-
Website
http://coloradoindependent.com -
Original page
http://www.coloradoindependent.com/3116/science-sunday-intelligent-design-goes-to-the-movies/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
- John Andrews’ strange, clueless ‘Coloradan of the Year’ column
- Report of ‘secret’ immigration detention centers raises rights concerns
- Stimulus funds aimed at rural areas dumped into metro regions
- Freshman Year, the gay marriage episode: Polis versus Chaffetz
- The pro-government anti-capitalist anti-American worldwide science hoax
But Dawkins didn't get to do the editing of the interview, the film's people did. And the interviews with scientists were obtained under false presences -- see here: http://tinyurl.com/2...
Given a couple of hours worth of raw tape, one could make anyone look pretty silly.
Genome size turns out to correlate with cell volume and nucleus volume, and the causal reasons for this are still debated, but at most the noncoding DNA has some sort of spacer or volume-based function, definitely nothing sexy like coding DNA.
Google "onion test" to see get a sense of reality on this topic.
Like in Super Size Me, when he asked the lawyer why he was suing the fast food companies, and he goes, you mean you want to hear a motive besides money? Ummmmm..... *cuts off* We all know it was done to be silly. Maybe the lawyer was being serious, but you can't tell from the 5-second clip.
Heck, I'm working on some videos for plant breeding, and I've already got ideas from regular, normal footage, for how I could make a parody video.
Oh, and welcome Pharyngula readers.
Dan writes a regular column here called Science Sunday. Good stuff.
But this is giving away a point in evolution's favour. Set aside any fuss about how to define 'life'. All that needs to happen is for something to arise that natural selection can act on. Anything that has heritable variation and differential survival/reproduction will do. Cells as we know them are much too complex to arise by chance, but simple self-replicating molecules (perhaps RNA-like) are becoming increasingly plausible. Once such a replicator exists, natural selection will do the rest!
You usually see that on late night comedy shows as a parody, but not in a supposedly serious documentary.
So, that Stein himself didn't conduct the interviews isn't all that dishonest (or at least, not unusually so). That's a different issue, however, than if they edited the clips to completely and intentionally twist Dawkins' responses (like Jay Leno will do as a parody, as you said), which is of course incredibly dishonest.
Evolution happens by way of natural selection, which is absolutely, positively not random or by chance. Genetic mutation may be random (then again maybe not) but natural selection is the dominant force by which creatures continue to exist to procreate, and thus "evolve."
The creationists must have been told this thousands of times. It's the big argument that scientists make with their tired criticism of evolution. Over and over and over again, they mischaracterize evolutionary theory as being "random" or "by chance". It is absolutely not. These people are LYING. They are intentionally mis characterizing what Darwinian theory is really about.
For more info see:
http://www.freethoug...
As for the interview with Dawkins, I speak as a fan of his work. And regardless of who was interviewing or how it was edited him -- I guess you'll just have to trust me on this until you see the film yourself -- he looked bad.
There's a significant difference between Michael Moore and someone like Ben Stein. This movie of Steins, clearly appears to be involving gross fabrication and misinformation from the point of its inception. You may be able to find some errors in Michael Moore's work, but it's another matter entirely to suggest the central themes of any of his movies were based upon lies, false concern, or intent to mislead people. These right wing pieces are clearly different in their nature -- the participants seem to be more actors - this is a work of fiction verses Moore's movies which are true documentaries.
