MOVIE: "Expelled"

[momof8]

I saw “Expelled” tonight even though after reading this thread I almost didn’t go.

I have to say that I could not characterize Ben Stein’s interview style as “aggressive” at any time. He didn’t strike me as unfair to Dawkins in the least.

I thought Ben Stein’s connection between Nazism and Darwinism was well-presented. Stein was focusing on the Nazi’s treatment of the disabled, indicating that Hitler felt we were wasting resources on them and interfering with evolutionary gains by allowing them to reproduce. That didn’t strike me as an unfair thing to include in the film.

They did seem to say that the man from the Smithsonian was fired. If he’s still working in the same job then that would be an inaccurate portrayal. But I remember when that story was in the news and remember how attacked that man was for allowing the ID article to be printed.

If the film is still available in your area, I would certainly recommend that anyone see it and form his own opinion.

 

[PhilVaz]

RobbyS << In any case, the ID people, none of them, deny the theory of evolution. >>

Totally incorrect. The only one who affirms evolution, and here I mean macroevolution (“common descent”) including human evolution, is Michael Behe. He does not appear in Expelled however. Apparently he was interviewed, and will appear in the “extras” of the DVD when released (see the Scientific American magazine MP3 interviews with the Expelled producer). Of the ID folks who appear in the Expelled movie:

Bruce Chapman – denies or questions macroevolution (Catholic and head of Discovery Institute)
Paul Nelson – denies macroevolution (evangelical and young-earther)
Jonathan Wells – denies macroevolution (Moonie)
Stephen Meyer – denies or questions macroevolution (his controversial paper suggests ID explains the “Cambrian Explosion”)
William Dembski – denies or questions macroevolution (he says “common descent” could be accepted, but he personally denies or questions human evolution)
Phillip E. Johnson – denies or questions macroevolution and human evolution (he didn’t appear in Expelled but has appeared in many other programs)
David Berlinski – questions macroevolution (in debate and radio programs he concedes such things as the reptile-mammal transition, he is an agnostic)
Gerald Schroeder – questions macroevolution (he is Jewish, in his books he denies “transitional fossils”)

Some of this I am going from memory, having read their articles, books, heard them in debate or in talks, but I believe I am correct on all of them.

Of the major ID folks who appear in “Expelled” ALL of them deny or question macroevolution (“common descent”) and human evolution. Some of these guys were asked directly if they accepted “common descent” in the 2005 Kansas ID hearings (see “Cross Examination by Irigonegaray” for each) and virtually all of them (except Behe) said NO. Do you need specific quotes for each or do I need to link to specific papers and/or articles?

Those are the “leaders” in the ID movement. The regular followers or supporters of the ID movement (I would say at least 95%) have the opinion of “mom” above, they deny or question or simply don’t know the evidence for macroevolution (and human evolution), so they reject it.

As for the books I listed on whale evolution, I was simply showing everyone what is out there. I myself wasn’t aware of this stuff in my teens and 20s since I never studied the creation-evolution issue until later in life. As with anything, it takes both interest in the subject, and personal study to understand and learn this stuff. That interest can begin very young, just as some boys knew they wanted to become priests by age 5.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

mom << Phil, Can you clarify for me, that the fact that an animal is extinct is considered proof that it evolved into something else? >>

I’ve used the word “proof” myself but actually there is no “proof” in science, only in alcohol and mathematics. There is not “proof” but evidence. I should use the word “evidence for evolution.” What is evidence is not that these animals are extinct, but they become extinct in a certain pattern, in a certain geographical area, at certain time periods, indicating a line of descent or development that is clearly discernable.

mom << Can you also clarify, that the “evolution” of the giraffe involved several intermediate steps, meaning that in the way that evolution works, the species does not go from a short neck to an intermediate one to a long one but that there were also animals in between that had necks of varying lengths, is that correct? >>

I am not a biologist/zoologist/paleontologist, but what I understand going by Prothero’s book, most of the ancestors of the modern giraffe have short (or shorter) necks e.g. Paleoryx, Canthumeryx from 23 million years ago had a shorter neck but longer sideways “horns”; Samotherium from 20 million years ago had a shorter neck but longer “horns” on top just like the modern Giraffe; “Paleotragus” dates to around 15 million years ago; and Bohlinia about 10 million years ago but there aren’t pictures for the latter two in Prothero’s book; the modern long-necked “Giraffa” date to about 5 million years ago.

