Expelled Exposed

The movie Expelled hit the theatres recently. While I want to watch the movie, I don't want to contribute any money to the coffers of these people who want to undermine science education and science. I recommend everyone check out the excellent website Expelled Exposed. As it says on the banner, "Flunked, not Expelled: What Ben Stein isn't telling you about intelligent design."

Expelled Exposed was created by the National Center for Science Education, a highly reputable organization led by Dr. Eugenie Scott. There's a great video on the website. Educate yourself on this Expelled Exposedvery important issue, and don't be swayed by the flashy Hollywood documentary movie and the mega-millions being spent by the intelligent design supporters.

Science and PR

I have much more to say on this topic, but I'm replying to a comment a friend made to a previous post, and I trealized it was worthy of its own post. She said:

"I do kind of disagree with you on the 'science and scientists do not have PR campaigns.' comment. Basically I view a lot of modern medicine to be a PR campaign. Sure I understand that the scientists creating the vaccines aren't necessarily the one's creating the ads but at the same time I often wonder how often medicine gets 'ok'd' just so someone can get their name recognized and the drug put on the market."

She's definitely right that sometimes technology or scientific endeavors DO have PR campaigns. But the pharmaceutical industry and the medical industry are not SCIENCE themselves, but the fruits of research. Companies with an agenda (profit) then take up a scientific "result" and push to get it used or accepted by more and more people so they can "save lives" or "help people" but really, sadly, that is secondary to their primary goal to make more money. I say that because I've seen too many products rushed througH FDA approval and then revoked years later or sold with stringent warnings - from tobacco to DES to DDT to many many more pharmaceuticals that end up in litigation over deaths and injuries.

My main point was that the process of scientific inquiry takes years and many multiple independent studies are required before a concept becomes accepted as a reliable theory with predictive power, like evolution. Even if Intelligent Design WAS "scientific" (rather than having a predetermined conclusion, which makes it not science) it would still be in its infancy, and so their groups' desire to get it into textbooks is as ridiculous as the tobacco industry trying to get into school textbooks that smoking is good for you! However, convincing the public of buying something - whether a product or an idea - THAT is the job of advertisements, which are really just subtle propaganda or "PR". That is why the Expelled movie is not doing intelligent design any favors because it just shows even more that ID is merely a big PR machine and not a genuine scientific endeavor.

If you dig deep enough and are not dead-set on your conclusion, even those convinced either that ID is "God's way" or that evolution is false, can and will see the truth. They usually don't want to dig much though. Many people do not like to challenge their beliefs because it's difficult and uncomfortable.

Evolution Weekend

It's Evolution Weekend and check out the post on the Beacon Broadside, the blog of my upcoming book's publishing house, Dust Off Your Darwin Costume: It's Evolution Weekend! by Glenn Branch. He talks about his book (co-authored with NCSE Director Eugenie Scott), "Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Deisgn is Wrong for Our Schools." I met Dr Scott when I testified before the Texas State Baord of Education in 2003 regarding the Texas textbook adoption process. She's an amazing person, and NCSE does great work! We're gearing up for another crazy battle this coming school year since Governor Perry appointed Don McLeroy as the chairperson of the SBOE - and McLeroy is a loud and devout creationist.

For an alternative view from a Christian, read my testimony at the 2003 SBOE, which says that evolution and Christianity are fully compatible. Branch and Scott agree with this view. Happy Darwin Day!

scott peck on reality and truth

Here are some great quotes from a genius, Scott Peck, Christian psychotherapist and best-selling author of The Road Less Traveled. These quotes speak to some very profound truths that the world would be wise to understand.

"By attempting to avoid the responsibility for our own behavior, we are giving away our power to some other individual or organization. In this way, millions daily attempt to escape from freedom."

"If our lives are to be healthy and our spirits are to grow, we must be dedicated to the truth. For truth is reality. And the more clearly we see the reality of the world, the better equipped we are to deal with the world."

"Only a relative and fortunate few continue until the moment of death explorng the mystery of reality, revising and refining and redefining their understanding of the world and what is true."

"We must always hold the truth, as best as we can determine it, more vital to our self-interest, than our comfort."