The right wing propaganda seems to consistently involve misrepresentation to involve those in the scientific community. When that existential piece of trash, "What the Bleep Do We Know?" came out, it was the same situation: famous physicists and other scientists were completely misled, interviewed and then hacked to pieces and taken out of context. Compare this with the documentaries critical of religion such as "The God Who Wasn't There" which gave copious amounts of time to theists to explain their point of view (and was even praised by people like Ergun Caner of Liberty University), or "Jesus Camp" which basically let the audience merely watch what these people were up to, much to everyones' horror. There's a HUGE difference between the left and the right in this ideological war. The left are not cutting off the mics of those on the right - they are engaging them and not being dishonest. When Richard Dawkins interviewed Ted Haggard for his documentary, "The Root of all Evil?" he was actually there, face-to-face, and certainly not under false pretenses, and even when there was a falling out with the meth-smoking, co*k-sucking Christian leader, it was left in the show for all to see. The same thing goes for Brian Flemming's confrontation with his principal in The God Who Wasn't There. The Freethought community has no desire to mislead people -- they want everything out in the open. You cannot say the same for these right wing pieces of propaganda, so to suggest a movie like this "Expelled" piece of trash even belongs at the opposite end of the same category is highly arguable.
Their god is a god who interferes with his creation omnipotently. Evolution, in their mind, minimizes if not completely discounts any role of a god.
So it is essential to them that evolution always be cast as random and purposeless, because it is the antithesis of their god view.
It doesn't matter, and it will never matter, that your position is materially correct. You can rage until the cows come home that evolution is not random. They will never give an inch of ground on this matter.
There are many observers who do not understand evolution, and have not chosen sides. The IDists seek to mislead those people. To fail to respond to lies about evolution may lead those who have not chosen sides to assume the IDists are not wrong.
Out of curiosity, what was the archiocese's involvement?
Oh yeah...definately!
The Expelled movie blog.....
"Darwinism: The Imperialism of Biology?"
http://expelledthemo...
On the other hand, his crackpottery on the national housing and credit bubbles are causing belly laughs from the likes of:
Paul Krugman: "Maybe I don't have what it takes to be a serious columnist. I mean, it would never have occurred to me to suggest that the only way to explain an economic forecast I don't agree with is to say that it must be part of an evil plot to drive down the market"
Seeking Alpha: "Stein sort of reminds me of George Gilder" [ha!]
Dealbreaker: "Ben Stein['s column is] getting roundly trounced by most commentators."
Dean Baker: "Stein gives no reason whatsoever to doubt that Hatzius wrote a serious analysis of the current state of the U.S. economy"
And on and on and on.
I've said it here before: Ben Stein is a discredited, talentless hack and an ignorant fool. If you think you're upset about an irrelevant creationist movie, imagine how you'd feel if you followed Ben Stein's disastrous financial advice. (For example, buy MER just weeks before they wrote down $5 billion dollars in subprime losses and fired their CEO.) Anyone who listens to Stein is worse, and worse off.
Bizarrely, Stein's wholly undeserved reputation is for his financial savvy, not his scientific credentials. Make sure you lay out what a discredited crackpot he is in both arenas.
I enjoyed your review, but I do have to take issue with this line:
"But rough and tumble argument is part of the world of science, whether you're studying intelligent design, string theory or evolutionary biology."
This gives an an implication, perhaps unintended, that ID is "part of the world of science", when it most certainly is not.
Stein says: "[...]I have questions - big ones. Like, how did life begin? What is its purpose?[...] (etc.)"
When actually, he doesn't. This is why there is a huge amount of opposition to evolution - it's work. He has no questions, because the answers are already provided, and no more thought is necessary, thank you very much.
Life is just SO much easier that way, right?
"If I made a rebuttal film, would you be willing to show it either before or after Expelled?"
They've agreed! Granted, my film is going to be simple and shot with a home-video camera and edited on my laptop... but still, I think this is a great opportunity to expose some of the lies and deceit that Stein uses in his film.
I highly encourage other readers to try a similar tactic. I will make my film freely available when done. Use mine, or create your own! I think that theater owners will welcome the chance to try something like this.
http://www.youtube.c...
I hope you're kidding! Michael Moore doesn't make documentaries. What he produces are twisted, distorted pieces of propaganda just as this film appears to be. "Bowling for Columbine"'s very title is a lie. My room mate hired "Fahrenheit", and I couldn't watch beyond the first half hour. No only was it rather dull and trite, but it was so obviously edited to make the point he wanted to make, regardless of honesty, that I can't see how anyone ever released it, let alone took it seriously!
