May
6
Expelled (Evolution vs Creationism)
May 6, 2008 |
A new movie out by Ben Stein called “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” has been released and been discussed a bit. Around the same time the movie came out (in limited release) a counter web-site debuted call “Expelled Exposed“. I have been surprised at some of the discussion at blogs I visit. You would think from a lot of media coverage that only backwoods, ignorant inbreeds still believe in Creationism or have doubts about Evolution. Despite what people like Bill Maher say, there are some very intelligent scientist who still believe in Creationism. I studied in college under respected particle physicists who, even if they may not have believe in creationism, definitely believed in God and participated in organized non-denominational Christian churches.
All this, however, is really just smoke above the fire. The true problem, which even with some of it’s possible flaws, that I think the movie “Expelled” points out is the lack of truth when evolution is discussed in our schools. To be clear, I’m not quite sure that creationism, per se, should be taught in science classes. However, there is no doubt in my mind that problems with the theory of evolution are simply ignored in both basic secondary school classes and by leading biological scientist. At this point the cultist followers of evolution, many of them very intelligent scientist, will have conniption fits at my statement about “problems” with evolution.
Fact: There are scientific (including mathematical) problems with the theory of Evolution.
Fact: Until the scientific community both teaches and studies these problems, biological sciences will not advance.
I apologize for my link to such an obviously biased website above. However, as Ben Stein’s movie points out, the scientific community simply isn’t discussing these problems.
For evidence of my second fact I state above lets look at the science of Physics. There are two theories in physics right now which have a lot of “problems” with each other. That is the Theory of Relativity and the Theory of Quantum Mechanics. I remember these from college. I’m no physicists and I can barely understand it. However, what I do remember a quote from Einstein about Quantum Mechanics that says that “[God] does not throw the dice.” and a quote from Steven Hawkins that “Not only does God play dice, but… he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen.”
The basics, as I far as my limited understanding goes, is that these two theories seem at odds with each other. However, experimental data provides evidence for each of them to be true. What do physicist do about this? Well, they teach them both, examine them both to try and find a theory that reconciles the differences. The fact is experiments show that facets of each theory hold to be true. The fact is facets of each theory (at least seem to) conflict with each other. There is some reason behind this and a scientific reason for this: a truth. Physicists are simply searching for the “truth”….the answer that explains it. Neither one of these theories is ignored. All aspects of both are taught to students. Eventually, some bright physicist, will come up with a theory that will explain both and science will be one step closer to a unified theory. Science will be advanced.
Let’s come back to the theory of evolution. As I mentioned and pointed out, there are problems with it. The people who have pointed out these problems are not ignorant, backwoods baboons. Nor are they pointing out the problems just because they can’t let go of their religious beliefs. These are scientific (especially the mathematical ones) problems with the theory. Unlike physicists, instead of teaching these problems to young biologist, instead of holding these problems up as counter examples to be examined, these “problems” are being completely and utterly ignored.
I’m not going to venture a guess as to why this is being done. Plenty of other people will postulate the motivation of leading biologist to ignore these problems. Quite frankly, I don’t care as to the motivation. The simple fact is, if these problems aren’t closely examined (and they can’t be without being taught) they will never be reconciled and the science of biology will be stagnant.
New and better science is not developed from constantly seeking to re-enforce current theory. Sure, some evidence and experiments need to be done to prove current theories but the biggest advancements in science are done from examining the current problems with theories. It is only by examining these problems that newer, better theories can be developed and science advance. Devoid of creationism and whether or not it should be taught in science class, it’s time for biological science to start looking at the problems with their current theories instead of constantly looking at evidence to re-enforce current theories. Only then can great strides be made in the science.
Comments
7 Comments so far
Search
Links
- Credera
- Erik Weibust
- Guitar Hero
- iGoogle
- IntelliJ Idea
- Lunar Pages
- Spore
- St Louis Cardinals
- World of Warcraft
You need digg links on your site! (I mean i know I can stick it there myself) But seriously. This is a good addition.
Can you point out some of the “problems” of the theory of evolution?
First, I want to make it clear that I am not saying that evolution is absolutely wrong. Second, I want to make clear that I not convinced that ID should be taught in science class.
My entire post is to say that the challenges presented to evolution are not adequately taught in school, for whatever reason, to help in the advance of biological science.
What are some of the issues that can be addressed?
The challenge of the lack of fossils that mathematics shows should be present should the theory of gradualism hold true.
Given the Gould’s theory of punctuated equilibrium, which is a good scientific answer to the challenge above, you still have lack of fossil evidence.
Finally, computer simulations that attempt to use data to organize evolutionary trees tend to want to put every species in it’s own twig. I’m sure you could see how someone who makes his living with computers would think that if the computer simulations won’t bear out the expected result there must be problems with the theories used to create the simulations.
Neil Parks, are you a biologist?
I didn’t think so. You don’t even know what science is. You’re a shit-for-brains liar for Jesus. Just keep your breathtaking stupidity in your church and out of our schools, asshole.
The fossils are not even necessary.
Study the molecular evidence, moron.
You fucking everything-is-magic creationists are disgusting. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Study science until you understand it. Until then stop lying about biology you fucking stupid asshole.
BobC,
I’m less interested in your personal attacks on someone you don’t know and more interested in what you have to say about things like . . .
Whether the cat is dead or alive.
What a 4-Dimensional object might look like while passing through 3-Dimensional space.
How the non-zero probability of a book doing something OTHER than falling to the earth from a height affects your daily life
Whether algorithmically traveling between the points of a cube without traversing a line more than once is NP-Complete.
The problem with evolution is the same one that creationism has, when you really get down to it, there is no way to prove either, and you are left just believing that it is true.
Even with all the fossil, DNA and other science that has been thrown at evolution, very few discussions on the matter attempt to explain the first moments of life, and no amount of science will ever prove how this occurred. At best, you will be left with nothing but deciding to believe that it is true. So, you start your “belief” in evolution with an assumption, and move on from there to other assumptions that everything started from a single organism and expanded from there while all observable mutations usually kill the creature not save its life. All the time, ignoring the fact that plants have practically the same DNA as animals, and there is next to no discussion of the evolution of plants. Animals and plants are treated separately and comments that humans share much of their DNA with a potato are strangely missing from the argument.
As the original article states, topics such as these point out problem areas in the concept of the subject matter, and by refusing to even consider or discuss them in a public setting they will never be resolved and the theories will always be doubted by people who take the time to consider it. ID is questioned daily, and operates from a position of belief, so no attempt is made to prove it, you either believe or you don’t. Evolution lives in the world of proofs, and yet it is not being critically examined, and the problematic areas are quietly swept under the rug.
Given the amount of time evolution deals with, it is staggering how little fossil evidence there is, and we are further left without a single example of a transitory state of any kind. I know of no example of a single fossil of an animal with something like a half evolved scale into a feather. Yes, since we all share very similar DNA we all share very similar structures, but the very mechanism of evolution does not reveal itself. Every item in the fossil record consists of completely formed (albeit similar to other features) organs and structures. If evolution is such an obvious solution to the problem then how can there be no examples of that solution happening anywhere in the world?
So, for all the “evolution is fact” people, you can again take the easy road out and ignore the evidence in front of you and question my personal beliefs and intelligence, and just move on as if everything happens just like they told you despite not being willing to talk about the big gaping holes in their theory. For me, just like the original poster, I will continue to ask questions regarding everything that doesn’t quite seem to add up.
(And insults on my character just reflect poorly on your lack of curiosity, so feel free to tell me how closed minded you are!)