution's earliest stage.

Both theories do have the word "natural" in them. That doesn't mean that should be studied as a part of the other.

To do so would tend to muddy the waters (to coin a phrase).

If evolutionists/atheists actually stuck to the bits of evolutionary theory that are supported by the evidence,

Boy, *that* is a loaded phrase that definitely muddies the waters.

What about the evolutionists who are also religious?

instead of claiming the mantle of "science" for every conjecture,

I missed these, too. What conjectures are you talking about?

and, wishful back-fitting they can dream up to support their faith, no one would be arguing with them.

I completely disagree. I think that the Creationist/ID crowd would continue to argue.

Look at the cases of the "Expelled Five": can you name one of them who was actually persecuted? Richard Sternberg clearly was not; the wrong claims made about him in the film were an embarrassment.

Thom - you're absolutely right in saying that there's no point in continuing a conversation with you...if you can't figure out that when I say, in a one line answer directed specifically at you, that I used wikipedia as a source for my information, that it was a smart ass answer to you then you are apparently to fucking dense to continue to talk to...so, we're done.

And all of a sudden footnotes are worth something...I can recall people, read that to say liberals, screaming from the rooftops that it didn't matter how many footnotes ann coulter had in the back of her books it was still all bullshit...it doesn't matter how many footnotes are in your WIKIPEDIA reference, it's still wikipedia...you like it, you use it, but when I see it and I'm not alone in my feelings about this, I consider it a bullshit reference, therefore, using my own sceintific theory, if the reference is bullshit, so is the point trying to be made.

Have a nice day.

if you can't figure out that when I say, in a one line answer directed specifically at you, that I used wikipedia as a source for my information, that it was a smart ass answer to you then you are apparently to fucking dense to continue to talk to...so, we're done.

What I note:

1. Sarcasm is always a poor choice in these messages. And you're never ever talking to an individual here. An experienced blogger should know that. If you thought it was important to address a message to me individually, I sent you an e-mail earlier this week.

2. You never ever answered the question: what source did you use to come to your understanding about the nature of scientific theories? It was a legitimate question that I had asked repeatedly, and, apparently, you never ever answered it.

3. In your blog, you said:

[...] Well, dictionary.com defines a theory as contemplation or speculation, or guess or conjecture. That's two of the definitions anyway. The other ones are a lot more wordy, but mean basically the same thing. Using those definitions, Evolution as a theory, could be a guess or maybe even speculation.

Which is a straw man. Then, in #59 here, you claimed that
all of the definitions in dictionary.com was the same:

You can take any one of those defintions and get the same meaning from them.

That's totally absurd. But now readers are wondering if you will now claim you were only "joking" when you made those absurd claims.

If those comments are taken at face value, one concludes that you really have absolutely no idea what a scientific theory is. This is your personal "cdesign proponentsists".

And all of a sudden footnotes are worth something...

Even more important is straight communication. In #61, you told us:

She Thom...SHE told me not to use wikipedia...period...SHE didn't mention using any of the references I might find in wikipedia...she explicitly said DO NOT USE WIKIPEDIA AS A SOURCE.

That's different than what you told us be