A Review of Ben Stein&#8217;s&nbsp;&#8220;Expelled&#8221;

Regardless of whether it promotes ID or not, it’s ironic that a film that is basically discussing “academic freedom” doesn’t present both sides of the issue. The film discusses some Christians who feel they were treated badly (fired, ridiculed, whatever) for doubting evolution. Yet the film says nothing about teachers, scientists, etc, who have promoted evolution and received similar treatment from those opposed to evolution.

June 24, 2008 at 8:54 pm

Smiting Science by Gwen Pearson

Hmmm… That seems to be a stretch, although in secondary education where parents are involved and school boards can get crazy, you definitely see opposition to the teaching of evolution from time to time. By far that’s not the case with the majority of places however. In higher education especially, you won’t have many examples of an evolution-supporting teacher being opposed. If someone were denied tenure or fired in academia because they supported evolution, that would make national news, and they would easily win in court. I did read a religious scholar was almost fired because of her opposition to intelligent design but that was at Fuller Theological Seminary, a Christian university by design, and even then her account was disputed.

And, it doesn’t seem likely to me that anyone at any level can have their careers ruined by supporting evolution. If someone did get fired for it, they would be hailed as a hero and hired immediately by any number of institutions.

June 25, 2008 at 8:47 am

Sheri

If anti-evolutionists are allowed to teach biology, is it okay to have flat-earthers teaching geography? Holocaust deniers teaching history? Faith healers teaching medicine? Atheists teaching Sunday School?

There is another side to the persecuted-for-my-beliefs premise that the makers of Expelled took to absurd and offensive extremes:

Note that Pearson was teaching in a state university. And she’s is not alone – there are more such accounts here:

Creation, Power, and Violence

Note that none of these are Scopes-era cases.

Here are links that provide additional insight into the flaws and fabrications of Expelled from people who represent the middle ground that the film’s makers don’t want you to know about:

Trouble ahead for science by evolutionary biologist and devout Catholic Kenneth R. Miller

Why Ken Miller isn’t in Expelled by Chris Heard, Associate Professor of Religion at Pepperdine University

Dr. Miller is a powerful, eloquent spokesperson for maintaining and deepening your religious faith while accepting a sun-centered solar system, a planet that’s billions of years old, the evolution of diverse life forms, and all sorts of other observable facts that are at odds with literal interpretations of the Bible, Koran, and various other holy texts. You should read his books, Finding Darwin’s God and Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul.

June 25, 2008 at 3:09 pm

A reading of your links, and a reading your opening statement, proves a couple of things you’re missing Sheri. They prove there’s a lot of anger and this seems to lead to a situation where any questioning of current evolutionary theory is ridiculed, despised and mocked. It was by you, and several times in the articles you posted. Such anger is also returned the other way, and I agree with you that mistreatment the other way is wrong.

But those articles also prove that while teaching at a religious school may require the literal teaching of Genesis, any opposition in State universities doesn’t ruin a career. Gwen is not out of job by any means. (Atheists might not want to teach Sunday School, but do they feel entitled to teach in religious universities?)

At any rate, you are jumping to extremes and conclusions while being upset at Expelled for doing the same thing. It’s the pot calling the kettle black.

The Bible, for instance, doesn’t teach a sun-centered solar system, a 10,000 year old earth, a flat-earth, etc… -Only the young earth part is debated at all by Bible scholars. You are simply lumping everyone who disagrees with you into a pile of stereotyped kooks. There are many scientists and academics (even biologists), some who aren’t religious at all, who do question whether or not the current evolutionary theory adequately explains the diversity of life on this planet.

On many levels and in many instances that are termed evolution, there is no disagreement. But the fact evolution exists at least on some level, doesn’t necessarily account for the diversity of life we have now. That’s one of the problems some of the scientists point out. In this time period or that one, evolutionary theory as we understand it, didn’t have enough time to produce such diversity.

Such questions have been the driving force behind science and should continue to be. If those questions lead us to God someday, good. I think they would if we’d let them. That’s my theory.

