Movie Review: Expelled
posted at 3:00 pm on April 18, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
While at CPAC in February, I had an opportunity to attend an advance screening of the new documentary, Expelled: The Movie. Ben Stein focuses on a perceived lack of intellectual freedom afforded to those who either believe in or investigate Intelligent Design theories in the scientific community. I wrote the following review at the time; the producers may have made some changes since, but I don’t believe it would change the thrust of my review. I plan on seeing the theatrical release this weekend, and would recommend it to everyone as at least a way to discuss the values and limitations of scientific inquiry and intellectual openness in American Academia.
The bloggers at CPAC received an invitation to screen a new documentary on academic intolerance called Expelled: The Movie this evening. The documentary features Ben Stein on a quest to understand the near-hysteria caused by scientists who so much as broach the idea of intelligent design in papers or in research. It follows Stein as he interviews professors denied tenure, editors fired, and journalists shunned for touching the subject even at its most innocuous levels.
Before discussing my feelings about the film, which is still in post-production and will not go into release until April, I should explain my approach to the ID/evolution debate. I believe evolution is demonstrably proven in enough examples to say that its effect on variation in species cannot be denied. The example I used tonight in discussing this with another viewer (certainly not the only example) is antibiotic effects on bacteria. Antibiotics that kill 99% of bacteria eventually promote the survival and the expansion of the 1% that resist them, created superbacteria that require another set of antibiotics to cure, and so on.
That said, evolution does not interfere with my faith in God. God certainly could have created the universe with a design that included life. The rational laws of nature would include evolution, as well as the myriad of other rational and mathematically provable mechanisms that undergird nature. In fact, the impulse of man to discover the rational laws of nature began with the belief in a rational God, as scientists understood nature’s rationality to reveal an intelligent Creator.
I’d go deeper than that, but Dinesh D’Souza covers it nicely enough already in his book What’s So Great About Christianity, and it’s getting late enough as it is. Suffice it to say that evolution doesn’t present a threat to my worldview.
Rationally, we have to admit that some use ID as an excuse to teach the more literal form of Creationism that has been used to argue against evolution entirely, especially against teaching evolution in primary-school classrooms. That admission does not appear in Expelled, which is a glaring omission. It tends to take out of context the frustration some scientists have about ID, and its place in polarizing the debate over its use. Properly framed, ID accepts all of the science without accepting its transformation into its own belief system.
What do I mean by that? In this, the film does an excellent job of demonstrating atheism as a belief system. Atheism as represented by Richard Dawkings and others in this film gets exposed as exactly the kind of belief system they claim to despise. They can’t prove God exists — and they can’t prove God doesn’t exist. They make the common fallacy of arguing that absence of evidence amounts to evidence of absence.
But in a way, this is all secondary to the real issue of the film: academic intolerance. The debate over ID vs Darwinism sets the table for a truly disturbing look at academia. Science should be about the free debate and research of ideas and hypotheses for duplicable results and provable theorems. However, as the examples Stein and the film provide amply show, the Darwinist academic establishment will brook no dissent from the orthodoxy — and scientists have to be shown with hidden faces to speak to the issue for the film.
Amusingly, Stein asks people how the first cell came to be. None of the scientists could give him a straight answer. Dawkins himself admits he doesn’t know and that no one else does, either — but postulates that aliens could have brought life to this planet, and then postulates that another alien civilization could have brought life to that planet, and so on. He then concedes that one entity could have been the original source … but insists that entity could not possibly have been God. For this he gives absolutely no evidence at all, relegating it as a belief system somewhat akin to Scientology.
All of this is extremely effective, as are the many allusions made to the Berlin Wall during the film. The theme runs throughout, and it explicitly refers to the defensive academic establishment as having built a wall that tramples on freedom of thought and discourse. Less effective is the heavy references to the Nazis in the movie. Although emotionally affecting for some obvious reasons, the fact is that while the Nazis were mostly Darwinists (along with a lot of other things), the vast majority of Darwinists aren’t Nazis. Certainly the eugenicists in Nazi Germany were mightily influenced by Darwinism, but America had its own eugenicists, which the film points out.
I should point out that the film has not finished production, and that changes will be made between now and its release in April. The filmmakers just completed an interview with Christopher Hitchens and will include it in the final cut. I believe other changes may be made which could address some of the criticisms I’ve written here.
Overall, though, the film presents a powerful argument not for intelligent design as much as for the freedom of scientific inquiry. If scientists get punished for challenging orthodoxy, we will not expand our learning but ossify it in concrete. Expelled: The Movie is entertaining, maddening, funny, and provocative, and well worth your time.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 24 Next »
right2bright on April 18, 2008 at 7:09 PM
I’d say it’s an Epoch thread!
NTWR on April 18, 2008 at 7:11 PM
JetBoy on April 18, 2008 at 7:07 PM
I just want to know when the dinos died off, if they were on the ark. I believe they died off millions of years ago, and that the bird my cat just killed is a decendant of some of those dinosaurs.
Red Pill was the commenter that insinuatad the leviathan was a dinosaur, and that they survived the flood because they were on the ark. CyberCipher has since informed me that I am directly to blame for the dinosaurs’ deaths, through a highly convoluted (and indirect) line of reasoning maybe 75 posts ago.
This thread is addictive.
the goddess anna on April 18, 2008 at 7:12 PM
infidel2:
I have no doubt that some scientists will assert ID is scientific – just as some scientists will assert straight-faced that the World Trade Center was “obviously” brought down in a controlled demolition.
But we’re talking about the very *definition* of science here. ID is, as I said, a philosophical position. Your understanding of evolutionary theory falls into that same delusion – that evolution requires *belief*. WRONG.