As I mentioned, Prothero explains that an intermediate-height neck “transitional fossil” has been found – it is between the shorter-neck of ancient and the longer-neck of modern “giraffes” and is currently being described and catalogued by Nikos Solounias. A picture is provided with this caption on page 318:

“Neck vertebrae of a recently discovered fossil giraffid that are intermediate in length between those of primitive giraffids and the modern long-necked species. This amazing discovery is a true ‘missing link’ between okapis (bottom) and the long-necked modern species (top).” (Prothero, page 318, figure 14.15)

I already quoted Prothero on this fossil, but here is more: “The oldest known fossils of the genus Giraffa jumae from the late Miocene of Africa already seems to have a long neck, so we need to seek fossils from earlier in the Miocene. Nikos Solounias (1999) has shown the mechanisms by which the neck lengthens, and the prevailing ideas have to be revised. Giraffes lengthen each vertebra somewhat but actually add an extra vertebra to the neck, then shift the last neck vertebra to the shoulder region. This is why the graffe neck begins behind the forelimbs and why giraffes have their distinctive posture with the legs out in front and the neck balanced almost over the center of the body, rather than sticking forward all the time as in most mammals.” (Prothero, page 316)

Nikos Solunias research, bibliography, and publications are found here at his NY Institute of Technology (College of Osteopathic Medicine) page. For some reason, there isn’t an “index” on this page, but PDFs and DOCs are there.

mom << And that none of those variants still exists - each one is replaced by the new one? I am honestly trying to understand the sequence that is advanced by the evolutionary theory. >>

Evolution doesn’t work in a straight line, it is more a branching, bushing kind of descent. There is actually another existing “giraffe family” species called okapi, a cousin of the long-necked Giraffe. It is described as a “stumpy giraffe” with stripes on its legs like a zebra (see link).

The picture of “giraffe family” evolution on page 317 of Prothero’s book looks like a tree, with the root being Paleoryx and Canthumeryx (23 million years ago), and one of the side branches being the modern Giraffa (about 5 million years ago). There are 12 extinct species listed, with one existing side-branch species (the Okapia, wikipedia article).

mom << At what point in this evolution is a new species in existence, in the sense that the “new” species can no longer reproduce with the “old” species? >>

I don’t know, You go look up these mostly extinct species of the giraffe family, they are:

Paleoryx
Canthumeryx
Climacoceras
Triceromeryx
Okapia (not extinct, has short neck)
Sivatherium
Giraffokeryx
Brahmatherium
Samotherium
Paleotragus
Bohlinia
Hunanotherium
Giraffa (modern long necks)

It is my understanding that when these are classified as separate species, that means they could not reproduce with one another, and in addition they are each separated by several million years.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

mom << Also, am I correct in my understanding that according to evolutionary theory, animals evolved from plants? And in that theory, when you go from a relatively simple life form to a more advanced one, at what point are the specialized organs we see in animals thought to have come into existence? >>

There are at least a dozen people on these forums that can answer these questions much better than I (since I have to look everything up, I cannot go “off the top of my head” on these things). You are asking:

Did animals evolve from plants? My answer is No. Plants and Animals do eventually have “common ancestors” if we go back far enough (i.e. billions of years), but modern animals did not evolve from modern plants. Then where do “animals” come from?

“The oldest fossil evidence of multicellular animals, or metazoans, is burrows that appear to have been made by smooth, wormlike organisms. Such trace fossils have been found in rocks from China, Canada, and India…Between 620 and 550 million years ago (during the Vendian Period) relatively large, complex, soft-bodied multicellular animals appear in the fossil record for the first time. While found in several localities around the world, this particular group of animals is generally known as the Ediacaran fauna, after the site in Australia where they were first discovered…” (see Animal Evolution)

Animals first started out as simple multi-celled creatures (in the water), then to simple invertebrates (worms and such), which evolved slowly into animals with notochords or backbones (the vertebrates), then to fish, tetrapods (amphibians), reptiles, dinosaurs, birds and mammals, primates and finally us homo sapiens. Plants evolved from prokaryotes (organisms classified as Bacteria and Archaea) and the modern “flowering plants” appeared much later.