June 25, 2008 at 3:15 pm

“There are many scientists and academics (even biologists), some who aren’t religious at all, who do question whether or not the current evolutionary theory adequately explains the diversity of life on this planet.”

Could you name these biologists, please?

June 25, 2008 at 3:36 pm

It was one of the points of the movie Expelled, and it’s something a team leader at Los Alamos National Laboratories told me, and it’s something I’ve read over and over. And I’m sorry, but I believe the friend of mine at Los Alamos. Most won’t give their names for obvious reasons.

Asking the question you did gives away your assumption that no one could possibly question current evolutionary theory without being a religious nut. Otherwise, my statement would have seemed perfectly reasonable, just as the statement “lots of Christians are going to vote for Barak Obama” is perfectly reasonable. And true!

The real issue should be, are the questions themselves scientific questions? If they are, answer them without trying to shoot the person who raised his hand.

For instance I quickly Googled this article which sounded like the same point I’m trying to make:

Dr. Robert Shapiro, an eminent chemist from New York University and an expert in his field, wrote a book and it was entitled Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth . Now creation here refers to biochemical evolution. He’s a skeptic. In this book, he decimates the six reigning ideas of how life could have evolved from non-life. Michael Denton, in his book Evolution a Theory in Crisis, shows that the original scientific objections to evolution that faced Darwin and were argued powerfully by his colleagues, his own contemporaries, still apply–even after more than 100 years of scientific research.

Both of these books are written by non-religious people, I presume. In other words, they are not making a religious case at all. I don’t know their personal faith commitments at all, but their concerns are strictly scientific. In fact, Shapiro remains an evolutionist hoping that the future will turn up more evidence that the past has not produced. In his book, Michael Denton ends his analysis with this statement: “The Darwinian theory is the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century”, and then he adds, “like the Genesis based cosmology which it replaced.” You have no friend of religion here, yet in both cases they offer scientifically strident and compelling arguments against the plausibility of natural processes explaining all of the complexity that we see in our biological world.

June 25, 2008 at 3:45 pm

Oh wait, here ya go. (I edited this because I said it was a “whole association” but it doesn’t have a list of anyone in such a group)

Here’s a couple of non-religious scientists. The main guy works in biology and cosmology.

June 25, 2008 at 6:51 pm

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=36143596&postID=116103847596095189&isPopup=true

“Asking the question you did gives away your assumption that no one could possibly question current evolutionary theory without being a religious nut. ”

Actually I just wanted to see if you could answer it.

“Here’s a couple of non-religious scientists. The main guy works in biology and cosmology.”

Well, I specifically asked for biologists, but I didn’t say they had to be either religious or non-religious. I’m asking for names of biologists that do not accept evolutionary theory, regardless of their religious standing.

On the website you gave later, I see the names EJ Klone and William Brookfield.

A search for EJ Klone turns up pretty much nothing but this (s/he does say s/he is an atheist):
http://everyoneneedsaklone.blogspot.com/
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/blog/ej_klone
http://icon-rids.blogspot.com/2007/06/enter-klone.html

On Brookfield’s own site it says: “William Brookfield disavows all dogma”. Then in the very next paragraph it says “William sees cosmic design (God) as perfectly natural and non-religious”. It’s hard to see how a notion of God in any way, shape, or form can be non-religious.”
Site is found here: http://www.geocities.com/fiddleboy2003/Bitscience.htm

A talk he gave in April was titled, “Intelligent Design Science: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality”.

He certainly seems to have religious overtones.

In the comments on the very first blog at this site, he states in response to someone questioning his credentials:

I don’t hold any degrees from any university of any kind. My job as a citizen scientist is to represent science in general and the general public. I learned about the theory of “ontogeny recipitulating phylogeny” in my elementary school playground in 1968 — from a friend (Calvin Jackson). Throughout the 60’s and 70’s I was a Darwinist. In 1979 I began to suspect something was wrong with Darwinism.
The folks at the Smithsonian Institute (above) are massively credentialed. In spite of this I have had to write (for the good of science and the public interest) the article above encoraging these “scientist” to get back to doing science. Witch-hunts against “creationists” or against “communists” are not a part of science. The gospelization of Darwin-ism and material-ism has nothing to do with science as the public understands the word “science.” Dogma has nothing to do with science. WB

Since he apparently has no formal education in science, I must assume he is not a scientist.