I cannot make this more clear. Evolution is a hypothesis advanced to explain observational evidence through reason. The moment you advance “because a deity did it”, you have gone beyond the bounds of logic. This is the very error Descartes made in his philosophical proof for God – he was able to logically infer his own existence, but in order to infer God’s existence, he was forced into a line of circular reasoning. This is not an attack on religion or belief – I have no idea if God exists or not. That’s a matter of belief because we *can’t* logically prove His existence or lack thereof. But by that same token, you *cannot* advance a reasoned argument that presupposes His existence; as logical as it might be, it still collapses upon that central unprovable tenet. Most of the greatest scientists in history were religious – but they did *not* fall into the trap of advancing a scientific argument on that basis. Science and religion are perfectly compatible – so long as science is not manipulated by religion, and the followers of the religion do not assume a literal interpretation.
Now, if you want to talk Big Bang, we’re going to physics, not evolution. And the simple answer there is: We don’t know. We have theories of what came “before” the Big Bang, on the nature of the universe, and space-time itself… but we have scant evidence, and will probably never know. If you want to say “God kicked off the Big Bang”, I can’t say you’re wrong… but you still cannot advance that as science.
As far as evolution goes, we merely trace the *evidence* backwards and forwards – and be prepared to admit at many stages that we do not know the answer – but we will keep trying to find it. The very nature of science is asking questions – ID says “stop asking, because God did it.” Again, intellectually lazy.
So I repeat. Tracing backwards to the earliest fossil remains, we know that there was period about 3.5 billion years where there was no life, and than in a geological heartbeat, a whole lot of the stuff. Incredibly primitive, but unquestionably life. What happened? Well, that’s where theory and experimentation come in. One of the *early* proposals was an organic sludge in the ocean hit by lightning like Frankenstein’s monster. A more current theory begin by first acknowledging that the difference between “alive” and “not-alive” is less than we like to think. To be somewhat gross, when a person dies, we say the corpse is “not alive”… but that’s an oversimplification. The person is dead, but many of the cells will continue to function for some days, intestinal bacteria can go for weeks, and as the body decays, it becomes home to entirely new forms of life that decompose the remains… the body is dead, but we’d be lying if we said it was “not alive.” This is a similar situation going back to primeval Earth… we know have a better understanding of how common organic compounds are (we’ve found them in cometary fragments, asteroid chunks, planetary outgassing, etc. Organic molecules form naturally, and are actually extremely common. “Life” as we know it is basically a complex system of these molecules… so what raw organics actually require to become “alive” at the complexity level of say, a virus, is *structure.*
But structure is also natural – in apparent contradiction to entropy (which I’ve seen several people raise as an objection… and I do mean apparent, but that’s a whole ‘nother can of worms… simplified, consider a fractal program), we can observe crystal growth of incredibly complexity. The most likely culprit on early Earth though is clay – clay is rife with organic molecules, but at the microscopic level, clay actually does have a structure and natural organization. So there’s one avenue, but there are others.
*Could* the first life have been dropped off by aliens? With about the same probability that God poofed it into existence. There’s zero evidence for either. Again, doesn’t mean God or hyper-advanced aliens don’t exist… but since we have no evidence of either, both can be dismissed as scientific answers.
E1701 on April 18, 2008 at 7:12 PM
It’s Epoch against Epic. Time vs. Story grudge match.
exception on April 18, 2008 at 7:13 PM
Again, and as you probably know already, I’m not a bible-thumping fundamentalist or evangelical, I’m Catholic.
Just so y’all know where I’m coming from.
Laws of survival? Yes…I agree. But what about the laws of redemption? That part, is man’s…and man’s alone. The beasts of the Earth are for us, not us for them.
JetBoy on April 18, 2008 at 7:14 PM
I think those who believe in “creationism” should be free to talk about their views. And the rest of us should be free to laugh at them for believing that there is a guy in outer space who controls everything in the universe with a snap of his fingers.
SoulGlo on April 18, 2008 at 7:14 PM
As long as I’m not serving him dinner, the kids just finished off the pizza.
I respect your obviously deep faith, but I serve no construct of your religion, be it God or Satan.
the goddess anna on April 18, 2008 at 7:15 PM
Thus all those text-books used in the public schools that acknowledge (let alone point out) the “flaws” in the theory of evolution? You know, the ones the unicorns deliver to the teacher’s elves at the beginning of each school year?
Fatal on April 18, 2008 at 7:15 PM
I think that if the God of the universe wanted a boat that size and for Noah to take dinosaurs with him, that maybe God told Noah to take baby dinosaurs.
ConstantSorrow on April 18, 2008 at 7:16 PM
Are we past 500? Chort, it’s downhill to 1000 from here.
the goddess anna on April 18, 2008 at 7:16 PM
In a sense, I agree. Darwinism is an attempt for humans to explain our origins. And while it doesn’t conclusively establish the origin of life, it’s a way of walking backwards through our history in the direction of our origins.
Christopher Hitchens has described religion as our first attempt at explaining our origins, and in that spirit, Darwinian theory is a subsequent such attempt. At some point down the road, we’ll eventually get it right. Maybe not in any of our lifetimes, but some day.
Part of that process is leaving our failed attempts behind. Monotheism is simply too subjective. We should reject it and move on.
Enrique on April 18, 2008 at 7:17 PM
Trekkies like you have about as much credibility as my talking collie.
The only thing you have evidence for is mass extinctions. Everything else is unsubstantiated speculation. That’s not science, in my book.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on April 18, 2008 at 7:19 PM
Yeah! As what Dawkins proposed in the movie: we came from aliens or crystals.
well the latter was not from dawkins.
But hey! Just let it sound more
Scientologyscientificand then it will be way more logical.
maynila on April 18, 2008 at 7:20 PM
First, just because you cannot wrap your head around my comments does not mean that they are “mindless.”
Second, I gave you no reason to believe that I “believe that carbon dating is absolutely infallible,” but that’s a moot point anyway. Carbon dating can only attempt to describe phenomena in the past several thousand years, and the events of concern to this debate took place millions and billions of years ago.