“DNA evidence suggests that the first eukaryotes (green plants) evolved from prokaryotes (through endosymbiotic events) between 2500 and 1000 million [2.5 and 1 billion] years ago. Fossils of eukaryotes that resemble living brown algae have been found in sedimentary rocks from China that are 1700 million [1.7 billion] years old, while possibly the oldest photosynthetic eukaryote, Grypania, comes from rocks 2100 million [2.1 billion] years old.” (see Plant Evolution)

mom << Where do the specialized organs of animals come from? >>

Again, that is something we both can look up. Your initial objection to macroevolution had to do with giant things like Whales and Giraffes. I take it that initial objection is now answered. These additional questions I would have to look up. Once the “organs” question is answered, you then will take me to the first cell, then to the origin of the universe, right?

mom << Do you see evolutionary theory as incompatible with the concept of intelligent design? >>

It is incompatible if you define “Intelligent Design” (upper-case) and “evolutionary theory” as the Discovery Institute does (in fact they always pit “natural” evolution against ID). In my opinion, biological ID is mostly bad and wrong "creationist science" that was answered decades ago. If you define ID as Vatican Council I does (“intelligent design” lower-case), there isn’t a conflict: “The same Holy mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason.” (cf. Romans 1:19-20; Wisdom chapter 13).

I accept cosmological ID or the "Anthropic Principle" (e.g. G. Gonzales book/DVD Privileged Planet). As for what Catholics are supposed to believe about creation, see my Catholic Dogma and Teaching on Creation.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

RobbyS << I personally have believed in evolution since I was about seven and able to read the old “Book of Knowledge.” Most people have internalized this by the time they reach high school. In any case, the ID people, none of them, deny the theory of evolution. >>

I wanted to quote you again, and then quote Michael Behe on whale evolution from 1992 (before the discovery of Ambulocetus and other whale transitionals):

“Even allowing for the enthusiasms of the popular press the story reflects the way in which a theory, here evolution, is allowed to supply ‘facts’ which the evidence in no way justifies. I discussed this article with my students in a course I teach for Freshmen, entitled ‘Popular Arguments on Evolution’. The course is intended to develop critical reasoning skills, using popular books that have opposing viewpoints on evolution as the vehicle. This past semester we read, side by side, Richard Dawkins’ The Blind Watchmaker and Michael Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. This forced the students to argue over the meaning of observations, without the automatic social support that usually goes to proponents of evolution in academic settings. The students themselves, after reading the Post’s article, pointed out that there is no reason to suppose that the ancient whale appeared on earth before the modern whale since modern whales have vestigial legs which could have developed into the functional legs of the Zeuglodon whale. For the same reason, the students noted, the discovery does not represent the development of a new trait or even the loss of an old one. Finally, and most glaringly obvious, if random evolution is true there must have been a large number of transitional forms between the mesonychid and the ancient whale: Where are they? It seems like quite a coincidence that of all the intermediate species that must have existed between the mesonychid and whale, only species that are very similar to the end species have been found. The students concluded that the fossil whale, although a fascinating discovery for natural history, was no evidence for the Post’s evolutionary scenario.” (Behe from "Experimental Support for Regarding Functional Classes of Proteins to be Highly Isolated from Each Other")

Is Behe questioning whale evolution here? I say Yes. He has since been corrected in debate with Ken Miller. Whale transitionals between the end species (about 30 of them) are above.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

More on Giraffe evolution, you can’t learn enough about these creatures.

On the Origin, Evolution, and Phylogeny of Giraffes (PDF) by Mitchell, et al (Transactions from the Royal Society of South Africa, volume 58, number 1 [2003], page 51-73)

And to be fair, this PDF paper keeps coming up in my searches. I think it is more an anti-evolution or “we don’t know” approach, and endorsed by the “Discovery Institute” :

The Evolution of the Long-Necked Giraffe: What Do We Really Know? (PDF) by Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig (2006, translated from German)

Phil P

 

[momof8]

Hi Phil,

In response to my question, << At what point in this evolution is a new species in existence, in the sense that the “new” species can no longer reproduce with the “old” species? >>

You answered, “I don’t know,You go look up these mostly extinct species of the giraffe family…
It is my understanding that when these are classified as separate species, that means they could not reproduce with one another, and in addition they are each separated by several million years.”