Amen!

the deception and lies of ID

Although I wrote in a previous post: "The whole problem with intelligent design as 'science' is that the concept has a predefined result - that the origins of the natural world must literally match the Genesis Creation account," the slippery snakes of the ID movement do not tell you their intention outright. The original (young earth) creationists did/do not hide this intention, but ID creationists do. Instead, ID proponents say they are looking for "signs of a designer" which may be an alien culture, a purple playdough man, or God (OK I added the purple playdough man idea myself). Why don't we add the Flying Spaghetti Monster to the list, too?

So my point is that they've deviously veiled their intent by claiming they are looking for signs of intelligence using probability theory and signs of "irreducible complexity" which fools their followers but not most scientists. And fortunately, not Judge Jones in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case who ruled ID is religious-based "creationism in disguise" and not science. Hence, teaching it in schools AS SCIENCE violates the constitutional separation of church and state. Make no bones about it, the proponents of ID want to break down that wall between church and state. The Kitzmiller vs. Dover court case was a resounding victory for science, but ID proponents certainly won't stop there.

As a Christian myself, I always wonder why the IDers don't think for a moment that maybe God *isn't* on their side when he keeps giving victory after victory to the supposedly "other side"? Although God's ways are mysterious and no one can claim to fully know God's ways, God is certainly on the side of Truth (and I do believe that there is Truth), especially since in the Bible the devil is described as the "father of lies."

The extent of ID proponents' lying, hypocrisy, and deception is truly frightening. Of course, isn't it always the case that those who are most guilty of propaganda and lying will cast this stone out to the other side. Have you ever had a cheating spouse or significant other accuse you of cheating? Or lying? It's a very common psychological tool used by the lying, deceiving person or group to sidetrack attention away from themselves. ID and other creationists frequently accuse evolution advocates of propaganda. Of course discerning the truth is not all that difficult, but it requires critical thinking, deeper research and understanding the issues, motives, and truths to all these situations. Unfortunately, most people do not have time for that, so they just tend to accept whatever the group/crowd thinks that they most closely align themselves with. To our country's peril! And to that individual's detriment as well.

I plan to start working on a course, seminar and workshop series that will help people decipher the real story from propaganda, and to discern lies versus truth. Are you being duped? Find out how to find out for yourself! Details coming soon.

I'd support having the "controversy" taught in schools, BUT it should be done in a social studies, religion, or cultural studies course and absolutely NOT in a science classroom!

is there evidence for macroevolution?

After I cross-posted my last blog entry to The Daily Kos I got some good comments and discussion. The poll was done just for fun, sort of tongue-in-cheek though it did offend a couple of friends! That doesn't bother me so much, but one friend actually said she FORGAVE ME as if a difference of theological opinion is enough to cause a Christian friend of 20+ years to not forgive me? What about Jesus saying forgive 7 x 7 times?! I just wish we could all have a sense of humor here, people! :)

Anyway I believe that we have to stand up for Truth and that is why I am adamant about evolution. I KNOW evolution is fact. I have Faith in God and Christ. There's a big difference.

So the comment from a random person I don't know on Daily Kos was:

It surprises me to here [sic] so many argue against ID and in support of Evolution on the basis of facts when most of the facts I've heard on these posts are either wrong or the arguments are lacking the facts. First it's important to know what the basis of ID is and what the followers believe. Not what the religious conservatives who tried to use ID in there favor to get religion back in school believe it is. It's a story of "really don't be on my side" because the conservatives are not helping the idea behind ID. Also to those who boldly call evolution a fact and not a theory. The science has the evidence to support the evolution of species due to natural selection. However, Evolution remains a theory that has plenty of gaps in going from one family to another. Apparently I must have had a terrible evolution teacher when I took the course in college because the gaps are amazing when you actually look at the details. Probabilities and mathematics are a science. You can prove how statistically improbable something is due to its complexities. How different is that basic concept than ID.

And my response:

You must certainly have had a very bad biology teacher because the evidence for macroevolution - NOT just microevolution and natural selection - is overwhelming not scant.