Third, I went to a Christian grade school that taught Young Earth Creationism, and my parents threatened to disown me if I didn’t believe exactly as they did. Please do not accuse me of taking everything I am told at face value.
Fourth, I am an economist, not a biologist. I don’t need to have proof of evolution, because it is well outside my specialty (but probably not any further than it is outside of yours). What I do know with respect to Darwinian evolution, however, is that Darwin got the idea that self-interested forces can order themselves in the absence of a guiding master intelligence from the classical economists. The modern global economy is highly ordered, but that hardly means that it was created by a God. That spontaneous order can be created by competing individual actors is something that has been proven true, and it is far less of a stretch of my imagination to assume that it is responsible for the origin of species than it is for me to believe that life was put here by God, or by space aliens, or by a space alien who called himself “God.”
Fifth, Intelligent Design and all other forms of Creationism are not scientific theories; they are conspiracy theories. Their proponents hold that the standard ideas held by the great mass of mankind are lies created by a shadowy cabal of satanic evildoers and perpetuated by the media and intellectual class, and that only a select chosen few have been graced with the ability to see the Truth. Those of us who accept the standard models as the best available theories get testy when challenged by Creationists for the same reason that Jews get testy when challenged about the Holocaust—that is to say, not because we’re not interested in knowing the truth, but because we don’t like being insulted by fools and kooks.
And last, I didn’t demean you in that last paragraph because you refused to accept my evidence (if you’ve noticed, I haven’t offered any evidence in this debate, because this is not a debate about specific evidence). Rather, I chose to demean you because you use pre-conceived theology to explain the world while calling it “science.” If evolution is to be dethroned as the reigning best explanation for the origin of species, it will be disproven by scientists using the scientific method to develop a better scientific theory, not by fanatics subjecting it to a bed of Procrustes to make it conform verbatim with an ancient Jewish scripture that even Jews don’t take at face value.
hicsuget on April 18, 2008 at 7:20 PM
I agree that the dino’s died off millions of years ago. I don’t believe the Earth is only what, 10,000 years old? The Bible is not always meant to be taken literally.
And yes…these threads are always addictive on HotAir. This one has a life of it’s own!
JetBoy on April 18, 2008 at 7:20 PM
Obviously you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Many scientists today use I.D. in their experiments but do not say anything due to the disasterous consequences of publicly saying anything opposing the non scientific state religion of evolution.
Evolution has been disproven and with the advent of DNA research comes nowhere near explaining the sheer complexity of DNA and molecular science.
Picture what kind of persecution these people are doing to scientists opposing “global warming science” and multiply that by 100.
SaintOlaf on April 18, 2008 at 7:20 PM
Not nearly as good as MB4. That picture is most definitely not bigotry; if you’d like to explain how it is feel free to try, and if you think its explanation of the way science works of the way faith works is wrong feel free to explain that too. Tossing out Einstein’s name in attempts to gain some bona fides doesn’t fly.
You don’t see a problem conflicting with mankind’s continued survival and the belief that the world belongs to us?
Nonfactor on April 18, 2008 at 7:21 PM
SaintOlaf on April 18, 2008 at 6:45 PM
ronsfi on April 18, 2008 at 7:21 PM
This is where I start getting interested. Why is it that the growth patterns of some shells are explained mathematically? The physics gets so complicated that I begin to understand why Einstein said the more he learned the more he knew there was something greater than man…
NTWR on April 18, 2008 at 7:22 PM
no matter how you slice it, it’s an argument of faith. the fight btwn evolution and creationism is simply a disagreement in the details. it’s no different than the fight btwn Christians and Muslims and Jews. all of these religions claim to start w/ the same god, but diverge from there.
besides the killing that has taken place due to this, what else has come of it? ideally, the separate but equal ability of each group to practice their faith as they see fit.
so, where does that leave us in regards to academia? currently, for the most part, they only allow a single vision of the origin of life, the one their faith allows for, which is evolution.
so, the argument could be made that the teaching of evolution as a matter of faith would make any school teaching it exclusively a religious school. therefore, that school could not receive state or federal money as that would be the equivalent of state sponsored religious training.
solution: if academia is to be a true venue for the free discourse of ideas and thought, it must allow for the teaching of more than just evolution.
oh, and allow a conservative point of view free expression w/o fear of reprisal.
i won’t be holding my breath for either one though. there is nothing that gets people stirred up more than a threat to their faith.
i think that is caused by a lack of conviction with ones faith. I have no problem hearing someone else’s point of view. sometimes i will even change my opinion based on new knowledge. but not very often. i would have to hear a pretty solid argument before i would consider changing my view. but i am not afraid to hear it and don’t feel so insecure as to need to silence anyone who has another view.
Now, go ahead, smoke up those keyboards….
TheCulturalist on April 18, 2008 at 7:22 PM
Oh, and while we are at it, could someone explain to my why evolution stopped when man started recording his observations? Because I sure haven’t read about the existence of any observed species undergoing macro-evolution.
I guess we are in one of the intermediary stages where evolution is taking a break, although global warming may provide the type of impetus needed to get it kick-started again, right?
Fatal on April 18, 2008 at 7:23 PM
I read it all E1701 and I thank you for a civil and well written post. But as you may have expected I remain unmoved. You stress how few fossils are created out of the numerous species that existed. I have no argument with that. But no matter how few fossils survived compared to the enormous number of species that existed, we find nothing transitional and there had to have been many steps from nothing to countless species. We have found nearly every species alive today in the same form in the oldest fossil finds. Thus, neither time or rarity is an issue…. the issue is…. that in all the fossils that survived none can be said to be transitional. And as I’ve stated in prior post…. transitional forms would have far exceed the number of stable species we see today if one species would have progress into others.
You also mention “Lucy” … Lucy was “created” by evolutionist attempting a hoax, are you not aware of that? Leakey himself stated in 1983, that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to. Every so called “transitional” species that evolutionist have come forward with has eventually been shown as fraud.