Actually, much of this particular website you reference seems to already be covered here.

June 25, 2008 at 11:37 pm

June 26, 2008 at 12:19 am

When you guys put a lot of links in these comments, this place has a tendency not to post them but to tag them as spam. If you noticed any delay in getting them posted, that’s why.

Actually it would be a lot easier to give names of biologists that do not accept evolutionary theory, religion notwithstanding. So easy in fact, that you should just google it. In watching the trailers to Expelled, a few are mentioned.

And yeah, it’s not so easy to find “biologists” + “non-religious” + “ID proponent” that anyone would actually believe is “non-religious.” They are all accused of that, regardless of their beliefs. One of the main guys profiled on Expelled, a biologist by the way, was accused of being a religiously motivated person, and he doesn’t even support ID. He simply published the previously peer reviewed study on ID in the university paper. He’s a Catholic but with misgivings and questions.

Anyway, a few biologists…

Woods Hole, fired from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Michael J. Behe, Ph.D. Professor Biochemistry. Department of Biological Science,
Dr Michael Denton, M.D., Ph.D. molecular biologist

There’s more I’m sure, but I gotta run.

Sheri

First, you should know that I am not in the habit of wasting my time responding to blog posts by “kooks” (your word, not mine). I responded to yours precisely because your review suggests that you are an intelligent person who might be open to considering opposing viewpoints and evidence in this case.

You wrote:

The Bible, for instance, doesn’t teach a sun-centered solar system, a 10,000 year old earth, a flat-earth, etc… -Only the young earth part is debated at all by Bible scholars. You are simply lumping everyone who disagrees with you into a pile of stereotyped kooks.

Ah, yes, the ever-popular “No True Scotsman” fallacy. You’re absolutely right that the Bible doesn’t teach a sun-centered solar system or a 10,000-year-old earth. It actually teaches an earth-centered universe (Genesis 1:1-2, 14-17; Ecclesiastes 1:5, Joshua 10:12-13) and an approximately 6,000-year-old earth (based on the Bible-derived chronologies of Ussher, Lightfoot, Kepler, Newton, et al.), that’s flat (Proverbs 8:26-27, Isaiah 40:22, Daniel 4:10-11, Matthew 4:8…) and immobile (I Chronicles 16:30, Psalms 93:1) under a solid dome embedded with celestial bodies (Genesis 1:6-7, 14-17; Job 37:18, 22:14).

Literal interpretations of Scripture were universally endorsed by Bible scholars in times past, and many Christians, Jews, and Muslims still hold to some or all of them. It seems that you’re lumping these sincere believers into “a pile of stereotyped kooks,” but it is they, and those like the makers of Expelled who would exploit them for wealth, fame, and influence, who are the driving force behind “intelligent design” and its failed predecessor “creation science.” By giving this propaganda piece any credence at all, you close ranks with those you describe as “kooks.”

You wrote:

There are many scientists and academics (even biologists), some who aren’t religious at all, who do question whether or not the current evolutionary theory adequately explains the diversity of life on this planet.

Yes, creationists frequently drag out a list of scientists and academicians who profess skepticism about evolution (a fallacy known as the Appeal to Authority), and biologists like myself point out how few of our colleagues are on that list. The list is dominated by people who work in physical and mathematical sciences, molecular and cellular biology, and medical and health sciences. It should go without saying that no level of achievement in one branch of science qualifies one as an expert in others, and that the physical and life sciences address fundamentally different aspects of the nature of the universe. One should also scrutinize the statement to which those on the list have agreed, as it is not a denial of evolution, nor is it inconsistent with current evolutionary theory (see below) and the scientific method. (But don’t you think it’s a tad disingenuous for people who claim they’re “not religious” to posit supernatural explanations for natural phenomena?)