And that you did. But I would like to pitch in with those who feel that the result on some points gives a tendentious picture. It AFAIU is geared to yesterdays popularizations.
IANAB, but T. Ryan Gregory, "an evolutionary biologist specializing in genome size evolution", describes the concept of junk DNA and why non-coding DNA it isn't the same as non-functional DNA. He remarks:
Also, the definition of evolution is, I believe, a description of selectionist theory. AFAIU one can only describe the majority of genetic changes as deleterious if one outdefine the changes that are near neutral as nonessential for selection. I believe genetic analysis finds that the vast majority of changes are near neutral.
It is perhaps better to make a neutral definition (without specifying mechanisms) of the natural process, and let the current theory fill in the details, in analogy to the scientific process. (Study objective phenomena, make current theory.)
One minimal definition of the evolutionary process is:
One can predict from population genetics that genes eventually becomes fixated in some balance for the above process, and that is indeed observed. And some main mechanisms for that would be:
- Variation independent of organism need, selection for reproductive success.
- Near neutral gene drift.
Yes, but that doesn't answer the question of how life in that other galaxy began. It has to be a supernatural entity. Intelligent Design is creationism wearing a new hat.
A few genetics classes, does not an expert make.
"Evolution happens by way of natural selection, which is absolutely, positively not random or by chance. Genetic mutation may be random (then again maybe not) but natural selection is the dominant force by which creatures continue to exist to procreate, and thus "evolve."
I think the issue may be the big bang rather than evolution itself. Did the big bang happen by natural selection? Or was it chance? What was there before and how did it come about? These are the things that are not being addressed and when they are - 'chance' is given as the reason. That's the point.
What is the explanation for the big bang and the beginning if not chance?
Some asshole wrote this. "DNA, Evolution is intelligent "
I cant believe I have to actually post this.
"Intelligence is an umbrella term used to describe a property of the mind that encompasses many related abilities, such as the capacities to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn."
WHERE DOES IT SAY RANDOM GENETIC MUTATION DUE TO ENVIROMENTAL CHANGES!?!?!?!?!?!
People, learn how to use a dictionary before you use a word.
I find that religion and politics lack the patience or the tools to detect, confirm and understand observations. Impatience is to be expected of religionists and politicians they must have adherents now. Neither the political left or right nor the faithful religionists have consistent claims on truthfulness or the reliance on reason. They deal with models of reality that share a disdain for truth, justice or reason.
Paine's comment about -arguing when the use and authority of reason are unappreciated as equivalent to administering medicine to the dead - works today. Our crises today all seem to be predicated on that same lack of appreciation and the demand that action be taken without regard to consequence or the key to morality... individual harm.
Whether you agree with him or not, I think what the above poster was getting at is that Moore is trying to do the right thing, and he makes sense of the facts the best he can; whereas the religious right's efforts are often calculated, they knowingly distort information and lie, and their goal is to control other people and silence dissent.
I agree there is a fundamental difference.
I also think that if you fail to see some truth in Moore's Fahrenheit 911 film, then it's not his propaganda you should be worrying about, it's the Bush administration's. But then again you admit to not even watching the whole film, so...
But according to Dawkins, Stein and friends edited around what he was saying to make it look like Dawkins simply claimed we were all created by space aliens, and apparently they spliced in 1950's sci-fi film footage to make him look really stupid.
I would also add that ALL documentaries carry the burden of their creators' viewpoints and biases, but only some of them wear their subjectivity on the sleeve.
"How did life begin" is not by any means a "basic" question, it is a deeply profound and challenging one, and currently nobody has the answer. Lacking an answer to a question doesn't mean you should make one up. Evolution doesn't have anything to do with the origin of life, but regardless, it is a far larger "stretch" for you to assume that just because you don't know how life began it should be attributed to the will of a mythological being.
And contrary to your claim, both sides are not equal, they don't both have "valid" people doing "research". There is no such thing as a "professional" in intelligent design, because it isn't a valid field of study to begin with, and there is no "research" because ID inherently produces absolutely no testable evidence, falsifiable claims or practical applications.