Then you go on to say there were no transitional species. That seems to run counter to what I’ve heard evolutionist advocate. I don’t know of any evolutionist that advocate that one species became another without transitional forms. If you have a link for that, I would appreciate it. I want to see how evolutionist explain solid bones to hollow bones without transition.
Maxx on April 18, 2008 at 7:23 PM
And this is the most I’ve posted in one thread, Jet. You are a prophet.
maynila on April 18, 2008 at 7:23 PM
What kind of bible teach is that? Where do you get this stuff?
So when you condemn someone to Hell, who are you serving? I thought that was God’s job…are you taking over for him for a couple of days?
So if a child, who has not accepted Christ yet, that 6 year old is a satanic child?
If someone is not exposed to Christ’s teaching they are serving satan?
But you, are a loyal servant of God, therefore you will be saved? Even if you disparage someone on these posts, call them a name that they are not, you are still serving God?
And now the big question…who determines who is serving God? Time for you to eat a little humble pie, get on your knees and ask forgiveness on those that you have transgressed against (all of those people are satanist, you have never met any of them). If you don’t ask for forgiveness, then your sin cannot be forgiven, and you really do serve satan…by your words. See how tough it is to cast stones?
You say you can only serve one master, didn’t you support Huck, was he going to serve us or Christ?
Oh, my brother, where hath thou learneth such stuffith.
right2bright on April 18, 2008 at 7:23 PM
What would Al Gore do?
maynila on April 18, 2008 at 7:24 PM
So a “WatchTower” is…?
J_Gocht on April 18, 2008 at 7:25 PM
The arrogance of our finite minds.
How can a project that succeeds in it’s purpose be considered a mistake? Surely you can reason better than that.
God is not obligated to explain anything that we don’t understand.
shick on April 18, 2008 at 7:25 PM
Quite the opposite. I take care of my stuff. If it’s someone else’s they need to get their ass on it. I’ll feel better about it when Mars belongs to us.
exception on April 18, 2008 at 7:26 PM
I just finished reading all the comments.
Zorro on April 18, 2008 at 7:26 PM
Heck, I’ve posted more times on this tread than I have on all of Hot Air up to now! Just passing the time online instead of working… also, waiting for the husband to get home and for BSG to come on!
the goddess anna on April 18, 2008 at 7:26 PM
Oh no….now global warming is stopping evolution….
right2bright on April 18, 2008 at 7:26 PM
ConstantSorrow on April 18, 2008
Well, this is possible. And, according to the Bible, the life spans are drastically reduced after the flood. Which says,, the flood changed something about the earth. Dinosaurs could have been nothing but very old amphibians. Amphibians just keep growing as they age. How large would a croc get if it lived for 2000 years? But, then too,, just because Noah carried all the life at that time that was on the earth,, doesn’t mean some of the species didn’t die off years later.
JellyToast on April 18, 2008 at 7:27 PM
The term is “Transitional Forms”.
The fossil record is full of Transitional Forms.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IAtransitional.shtml
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
http://www.asa3.org/asa/resources/Miller.html
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/evo-creation/evo-vs-creation1a.shtml
Examples of Transition Fossils
Here, then, is a condensed and summarized list of some of the known transitional fossils discussed on the site:
(An important note: What infrequent “gaps” there may be listed below in the fossil sequences are gaps in time–that is, gaps due merely to a lack of sufficient fossils to analyze in the first place from a certain time period–not gaps in the sense of “jumps” from one type of fossil form to another that occur closely together in chronological sequence. This is an important distinction, because what creationists mean by a “gap” is an actual “jump” in form from one fossil to the next when there is little to no intervening time period in between.)
* The Transition from Primitive Jawless Fish to Sharks, Skates, And Rays: A gap near the beginning of the transition (due to the earliest fossils in the lineage being so fragmentary that not much can be reconstructed about them). After that, 6 transitional forms show up in the record. The transitional forms are: Cladoselache, Tristychius, Ctenacanthus, Paleospinax, Spathobatis, and, Protospinax. (Cladoselache is considered probably not in the direct line of ancestry, but indicative of typical features.)
* From Primitive Jawless Fish to Bony Fish: 6 transitional forms after an initial gap (again, the gap is due to such fragmentary fossil traces, they can’t be reliably identified). The transitional forms are: Acanthodians, Palaeoniscoids, Canobius/ Aeduella (later paleoniscoids), Parasemionotus, Oreochima, and Leptolepis.
* From Primitive Bony Fish to Amphibians: 7 transitional forms with but one gap in the sequence: Paleoniscoids (these branched in two directions, including to the line of forms mentioned just above), Osteolepis, Eusthenopteron/Sterropterygion, Panderichthys and Elpistostege, Obruchevichthys, gap, Hynerpeton/Acanthostega/Ichthyostega, Labyrinthodonts.
* Transitions Within the Amphibian Lineage: 10 transitional forms are listed in the sequence: Temnospondyls, Dendrerpeton, Archegosaurus, Eryops, Trematops, Amphibamus, Doleserpeton/Schoenfelderpeton, Triadobatrachus, Vieraella, Karaurus.
* From Amphibians to First Reptiles: 4 transitional forms: Proterogyrinus, Limnoscelis/ Tseajaia, Solenodonsaurus, Hylonomus/Paleothyris.
At this point, I’ll dispense with listing of genus names for the sake of brevity, now that the point has been made above that paleontologists can identify transitional forms with considerable precision.
* Transitions Among Reptiles: There are so many examples to choose from here that Hunt lists just two of the phylogenies (overall sequences of forms).
* From Synapsid Reptiles to Mammals: Among the best-documented of all transitional sequences, the list here comprises 30 transitional forms, beginning with 16, then a gap due to the existence of only one known fossil recovery in this line from the late Triassic period, then 14 more successive transitional forms.