So, in the ancestry of modern giraffes, there were those species that you identified, and in between them, animals that gradually changed until, after millions of years, they became a species that could not reproduce with the original species, even though each level was able to reproduce with others along the way. Naturally, animals separated by several millions of years could not reproduce with each other so there would be no way to show that they ever could.

I would have to see whether the fossil record contains evidence of changed animals living at the same time as unchanged animals with whom they could still reproduce.

I would also have to do a lot of research to learn about the evolutionary steps you describe. I take it that the fossil evidence supports this: “Animals first started out as simple multi-celled creatures (in the water), then to simple invertebrates (worms and such), which evolved slowly into animals with notochords or backbones (the vertebrates), then to fish, tetrapods (amphibians), reptiles, dinosaurs, birds and mammals, primates and finally us homo sapiens. Plants evolved from prokaryotes (organisms classified as Bacteria and Archaea) and the modern “flowering plants” appeared much later.” That would mean that in rock layers we see times when there were fish but no amphibians whatsoever because they hadn’t evolved yet, and, later, dinosaurs but no mammals, and that the fossil evidence also shows a progression of animals that were fish on their way to being amphibians while the fish also continued to exist, and that while this was happening, the evidence also shows the original fish evolving into the thousands of fish species that exist today. Or, in saying the process was not linear, you’re saying that fish evolved into birds and mammals, so that birds would not quite be the ancestors of mammals but that fish are ancestors of both, and that this is supported by the fossil evidence.

I can’t say that my initial objection about whales and giraffes has been answered, but you have given me information to compare to other points of view which will allow me to see which arguement is more compelling. I appreciate your patience in sharing your knowledge with me without requiring me to sift through all the evolution threads that have been posted here since 2004!

 

[ricmat]

I have now seen “Expelled” five times, paid for it four times. ExpelledExposed.com has the movie right. I am a glutton for punishment and Ben Stein has my money.

Phil P

Phil, given your feelings on this whole matter, you can probably get credit for time off in purgatory for seeing the movie that many times

Also, I have another question…but first some background. I believe in virtually all the data which supports evolution, old universe and old earth. The only part I don’t buy is that the mutations which caused increasing complexity happened randomly. So I see this process being guided by a designing intelligence (i.e. God).

You refer in one of your posts to ID as defined by the Discovery Institute being wrong - here is the definition right off their web site. I’m curious to know what you think is wrong here…

What is the theory of intelligent design?

                                  The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. (see [What is intelligent design?](http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php)) 
             
                                                **Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?**

                                  It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges.

 

[momof8]

ricmat,

I like seeing your quote from the Discovery Institute. It has a far less dogmatic ring to it than the NABT statement, which to me is the point of “Expelled” - the establishment requires certain thinking, while ID proponents want different points of view left on the table for consideration.

 

[drpmjhess]

ricmat,

I like seeing your quote from the Discovery Institute. It has a far less dogmatic ring to it than the NABT statement, which to me is the point of “Expelled” - the establishment requires certain thinking, while ID proponents want different points of view left on the table for consideration.

How is “no discernible direction or goal” dogmatic? The movement of plates about the molten center of the earth has no “discernible direction or goal” and yet that assumption of modern geology is not criticized as being “dogmatic.”

Petrus

 

[wildleafblower]

NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution

"As stated in *The American Biology Teacher *by the eminent scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1973), “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” This often-quoted declaration accurately reflects the central, unifying role of evolution in biology. The theory of evolution provides a framework that explains both the history of life and the ongoing adaptation of organisms to environmental challenges and changes.

"While modern biologists constantly study and deliberate the patterns, mechanisms, and pace of evolution, they agree that all living things share common ancestors. The fossil record and the diversity of extant organisms, combined with modern techniques of molecular biology, taxonomy, and geology, provide exhaustive examples of and powerful evidence for current evolutionary theory. Genetic variation, natural selection, speciation, and extinction are well-established components of modern evolutionary theory. Explanations are constantly modified and refined as warranted by new scientific evidence that accumulates over time, which demonstrates the integrity and validity of the field.