The very fact of the universal genetic code in itself overwhelmingly supports common descent of all organisms from bacteria to human(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code). That is just the beginning. Other basic facts (not theory) in support of evolution are:

• the shared muscle & bone arrangements in all vertebrates, which have been modified to fit the function in various creatures (birds versus whales versus bats versus fish etc)
  
  
• evidence from convergent evolution (unrelated organisms will evolve in very similar ways to rspond to similar evolutionary pressures)
  
  
• evidence from similarities of flora & fauna on Africa and South America and other continents due to plate tectonics (the continents used to be connected, so organisms on continents that used to be connected are more similar genetically than continents that were not connected - or in relation to time apart since at one point everything was one land mass which then moved apart into Gondwanaland and Laurasia, and then further split).
  
  
• The fact that geneticists can actually detect specific changes in genes and how that affects traits in one closely related organism to the next.

This is just the very beginning of evidence!!

I get frustrated that people who have had a single Biology class in college, learning evolution for a max of 3-4 weeks, think that they can debunk the whole thing by saying there'e no evidence. Try taking a bio class again, or reading about evolution from a non-biased source (scientists) or take an Evolution class. Or sit in on one. Whether or not there is a God/ "designer" is not a question that science can answer! Trying to redefine science so that it appeases Christians/IDers/anti-evolutionists is doing a grave injustice to our society, our world, Christianity, and Truth itself!

Expelled: The Intelligent Design movie

Cross-posted with a tongue-in-cheek quiz at the Daily Kos.

The whole problem with intelligent design is that its proponents like to say it is science, and that the status quo of scientists are not allowing this new concept to be introduced into science classrooms, from some sort of discrimination or something. It's a reasonable enough sounding argument, and the premise of the new documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." And the makers of this film want people to see this movie so badly that they're offering to pay schools and churches $5 per student to see it. I first read about this on The Daily Irrelevant and The Bad Idea Blog.

What intelligent design proponents - in the movie and elsewhere - don't tell you is that science and scientists do not have PR campaigns. They don't have to pay money to people to accept scientific theories and facts. They quietly go about their work in the halls of academia, in the laboratory, using computer models, in the field doing experiments, publishing results in scientific peer-reviewed journals. This is how science works. Scientific ideas don't need a PR campaign, films, and money to promote themselves. They MAY use these techniques as teaching tools, but that is generally after a scientific concept is well established.

Intelligent design is not well-established, and despite what the film may tell people, it's not being expelled. It doesn't have enough data or studies behind it to be put into textbooks. In fact, it's not even science. Somehow we as a society seem to have forgotten what science even is. This shall not do! Science revolutionized the way people thought, paving the way for the amazing scientific and technological advances since then - germ theory, vaccines, antibiotics, traveling to the moon. The key here is that science requires scientists to throw out ideas that don't have supporting data. Every scientific hypothesis is always open to falsification - being shown to be false.

The whole problem with intelligent design as "science" is that the concept has a predefined result - that the origins of the natural world must literally match the Genesis Creation account. Science does not work if you have a pre-set conclusion! No, for a process or idea to be science, those testing the premise have to be able to throw out the hypothesis if the data doesn't fit. Intelligent design is not willing to do that. Because that would mean they are saying, nope, we're wrong. God didn't create the world. At least that is what the fear it means.

People that promote intelligent design KNOW that there is a God who created the universe. And I, myself a Christian, believe that they're right. But that doesn't make intelligent design right. Because ID does not even provide a proper mechanism, or method, through which the universe came into existence other than "God did it," (technically, their terminology is that the world has "irreducible complexity" that could not possibly have been created by anything other than an intelligent designer).

However, evolution by means of natural selection has amazing explanatory power in terms of how the world could have gone from single-celled organisms to complex beings, even human beings. There's no scientific controversy over evolution. There is ONLY a social, religious and cultural controversy.

Another problem with intelligent design proponents is this - very few people who follow it have ever taken a college Biology class in which they learned about evolution and its evidence. Instead they learn about evolution from those attacking it, in the churches and by the "professional creationists" who make money by selling books and making movies to promote their views. And now if you will excuse me, I need to go worship my Noodly master. Ramen!