* From Diapsid Reptiles To Birds: This transitional line is most famous for the Archaeopteryx reptilian-bird transitional fossil found in 1861, though the overall lineage here is still “gappy” according to Hunt. Nevertheless, there are now 2 or 3 candidates for ancestral forms even more primitive than Archaeopteryx, and 4 transitionals can be seen after Archaeopteryx.
* Transitions Among Mammals: Where transitional forms among the mammals are concerned, there are scores of examples too numerous to go into in a post like this. However, one good example is worth mentioning here for how it demonstrates what can turn out to be the arbitrary nature of “gaps” in the fossil record. The two orders (a) “lagomorphs,” which includes rabbits, hares, and pikas; and (b) “rodents” (mouse, rat, squirrel, beaver) are two very similar-looking modern orders that were long thought to have been unrelated because they appeared separately, suddenly, and fully formed in the fossil record of the late Paleocene. But–as it was to turn out–that proved to be just an artifact of the fossil record: Recent discoveries in newly tapped deposits in Asia (all the earlier discoveries were from North America and Europe where most finds have come from) have unearthed new fossils now thought to be the probable common ancestor (transitional form) that led to the two modern orders, showing they didn’t appear suddenly or separately after all.
And there are so many more examples of transitional sequences in the fossil record that I won’t bore any of us further with them here. But the foregoing should give a good enough idea of how dismal the record of Phillip Johnson and Fruitarian XYZ is in seeking out the evidence. In the next section on micro vs. macroevolution, I’ll give a few more examples of fossil transition sequences at the species-to-species level that demonstrate microevolutionary changes can indeed lead to macroevolutionary change.
But for more examples than that, and there are an incredible number more, if you are a real glutton for punishment just go to the “Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ” link yourself and follow through from beginning to end–it’s been work enough just summarizing what I have here. :-\ :-) Without doing an actual count, one would have to estimate that Hunt’s listing easily goes into the 100-200 range of detailed enumerations of transitional forms–and the characteristics that make them so–and it is, at that, only a partial listing. Again: See for yourself, and note the meticulous attention to detail in terms of Hunt’s referencing of the evidence to the primary scientific literature.
ronsfi on April 18, 2008 at 7:29 PM
Not at all. Only the Garden of Eden was a “paradise” where man had no toil, no fear, a complete utopia. But Eve and that apple changed that. So right from the beginning, God gave us dominion over the Earth and all it’s inhabitants. But he makes us work for it too.
JetBoy on April 18, 2008 at 7:29 PM
Not even close.
exception on April 18, 2008 at 7:29 PM
Einstein did not believe in the Judeo-Christian God that we Christians believe in. His believe in God was akin to beliefs of the continental rationalist Spinoza, in my estimation.
Einstein’s religious fervor for determinism was a glaring example of how fallible (and human) that he was.
CyberCipher on April 18, 2008 at 7:29 PM
Hey yall! So what’s everyone talking about…ooohh wait…is this an Evolution v. ID thread…oh man! 6 comment pages! Ed, Ed, Ed, what hast thou wrought?
Weight of Glory on April 18, 2008 at 7:30 PM
Like I said, Creationism is a conspiracy theory.
hicsuget on April 18, 2008 at 7:30 PM
illuminate me
TheCulturalist on April 18, 2008 at 7:30 PM
My question has yet to be answered, and I know why. There is no answer, because dinosaurs were not on the ark. Way to string me along for 100 posts or so.
the goddess anna on April 18, 2008 at 7:30 PM
Transitional Forms
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IAtransitional.shtml
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
ronsfi on April 18, 2008 at 7:31 PM
On this endless back and forth, I do think two points should be made:
I don’t agree that religion is a crutch or inherently backwards. I’m agnostic, so I’m biased, but religion is not “wrong” or the root of all evil. Religion had generated some great evils, and some truly magnificent good. It also can exist quite easily alongside science – they just have to stick to their separate realms of authority. Religon answers the questions science can’t – science cannot give you morals, provide a philosophy to live your life by, or answer eternal questions of why we’re here, who we are, and what happens when we’re finished with this mortal coil. At the same time, science explains the real world – the things we see, where they came from, what they do, how to do thing. Science is about understanding the physical world, and religion about the metaphysical.
We get into trouble only when science makes the mistake of trying to claim it knows too much (there’s a lot out there we *don’t* know) and pretending we do in order to take shots at religion is a major mistake, and even downright illogical. I don’t believe in God, because I see no evidence of His existence… on the other hand, I can hardly complain of someone assumes this means there is no God, or if someone else adamantly believes He does exist. I can’t prove it either way.
And we get into trouble when religion tries to explain the physical world on the basis of post-tribal stories (those of you arguing for the Ark and the Flood *are* aware that there is an identical tale of Gilgamesh on this point that precedes the Old Testament by about a thousand years?) that have been retold through a massive game of inter-lingual “telephone” over the course of thousands of years. Yes, St. Olaf, that is aimed at you – repeatedly retranslated stories are *not* specific evidence. There is history to be found in the Bible and other religious tomes… but that’s not the point of them. Religion is about the metaphysical… and like science trying to explain the metaphysical, an adherent is forced to jump through some mighty big contortions to force it to explain the physical.
Secondly, at some point people on either or neither side of the argument have to be able to set those disagreements aside, and stop taking them personally. Comments about “giant bearded magic-guys in the sky” and “scientists who are satan-worshippers” are *not* helpful to a reasonable discourse on either side.
E1701 on April 18, 2008 at 7:31 PM
I have to stop.
maynila on April 18, 2008 at 7:32 PM
right2bright,
The problem is that you don’t see that you can only serve one master.
The Bible considers a child as someone youger than 13.
If someone has not been exposed to Christ can they serve still serve satan you ask?
Yes. If they sin they ARE serving satan.
Pretty simple actually.
God says He has written His moral Law in all man’s hearts.