"Scientists have firmly established evolution as an important natural process. The nature of science, experimentation, logical analysis, and evidence-based revision based on detectable and measurable data are procedures that clearly differentiate and separate science from other ways of knowing. Explanations or ways of knowing that invoke metaphysical, non-naturalistic or supernatural mechanisms, whether called “creation science,” "scientific creationism,” “intelligent design theory,” “young earth theory,” or similar designations, are outside the scope of science and therefore are not part of a valid science curriculum.

"The selection of topics covered in a biology curriculum should accurately reflect the principles of biological science. Teaching biology in an effective and scientifically honest manner requires that evolution be taught in a standards-based instructional framework with effective classroom discussions and laboratory experiences.

*Adopted by the NABT Board of Directors,1995. Revised 1997, 2000, May 2004, and 2008. Endorsed by: The Society for the Study of Evolution,1998; The American Association of Physical Anthropologists, 1998. *

nabt.org/sites/S1/index.php?p=65
http://www.nabt.org/sites/S1/index.php?p=65

As a Roman Catholic woman I have every right to support the The National Association of Biology Teachers Statement on Teaching Evolution as stated above within my message due to the fact that I believe in the finest education for youth and willingly continue to pay an enormous amount of money yearly for school bonds. These bright, young minds are our future. I wish for them to have the very best educators.

 

[PhilVaz]

mom << That would mean that in rock layers we see times when there were fish but no amphibians whatsoever because they hadn’t evolved yet, and, later, dinosaurs but no mammals >>

Correct. I was giving a general line of descent and what you find in the fossil record dated at various levels. In the fossil record you find invertebrates dated oldest, then fish, then tetrapods (amphibians), then reptiles, then birds and mammals, then us. Of course there is also some overlap. What happens is that SOME fish evolved into tetrapods, leaving other fish to remain or evolve into some other kind of fish, and some tetrapods evolved into reptiles, leaving other tetrapods to evolve into something else. Also 99% of all the species that have ever lived on earth have eventually gone extinct. Only 1% of species survive today.

Evolution always works in populations, and when populations of some creatures become separated by geographical barriers, that’s sometimes when evolution occurs. Which is why the Australian mammals are unique and different from their closely-related counter-part species in other sections of the world. Here is a teaching assignment on this topic ("Australian Mammals: Evolutionary Development as a Result of Geographic Isolation").

As some primates evolved into human beings, other primates remained and branched off and evolved into other ape-like creatures. That’s why we have various chimps, gibbons, apes, and homo sapiens today and we are all closely related.

Evolution is not a “straight line” but a branching tree, or branching bush.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Ric << You refer in one of your posts to ID as defined by the Discovery Institute being wrong - here is the definition right off their web site. I’m curious to know what you think is wrong here… >>

I wasn’t thinking of anything specific, I was talking about the general impression one gets from the “Discovery Institute” people (i.e. as in Ben Stein and the “Expelled” movie), and that is:

Evolution means "there cannot be a God, there is no God whatsoever."

Intelligent Design means "there could be a God, a Designer."

That’s where “Evolution” and “Intelligent Design” would conflict, philosophically and metaphysically. However, most scientists do not define Evolution philosophically or metaphysically, but only as a physical, natural process, the same with any other science. It simply does not mention God.

Ric citing DI << What is the theory of intelligent design? The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. >>

That may be their definition, but it has been proven wrong. The “features of the universe” that the DI says are “best explained by an intelligent cause” HAVE been explained better by natural, scientific, evolutionary causes (e.g. the blood-clotting cascade, the immune system, the “Cambrian Explosion”, the general macroevolution of invertebrates to fish to tetrapods to reptiles to birds to mammals to us, to name a few examples). And speaking of the “Origin of Life” I just received this book in the mail from Amazon: Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life’s Origin by Robert Hazen (Joseph Henry Press, 2005) so I may write something summarizing this book and put in my creation/evolution/ID section.