So again, if this were a question about what is taught in medical schools, would you trust your life and health to a physician whose curriculum was dictated by physicists, chemists, and engineers who support a supernatural approach to natural aliments?

Scientists whose chosen fields of inquiry expose them to hard physical evidence of evolution and natural selection – organismal biologists, paleontologists, anatomists, geneticists, geologists – make up a tiny fraction of the Discovery Institute’s list, and not one of the minuscule number of “skeptical” researchers in relevant fields has so far come up with any irrefutable scientific evidence of intelligent design. The few claims to that effect, mostly involving so-called “irreducible complexity,” have been examined by other scientists in those fields and found deeply flawed.

There are indeed questions within the biological community about how much of the diversity of life on earth can be explained by Darwin’s theory of the origin of species natural selection (he didn’t “discover” evolution, only posited a more persuasive theory to explain it than had his predecessors) and what other natural mechanisms might account for the perceived disparity, but this is as far as “controversy” within the field goes. Science is the search for natural explanations for such fundamental questions as the diversity of life, and the best scientists approach these questions without a preconceived bias toward one explanation or another. Writing off complex natural phenomena as the work of an unknown (and possibly unknowable) intelligent force in the absence of evidence does not expand the boundaries of human understanding – it merely stifles further inquiry.

Of course there’s a lot of anger about this. America’s leadership in science has slipped drastically, and we’re not going to regain that lost ground unless the children of today get the education they need to become the top-notch scientists of tomorrow. Undermining that education by equating religious beliefs, no matter how sincerely held, with a body of knowledge developed and refined over millennia has serious ramifications not only for America but for the world.

I endorse the continued search for evidence of design and am open to the possibility that some scientist someday may find a phenomenon that can only be explained by an intelligent force behind life and/or the universe. After verification of such a claim, the scientific community would recognize God as an observable natural phenomenon appropriate for further objective inquiry. Until these conditions have been met, the teaching of “intelligent design” and other brands of creationism belongs only in comparative religion and philosophy classes and church services.

June 26, 2008 at 4:36 pm

Sheri, as a pastor, I study the Bible for a living. You’re using a straw-man argument by claiming the Bible says something that is easily disproved, then drawing the conclusion that the Bible is in error.

It simply does not, anywhere, make a scientific claim that the earth is the center of the universe. Genesis 1:1-2 has nothing to do with the center of anything, Genesis 1:14-17 simply said God put lights in the heavens to shine upon the earth, which from our perspective on earth, is still true, Ecc 1:5 says the sun comes up and goes down again which doesn’t make any claim about the earth and its position in the universe (Ecclesiastes is prose and proverbs anyway, using all sorts of poetic language not scientific) and Joshua 10:12-13 describes an epic miracle where God made the sun and moon stand still in the sky. From the perspective of the writer, how else would he describe it?

The chronologies have nothing to do with the age of the earth, but only with the age of man on the earth. Besides that, it was common in ancient times to skip several generations when giving the genealogies (which all such age calculations are based) because of lack of records, or because they were simply listing the most important people in their view. Genealogies only give approximate figures.

Even the staunchest evolutionist believes that man is a relative newcomer in regards to the age of the earth itself. Notice in Genesis 1:2, there is no mention as to how long the earth was in the state of being devoid of life and covered by water and darkness. There is also debate on the length of the “days” in Genesis. The word used for “day” is translated “age” in 8 other places in the Bible. The evening and morning as we understand it, is applied to the rising and the setting of the sun, but until “day” four, there was no sun. St. Augustine was right when he said, “These are God-defined days, not solar-defined days.” Truth is, the Bible gives no age of the earth. People infer what they want, but the Bible doesn’t actually say anything about it.

Neither does the Bible teach the earth is flat. Proverbs 8:26-27 and Isaiah 40:22 are actually scriptures used to show the Bible calls the earth a “circle” and speaks of the “compass” of the earth. Scriptures that could just as easily be used to say the earth is round wouldn’t you think, since most circles are round? Regardless, both places are using poetic imagery, not making scientific claims.