If you had read the Bible you would know that Jesus says “Judge not according to appearances, but JUDGE RIGHTEOUS JUDGEMENT!”
Your argument is a straw man argument.
SaintOlaf on April 18, 2008 at 7:32 PM
Willful Ignorance is a sin.
ronsfi on April 18, 2008 at 7:32 PM
Did anybody see Ben Stein’s new movie?
maynila on April 18, 2008 at 7:33 PM
No, no you got it all backwards, global warming is going to get evolution started up again! Species will have to adapt to the warmer climate, an atmosphere saturated with carbon dioxide, more ultra-violet radiation, etc and let me tell you, they better get a move on because I’ll be mowing the lawn AND firing up the barbecue this weekend!!
;)
Fatal on April 18, 2008 at 7:34 PM
This depends on ones definition of “evolution” as explained in the movie. No one doubts adaptation Ed. That would be ridiculous. No one doubts natural selection, that too would be ridiculous. The question is the definition.
Are super-bacteria a new species? Depends on who you ask. I debated a darwinist on this point, when I pointed out that his definition of evolution did not represent what super bacteria are he had to try something new.
Is theory of the origin of species enough to explain how two distinct species can have a common ancestor without having to explain the adaptative catalyst that caused the new species? Ask a darwinist how you have the variety in big cats in South American jungles and ask them by what process of natural selection did one a single ancestor become an ocelot, a jaguar, and a jaguarundi all at the same time? The darwinst will most likely tell you that you have to look at the “isotopic data.” When you ask what that is you’ll then go into a discussion of cladistics. Cladistics being an area of science made out of whole cloth to explain and legitimize unproven facets of evolutionary theory.
Theworldisnotenough on April 18, 2008 at 7:35 PM
These debates just make me sad.
I can hardly blame Dawkins and his type for a lack of lyricism in understanding their own atheist faith; without God, there’s no reason to listen to that soft voice in your ear warning you against hubris.
But to the biblical literalists– why is it necessary to stamp your feet like a child and claim the diametric opposite just to protect your faith? Why must God be folded and stuffed into the little box you have allowed for him?
Must he be the bumbling tinkerer revealed in the ancient texts you have decided are inspired? (oh– and why again just these texts? What sola scriptura basis do you have for including these and only these of the myriad ancient writings?)
The God I seek is not a magician, using sleight-of-hand on man with disappearing dinosaurs and tantalizingly old fossils. Instead, he is an artist, who created man to love stories because God loves a good story. Why else would He prefigure the coming of his Son over thousands of years of Jewish history, weaving clues and preparations for the Messiah into the very fabric of time? Still, His story as told in the Bible is not meant to tutor the rational mind, but rather sing to the infinite soul.
For the mind, He has given us the gift of contemplating how with a single breath of life, He could have unfolded a billion species and an opus that danced on a trillion improbabilities to arrive at the single miracle of our own existence– for it is individually for each of us that He created the universe, so that our single soul might be saved and brought into His light.
God is not limited by what you need him to be.
a4g on April 18, 2008 at 7:35 PM
E1701 on April 18, 2008 at 7:31 PM
Quit with the rational, well-thought-out posts. They only bring logic and reason to the debate.
Seriously though, what you said is true. I am taking things personally now, and all I started out saying was that the ID/evolution debate has a place in school (no matter my personal beliefs). But then, the guilty pleasure of online debating took a hold of me, and here I still am.
the goddess anna on April 18, 2008 at 7:35 PM
Did someone say Ben Stein has a new movie out ?
JonRoss on April 18, 2008 at 7:36 PM
Need I remind everyone, we are SUPPOSED to be talking about Ben Stein, not Ein stein.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on April 18, 2008 at 7:36 PM
Not to parse words here, but that means you’re an Atheist not Agnostic.
I keep waiting for these liberal global warming fascists like Bernard Kerik to just evolve already and stop trying to play God!
NTWR on April 18, 2008 at 7:36 PM
I don’t know Lorien1973, and God hasn’t contacted me to be his advocate. I think Jonah got eaten by a whale…. but he spit him out after three day….. so everything worked out fine.
But seriously…. you should read Genesis, there are more answers in there than you think. And this newer translation I’ve pointed you to takes a lot of the work out of understanding it as compared to the old King James Version. It’s fun to read ….. really !
Maxx on April 18, 2008 at 7:37 PM
Dude, we’ve got a boat load of dinosaurs in this thread.
exception on April 18, 2008 at 7:37 PM
CyberCipher on April 18, 2008 at 7:36 PM
See my comment to E1701 above. Heh, and you mentioned Picard. How fitting.
the goddess anna on April 18, 2008 at 7:38 PM
UHM, they are still bacteria.
maynila on April 18, 2008 at 7:38 PM
This is a very tentative list of vertebrate transitional fossils (fossil remains of a creature that exhibits primitive traits in comparison with more derived life-forms to which it is related). An ideal list would only recursively include ‘true’ transitionals, i.e. those forms morphologically similar to the ancestors of the monophyletic group containing the derived relative, and not intermediate forms. See the article on transitional fossils for an explanation of the difference with intermediate forms. Since all species are supposed to be in transition due to natural selection, the very term “transitional fossil” is essentially a misconception. But the fossils listed represent significant steps in the evolution of major features in various vertebrate lines, and therefore fit the common usage of the phrase.