Also, “natural selection” need not exclude God, as the 2004 ITC statement explains: “Through the activity of natural causes, God causes to arise those conditions required for the emergence and support of living organisms, and, furthermore, for their reproduction and differentiation…But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence…Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation.” (paragraphs 68, 69)

Ric citing DI << Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution? It depends on what one means by the word “evolution.” >>

On that I agree. If “evolution” means “No God whatsoever, metaphysically and philosophically” then “evolution” would not be compatible with ID or a meaningful Christianity. Of course God is involved. I do not define “evolution” metaphysically or philosophically, but only as a natural, scientific, physical process. And I accept these De Fide statements on creation:

God keeps all created things in existence. (De Fide)
God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De Fide)

Also there is a difference between "methodological naturalism" (which I accept) and metaphysical/philosophical naturalism. Phillip E. Johnson often critiqued the latter, while some Christian theologians don’t like the former either.

Ric from DI << If one simply means “change over time,” or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. >>

That’s how I define evolution: as macroevolution or “common descent.” So the DI and I agree there is no conflict. However…

Ric from DI << However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that “has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species.” (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges. >>

Neo-Darwinism as a philosophy is incompatible with Christianity, but not neo-Darwinism as science (the modern sythesis of natural selection, random mutation, and modern genetics, etc). I understand it as pure science, and it does not discuss God or a designer. The “no discernable direction or goal” simply means it is a natural process, just as meteorology (changes in the weather) has “no discernable direction or goal” and that plate tectonics, the environment and the movements of the earth has “no discernable direction or goal.”

The fine-tuning of the earth and universe for life is governed by laws that seem to be ordered and directed for/to a purpose however, in that I accept cosmological ID (Anthropic Principle), but not biological ID.

Phil P

 

[ricmat]

I wasn’t thinking of anything specific, I was talking about the general impression one gets from the “Discovery Institute” people (i.e. as in Ben Stein and the “Expelled” movie), and that is:

Evolution means "there cannot be a God, there is no God whatsoever."

Intelligent Design means "there could be a God, a Designer."

That’s where “Evolution” and “Intelligent Design” would conflict, philosophically and metaphysically. However, most scientists do not define Evolution philosophically or metaphysically, but only as a physical, natural process, the same with any other science. It simply does not mention God.

Uh…Ben Stein is not from the Discovery Institute, so far as I know.

There are certainly many folks using evolution as a reason to prove that God does not exist, even if that’s impossible to do (which of course it is). I think the movie is a reaction against those folks more than the science of evolution.

Ric citing DI << What is the theory of intelligent design? The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. >>

That may be their definition, but it has been proven wrong.
Perhaps they picked the wrong features to examine. There are obviously many others. So long as they use standard scientific methodology to pursue their investigations, I’m not sure why there is such a fuss with some people (not speaking of you here). OK - perhaps it is a dead end, time will tell.
PhilVaz;3634387:

Also, “natural selection” need not exclude God, as the 2004 ITC statement

explains: “Through the activity of natural causes, God causes to arise those conditions required for the emergence and support of living organisms, and, furthermore, for their reproduction and differentiation…But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence…Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation.” (paragraphs 68, 69)

No disagreement from me on that. But even if natural causes were used entirely (no “God-directed selective breeding” so to speak), the final product should show evidence of having been planned - and that’s why nature works so well as one giant system.

Ric citing DI << Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution? It depends on what one means by the word “evolution.” >>

On that I agree. If “evolution” means “No God whatsoever, metaphysically and philosophically” then “evolution” would not be compatible with ID or a meaningful Christianity. Of course God is involved. I do not define “evolution” metaphysically or philosophically, but only as a natural, scientific, physical process. And I accept these De Fide statements on creation:

God keeps all created things in existence. (De Fide)
God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De Fide)

snip…

Ric from DI << If one simply means “change over time,” or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. >>

That’s how I define evolution: as macroevolution or “common descent.” So the DI and I agree there is no conflict. However…

Ric from DI << However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that “has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species.” (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges. >>

Neo-Darwinism as a philosophy is incompatible with Christianity, but not neo-Darwinism as science (the modern sythesis of natural selection, random mutation, and modern genetics, etc). I understand it as pure science, and it does not discuss God or a designer. The “no discernable direction or goal” simply means it is a natural process, just as meteorology (changes in the weather) has “no discernable direction or goal” and that plate tectonics, the environment and the movements of the earth has “no discernable direction or goal.”