You're wrong about pretty much everything you wrote. Evolution does an excellent job of explaining a great number of things in biology. If it didn't, it wouldn't still be the predominant biological theory. Unlike religious dogma, scientific evidence is peer reviewed and tested, and theories are refined or discarded if they are demonstrated to contain errors.
There are multiple ways to date rocks, transitional fossils have been found and they "hold up", and scientists don't believe evolution based on "faith", they believe it because it is supported by overwhelming evidence. In contrast, there is absolutely no objective evidence for a god or other intelligent, supernatural creator.
I would also like to see these "experts" who told you that evolution has stopped completely, or that it happens so fast you don't notice. What the hell?!? You are either very confused or you made those up completely.
Evolution is sometimes too slow to observe since changes can take several generations to occur, but it is not necessarily so, and evolution has been observed in laboratories.
Evolution is NOT a theory about the beginning of life! And it makes no claim about whether life was created at "random". So your questions regarding that matter are completely off topic.
And finally, what is an "absolute"? What are you talking about?
It sounds like you know very little about evolution. I would encourage you to learn a bit about it before attempting to voice opinions on it. Wikipedia has a great introductory article on the subject, I would suggest you start there:
http://en.wikipedia....
And here is a list of common misconceptions about evolution:
http://en.wikipedia....
And I assume you live in the United States? If so, you shouldn't thank "God" that you live in a free country, since freedom and self-governance are not religious concepts, they are found nowhere in the Bible; rather they were values from the secular enlightenment, on which our nation was founded.
You should be thanking the people who founded this nation and had the wisdom to establish a secular constitution that guarantees individual liberties including the freedom to worship as you choose, and you should also be thanking the people who have fought and died over the years to maintain those freedoms.
This is a faulty definition of ID, which is, in fact, a simple statement that there are indications of intelligent, intentional design apparent in the world we see around us, and that the more we dicover through science, the more that underlying design becomes apparent. The definition given above is more correctly a definition of Creationism. ID does not state that there was no evolutionary process, but merely that that process appears to have been guided with particular goals in mind - where Darwinism / NeoDarwinism states that there can be no goal - that "Evolution is descent with modification", but that modification is *entirely* random and purposeless.
This article also states that the goal of this film is to present Creationism in a positive light - where the stated goal of the producers is very specifically to shed light on the fact that some highly qualified scientists are being discriminated against solely or primarily on the basis of their support for ID. The purpose of the film is not to make a case for ID, thus it is not surprising that it does a merely superficial job of presenting ID's claims.
As an interesting aside - humans have been observing bacteria for over 6 million generations, yet we have never seen a single case of evolution actually creating a new species of bacteria - wonder why all those transitional forms have escaped our notice???
Yes they do. How do you think anti-biotic resistance came about?
I heard Eugenie Scott speak with in the past month addressing Intelligent Design. She made a huge deal about articles being peer reviewed. All the articles she discredited were for that reason only. She never once addressed the issues brought forth by Ken Hamm, Ken Hovind and others.
I do thank God each and every day that both you and I live in a free country where we can agree to disagree. I would hasten to add a close study of the Constitution would help you understand America's Christan underpinnings. I am proud of our Armed Men and Women who serve this country just as my father did years ago.
Plese advise, you should study the teachings of PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM, since you think I am so far off base.
Last Qestion: In your vast studies of Science, what does Science say about the beginning of life? Not Evolution but Science?
A couple of facts before I go:
1. The Geologic Time Table in your Science Book(s), has never been found in the order as listed.
2. Half life of Radioactive Dating only goes back to 11,000 years or so, the rest is, sadly taken by faith.
3. Ironically, the missing links are still missing. When it comes to a common ancestor to Man and Monkey, ALL of the supposed links have proven to be either fully man or fully monkey.
4. You my friend are a Great American, regardless of what you think. I respect your view, I would ask the same of you.
You don't even know how radioactive dating works, so why would you claim it doesn't go past 11k years?