* Nautiloids to Ammonoids
o Bactritids
* Fish to Amphibians
o Tiktaalik roseae
o Osteolepis
o Eusthenopteron
o Panderichthys
o Elginerpeton
o Obruchevichthys
o Hynerpeton
o Tulerpeton
o Acanthostega
o Ichthyostega
o Pederpes finneyae
o Eryops
* Amphibians to Amniotes (early reptiles)
o Proterogyrinus
o Limnoscelis
o Tseajaia
o Solenodonsaurus
o Hylonomus
o Paleothyris
* Synapsid (mammal-like “reptiles”) to mammals
o Protoclepsydrops
o Clepsydrops
o Dimetrodon
o Morganucodon
o Procynosuchus
o Thrinaxodon
o Yanoconodon
* Diapsid reptiles to birds
o Yixianosaurus
o Pedopenna
o Archaeopteryx
o Changchengornis
o Confuciusornis
o Ichthyornis
* Evolution of whales
o Pakicetus
o Ambulocetus
o Kutchicetus
o Artiocetus
o Aetiocetus
o Dorudon
o Basilosaurus
o Eurhinodelphis
o Mammalodon
* Evolution of the horse
o Hyracotherium
o Mesohippus
o Parahippus
o Merychippus
o Pliohippus
o Equus
* Non-human apes to modern humans
o Pierolapithecus catalaunicus
o Ardipithecus
o Australopithecus
o Homo rudolfensis
o Homo habilis
o Homo erectus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
ronsfi on April 18, 2008 at 7:39 PM
good post, mostly i agree w/ it.
one point though… all deeds, both good and evil, are done by the doer. giving credit or blame to religion reduces the responsibility of the individual.
TheCulturalist on April 18, 2008 at 7:39 PM
Was Ben Stein justified in making this film, or not?
CyberCipher on April 18, 2008 at 7:39 PM
Evolution Of ‘Irreducible Complexity’ Explained
ScienceDaily (Apr. 6, 2006) — Using new techniques for resurrecting ancient genes, scientists have for the first time reconstructed the Darwinian evolution of an apparently “irreducibly complex” molecular system.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060406231032.htm
ronsfi on April 18, 2008 at 7:40 PM
Yes, he was justified. He’s making money, and stimulating debate.
the goddess anna on April 18, 2008 at 7:41 PM
I see you’re still asking about the dinosaurs.
Ok. dinosaurs were on the ark(most likely young ones).
Many dinosaurs died in the ice age,which occured a couple hundred years after the flood, after the separation of continents that peleg was named after.
Job describes many ice age events in the Bible.
There were dinosaurs in Job’s age(roughly 500 years after the flood). Job is the oldest written book in the Bible.
Clearly many dinosaurs existed even in medeival times.
There are dragon stories all over the world.
Most likely many dinosaurs were also killed by man (like the buffalo’s in America)
Satisfied?
SaintOlaf on April 18, 2008 at 7:41 PM
That’s because it hasn’t stopped. It is a myth that all of Earthly evolution has been leading up to the appearance of the homosapien. We view it that way because that’s what we know, but you have to realize that modern humanity has only been around for ~15000 years while human-types have been around for almost 3 million years, and before that life has been evolving for more than 3 billion years. We’re not going to be able to see this evolutionary process on a large scale, and I doubt that humans will live much longer to witness a further step in the evolutionary process over the course of millions more years. Partly due to the ideology following:
I’m sorry, the idea that man is free to do to the earth and all it’s species what it wants because God “gave them to us,” is completely preposterous, and more seriously, destructive. You don’t see the lion exterminating the gazelle for sport like you see humans destroying other species due to the mindset that we have ownership over them. This is not conducive to our survival.
Nonfactor on April 18, 2008 at 7:41 PM
Maybe Superman exposed to kryptonite becomes regular dude or less due to natural selection.
maynila on April 18, 2008 at 7:41 PM
Hell, Ben Stein don’t need my justification.
exception on April 18, 2008 at 7:41 PM
Contrary to popular opinion, neither the term nor the idea of biological evolution began with Charles Darwin and his foremost work, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (1859). Many scholars from the ancient Greek philosophers on had inferred that similar species were descended from a common ancestor. The word “evolution” first appeared in the English language in 1647 in a nonbiological connection, and it became widely used in English for all sorts of progressions from simpler beginnings. The term Darwin most often used to refer to biological evolution was “descent with modification,” which remains a good brief definition of the process today.
ronsfi on April 18, 2008 at 7:42 PM
http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html
ronsfi on April 18, 2008 at 7:42 PM
SaintOlaf on April 18, 2008 at 7:41 PM
Thank you! Finally, even though I think what you said was complete hooey, at least you gave me an explanation!
the goddess anna on April 18, 2008 at 7:42 PM
I wouldn’t be, since dinosaurs are too cool, but not that you’ve brought dragons into it…
exception on April 18, 2008 at 7:43 PM
Beautiful.
This is all I’ve ever tried to say to people that balk at the idea of harmony between science and religion. If only it came out as well as you put it.
NTWR on April 18, 2008 at 7:44 PM
You sir, Are a complete ass. I suggest reading more than just the one book.
ronsfi on April 18, 2008 at 7:44 PM
Not only that, but 40% of my DNA code is shared by the daffodils that are now blooming outside. SO WHAT!?
Was Ben Stein justified in making this film?
This thread is NOT about evolution vs. ID.
It’s about censorship and free speech in academia.
CyberCipher on April 18, 2008 at 7:44 PM
Good grief Charlie Brown,yes God created the whole nine yards,created man and woman as well!
And maybe,just a thought,something else landed on earth
played around with humans!
And God flooded the whole planet of this abomination!
canopfor on April 18, 2008 at 7:45 PM
And quarry accidents.
exception on April 18, 2008 at 7:47 PM
Ben S made a movie?
TheCulturalist on April 18, 2008 at 7:48 PM
It’s called a bacterium, dude.
Tzetzes on April 18, 2008 at 7:48 PM
Lol. You’re so classy. Thanking you for sharing your “character” or lack thereof with the rest of us.
In your deceitful example of “transitional creatures” many of your “examples” were proven hoaxes..thanks for destroying your credibility and saving me some time.