The fine-tuning of the earth and universe for life is governed by laws that seem to be ordered and directed for/to a purpose however, in that I accept cosmological ID (Anthropic Principle), but not biological ID.

We are actually quite close in our views. And I actually think that the DI’s views are quite close to our views.

I think the greatest controversy is the word “random”. To some, that equates with “no God” - and they intend it to mean just that - it’s the whole point. Some see “random” and intend it to mean that God was involved, and it appears random, but really isn’t (there is some purpose which comes out of the randomness). I tend to think that if God was involved then that by definition eliminates the idea of randomness in this process.

 

[reggieM]

whatyououghttoknow.com/show/2008/05/01/darwins-intelligent-design/

 

[PhilVaz]

Ric << Uh…Ben Stein is not from the Discovery Institute, so far as I know. >>

I realize, but I was trying to keep my comments on topic.

Neither Ben Stein nor the Expelled movie is associated with the Discovery Institute, but both Ben Stein and Expelled and the Discovery Institute are in agreement that

(1) scientists are being “persecuted” for their beliefs in God and/or Intelligent Design;

(2) Intelligent Design and/or God should be allowed in science class.

(1) and (2) are clearly the message and view of Ben Stein and the Expelled movie. Don’t think (2) is the position of the Discovery Institute? Think again. The Expelled movie forgot to mention something called "The Wedge Document" (or “The Wedge Strategy” outlined in the document) from 1998 that makes this message clear:

“(Goals): To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God…we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut if off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy…[we are] broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”

“Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars.”

(1) the DI desire to replace current science (“scientific materialism”) with a “theistic science” (a term used by Phillip E. Johnson), that nature and human beings are created by God;

(2) Intelligent Design or design theory seeks to replace current science with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

I’m glad we agree on a lot, and I hope you can agree that the above is also wrong. We should not seek to re-define science to include God. That is confusing science and religion. Both can inform the other (at least for Christian believers), but they are separate domains according to the Catechism (CCC 159, 283-284).

Phil P

 

[ricmat]

Neither Ben Stein nor the Expelled movie is associated with the Discovery Institute, but both Ben Stein and Expelled and the Discovery Institute are in agreement that

(1) scientists are being “persecuted” for their beliefs in God and/or Intelligent Design;

(2) Intelligent Design and/or God should be allowed in science class.

(1) and (2) are clearly the message and view of Ben Stein and the Expelled movie. Don’t think (2) is the position of the Discovery Institute? Think again. The Expelled movie forgot to mention something called "The Wedge Document" (or “The Wedge Strategy” outlined in the document) from 1998 that makes this message clear:

snip…

Number 1 above is probably true - so far as I can see. It would not surprise me given the atheistic leanings of the majority of science professors (and probably a majority of students).

With regard to number 2 - I couldn’t find the wedge document on their web site, and unless the DI avows that it is their philosophy - I see no reason to think it is anything more than “conspiracy theory.” Perhaps the wedge document (assuming it is real) was the thinking of one particular individual, and doesn’t represent the DI in general. What they say now is clearly on their web site, and so long as they stick to that, I don’t see a problem with their work.

Also, I think you are combining 2 separate issues in #2. ID in the classroom (as described on the DI web site) and “God in the science classroom” are 2 different things. If DI sticks to their mission as described on their site, it does not include God in the classroom.

If there are issues with the way ID is being investigated (i.e. in a non-scientific manner) then this should be pointed out. If they deviate from their mission as described on their own web site, then that should be pointed out.

 

[RobbyS]

NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution

"As stated in *The American Biology Teacher *by the eminent scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1973), “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” This often-quoted declaration accurately reflects the central, unifying role of evolution in biology. The theory of evolution provides a framework that explains both the history of life and the ongoing adaptation of organisms to environmental challenges and changes.

"While modern biologists constantly study and deliberate the patterns, mechanisms, and pace of evolution, they agree that all living things share common ancestors. The fossil record and the diversity of extant organisms, combined with modern techniques of molecular biology, taxonomy, and geology, provide exhaustive examples of and powerful evidence for current evolutionary theory. Genetic variation, natural selection, speciation, and extinction are well-established components of modern evolutionary theory. Explanations are constantly modified and refined as warranted by new scientific evidence that accumulates over time, which demonstrates the integrity and validity of the field.