SaintOlaf on April 18, 2008 at 7:48 PM
I don’t plan on homeschooling in the traditional sense, but I do plan on teaching my children things they wouldn’t learn in school (precisely because of censorship in the schools). If their schools do not want to mention ID, and instead state that evolution is the absolute Truth, I will teach my children ID. I don’t believe in it, but I do think that it’s valid. Which is why I want to see this movie… thank you Ben Stein for getting me to honestly look at this subject.
the goddess anna on April 18, 2008 at 7:48 PM
Good to know.
exception on April 18, 2008 at 7:48 PM
Well, I think the reason it’s easy to get OT is because most of us agree that censorship has hindered free speech and, more importantly the quest for knowledge in academia.
NTWR on April 18, 2008 at 7:48 PM
I did not start the ID BS. Thread NAZI!
ronsfi on April 18, 2008 at 7:49 PM
True, but it was created by people with intelligence, no?
VolMagic on April 18, 2008 at 7:49 PM
Yeah? where is YOUR proof of these “hoaxes” witch burner.
ronsfi on April 18, 2008 at 7:51 PM
OK!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060406231032.htm
ronsfi on April 18, 2008 at 7:40 PM
OK!
So a “WatchTower” is…?
J_Gocht on April 18, 2008 at 7:52 PM
Yes, here’s a picture (mild content warning).
Tzetzes on April 18, 2008 at 7:52 PM
You’ve never seen killer whales “playing” with seals before they eat them? Or killing baby Blue whales for “sport”?
VolMagic on April 18, 2008 at 7:52 PM
Didn’t you call commenters servants of satan?
exception on April 18, 2008 at 7:53 PM
i hope all parents are involved and informed enough to be able to protect their children’s minds against the nonsense they will encounter every day in every school they will ever attend.
TheCulturalist on April 18, 2008 at 7:53 PM
Maxx,
I believe I didn’t make myself clear. There are no “transitional forms” as such, because *all* species are transitional. Evolution at times speeds up (generally to fill niches suddenly opened by an extinction event), but over the relatively stable past two million years, it has been a gradual process. A gradual *ongoing* process. It is constantly occurring, and goes through branches, twists, dead-ends, loopbacks, collisions, etc – and it doesn’t play favorites. Humans today have subtle physical and mental characteristics different from humans a mere 10,000 years ago. 10,000 years from now, assuming we ourselves don’t manipulate ourselves along a different path, will be a bit different from modern humans. In thirty thousand years from today, there could well be multiple species of human, or we could be extinct, or the differences could be severe enough that a future human from that time would be too physically different to breed with a modern human.
Evolution has wiped it’s brow and decided to go to sleep now that we’re here.
Again, it’s the scale of the thing. Velociraptors could have had an industrial civilization with Jetsons style flying cars – after 65 million years, we’d never know it. We’re only assuming we’re the only technological civilization in 3.5 billion years of life on this planet… because there’s no evidence. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It reduces the likelihood of velociraptor cars and Tyrannosaurs in F-14’s to virtually zero… but there’s a big gap between almost zero and zero in probability. ;)
As to Lucy – I’d very much like a clear source on that assertion. To my knowledge Lucy is currently classed as Australopithecus afarensis, based upon bone structure and skull form, likely the last distinguishable ancestor between the human branch and chimpanzees, which are our nearest modern genetic relative. She’s still not a “missing link” mind you… again, all forms are transitional, so between her people and ours and chimps would be a vast array of gradual shifts. The odds of finding one of them are extremely low, but even if we did, we could easily accidentally classify them as Australopithecus afarensis with a skull deformity, or a homo erectus with a mutated foot.
For that matter, in modern humans there is some physical variety. A hundred thousand years from now, what is to stop a future anthropologist from accidentally concluding a contemporary African and Caucasoid are from roughly contemporary separate species? *That’s* the degree of differentiation we’re talking about, here.
E1701 on April 18, 2008 at 7:53 PM
Did Noah collect species that were indigenous to remote areas of the world? Did the ark drop off Kangaroos and Koala in Australia after the penguins were delivered to Antarctica?
dedalus on April 18, 2008 at 7:53 PM
Is that how Lewis would have wanted to be admired? ;)
(By the way, we’re old members from the same college.)
Tzetzes on April 18, 2008 at 7:53 PM
Whether you are Christian Fundamentalist or Atheist lab rat, there are some things in life worth fighting for — they are some things even worth dying for (don’t make me quote John Stuart Mill). IMHO, freedom of speech is one of them. Freedom of religion is another (in my book). Has academia crossed over the line? Are they the new Nazi party?
My collie says:
Not yet.
CyberCipher on April 18, 2008 at 7:54 PM
I, nor God, nor the Bible says man can “do whatever he wants”…The main thing is, God gave man “free will”. And the knowledge of right and wrong. With dominion, comes responsibility.
We were given horses and mules to lighten our burden. Given cows and fish to feed our bellies…fertilize our gardens.
I just don’t understand how you find it conflicting.
JetBoy on April 18, 2008 at 7:54 PM
You claim there were dinosaurs in Noah’s Ark and in Middle Age Europe and me incredible. Laughable.
ronsfi on April 18, 2008 at 7:55 PM
Dinasoars met up with mother of all asteriods,
super KA-BLUEY,end of nasty Dinosoars!
Earth has been hit with gamma ray bursts coming
from a KA-BLUYED star hundereds if thousand light years
away!
If a star blows up within a thousand light years,were
done,sterilied period!
The earth has been destroyed,and re-birthed about 3 times!
canopfor on April 18, 2008 at 7:55 PM
600 comments? Wow. Haven’t seen the likes of this since Fred was in the race.
MadisonConservative on April 18, 2008 at 7:56 PM
Ahh, I see, there are no currently living examples of species undergoing macro-evolution because we haven’t been around long enough?
Uhm, nope, I guess I don’t.
Fatal on April 18, 2008 at 7:57 PM
Always trust Olaf. He is a scientist, archaeologist and a great teacher.
Tzetzes on April 18, 2008 at 7:57 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 24 Next »