"Scientists have firmly established evolution as an important natural process. The nature of science, experimentation, logical analysis, and evidence-based revision based on detectable and measurable data are procedures that clearly differentiate and separate science from other ways of knowing. Explanations or ways of knowing that invoke metaphysical, non-naturalistic or supernatural mechanisms, whether called “creation science,” "scientific creationism,” “intelligent design theory,” “young earth theory,” or similar designations, are outside the scope of science and therefore are not part of a valid science curriculum.

"The selection of topics covered in a biology curriculum should accurately reflect the principles of biological science. Teaching biology in an effective and scientifically honest manner requires that evolution be taught in a standards-based instructional framework with effective classroom discussions and laboratory experiences.

*Adopted by the NABT Board of Directors,1995. Revised 1997, 2000, May 2004, and 2008. Endorsed by: The Society for the Study of Evolution,1998; The American Association of Physical Anthropologists, 1998. *

nabt.org/sites/S1/index.php?p=65
Not Found

As a Roman Catholic woman I have every right to support the The National Association of Biology Teachers Statement on Teaching Evolution as stated above within my message due to the fact that I believe in the finest education for youth and willingly continue to pay an enormous amount of money yearly for school bonds. These bright, young minds are our future. I wish for them to have the very best educators.

Well, yes, except that the statement pretty much misrepresents what the ID people are about. I have never had any problem accepting evolution, but my attachment to the theory declines quickly when it makes metaphysical claims that the statement decries. As a biological theory it has nothing conclusive to say about the appearance of life on this earth, and less to say about the development of human thought and society. Indeed, it has remarkably little to say about Darwin’s supposed subject, the origin of species. The nature of the process remains elusive. We have yet to develop what the meaning of “species,” is except as names for classes of animals.

 

[AnotherChance]

I saw “Expelled” tonight even though after reading this thread I almost didn’t go.

I have to say that I could not characterize Ben Stein’s interview style as “aggressive” at any time. He didn’t strike me as unfair to Dawkins in the least.

I thought Ben Stein’s connection between Nazism and Darwinism was well-presented. Stein was focusing on the Nazi’s treatment of the disabled, indicating that Hitler felt we were wasting resources on them and interfering with evolutionary gains by allowing them to reproduce. That didn’t strike me as an unfair thing to include in the film.

They did seem to say that the man from the Smithsonian was fired. If he’s still working in the same job then that would be an inaccurate portrayal. But I remember when that story was in the news and remember how attacked that man was for allowing the ID article to be printed.

If the film is still available in your area, I would certainly recommend that anyone see it and form his own opinion.

Loved your post. I’m glad you went to see it. I had the same reaction as you when I saw it. I expected it to be hugely slanted, based on what people were saying on the Internet. I was pleasantly surprised that it wasn’t.

Sometimes people get so busy picking apart details, they miss the bigger picture.

I saw the film “Life is Beautiful” again on satellite yesterday. It reminded me once again of the cruelty of the Holocaust. It also highlighted in my mind quite strongly the connection between the atheistic form of Darwinism and the evil that was Hitler. The Holocaust is what is possible when people deny the fact that Man is created in the image of God.

This denial is the only way the concentration camp guards and shower attendants could possible have done their job.

 

[reggieM]

… God should be allowed in science class.

I don’t know how you can support Catholic education and oppose that idea at the same time.

We should not seek to re-define science to include God. That is confusing science and religion. Both can inform the other (at least for Christian believers), but they are separate domains according to the Catechism (CCC 159, 283-284).

God is not separate from anything. Additionally, the fact that Mathematics is a separate domain from science does not mean that scientists cannot mention or use mathematics in their work. The Catechism does not state that we should exclude God from science, as you apparently, want to do.

I was educated in Catholic schools from grade school to college and God was certainly mentioned as part of science. The Sisters and Catholic laymen who taught me frequently reminded students of God’s power in nature. We were certainly not given a “God excluded” version of science – as apparently, you believe is required by the Catechism.