Daniel 4:10-11 describes a dream Daniel had where he saw a tree grow all the way up to heaven, and it could be seen from the “ends of the earth.” First, it was a dream Daniel had, not a teaching of the Bible about the earth. Second, “ends of the earth” was a common phrase of the day just like when we say, “it was a shot heard all the way around the world.” The shot wasn’t heard “around the world,” but it conveys the idea of how big it was.

In Matthew 4:8, the devil took Jesus to a high mountain, and “showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.” Taking that literally would be impossible even if the world WAS flat as the eyesight of Jesus, and the clearness of the day would have to have been great indeed for him to see China or the Indian kingdoms in South America. However the devil “showed” Jesus those kingdoms, whether by some miracle, or whether it simply means he looked out over the land as it stretched into the Roman Empire and away toward the East, and down toward Egypt and Africa, the Bible was clearly not teaching the earth was flat here.

I Chronicles 16:30 was a song being sung by David, so again we’re back to prose. It says, “Tremble before Him, all the earth. The world also is firmly established, It shall not be moved.” Speaking of God and his power and might. The Hebrew word for moved literally means “be carried, cast, be out of course, be fallen in decay, X exceedingly, fall (-ing down), be (re-) moved, be ready shake, slide, slip.” So it could just as easily mean the earth cannot be knocked “out of course” -proving the earth is orbiting the sun and following a course through space. Or we could say it proves no one can “carry” the earth, which most of us knew already. Or we could say the earth cannot be made to “fall” which would probably defeat some in the flat earth crowd… We could just as easily say these things, which is why it’s important to note this was a song using imagery, and making a point about the power and might of God who created the earth, not making a scientific explanation of the earth’s movement.

Psalms 93 was also a song written by David, and uses the same phrase and the same word we looked at above.

And yes, the dome thing. Genesis 1:6-7 was talking about the atmosphere, not the universe. Verses 14-17 said he put the stars in the heavens, and from the perspective of someone on earth describing the creation account, it’s a perfectly normal thing to say. There’s no description of a dome.

Job 37:18 describes the beauty and smoothness of the sky as if it were glass. Verse 10 says ice is given by the breath of God, Verse 11 says God saturates the clouds with moisture and scatters the bright clouds, Verse 12 says God swirls the clouds about and they move with His guidance, Verse 15 says God causes the light of his clouds to shine, Verse 16 says the Lord balances the clouds, Verse 17 says He quiets the earth with a south wind, and Verse 18 asks if Job can spread out the skies like God does, skies that are strong like a molten mirror.

The passage is making a point about God’s power using poetic descriptions, not making scientific points using scientific descriptions.

Finally, Job 22:14 contains the words of Eliphaz the Temanite, not the teachings of God or anyone authorized by God. I could argue again that his words were symbolic, and I could even argue his words prove the earth is round, but God himself rebuked Eliphaz for his words. Therefore, whatever Eliphaz said, it doesn’t matter.

You are not arguing against the Bible, you are arguing against the most extreme interpretations, several of which are only believed by atheists since such interpretations are easily dismissed. (straw-man arguments) Any close study or Biblical scholarship of the Bible, trying understand what it is literally talking about, does not come to these conclusions.

Since Expelled makes NONE of these arguments, you are indeed lumping everyone into a stereotyped creation while decrying the documentary Expelled for much the same thing.

Secondly, the documentary, according to reviews doesn’t argue ID but focuses on the mistreatment of academics who question established theory. You know more about the science end of things than I do, but it seems to me that people are using circular reasoning against the idea of intelligent design. First people claim that no true scientist would ever believe anything besides the current evolutionary theory, then when actual scientists are produced who question current theory, then such a list doesn’t matter OR they aren’t in the correct field OR well, there’s not enough of them at any rate.

And of course at many institutions of higher learning, a student cannot pass without accepting current evolutionary theory. I spoke to a former biologist student last night, a man who now is a professor at college in a different field, who has written many textbooks, who matter of factly talked about transferring universities and fields because he wasn’t going to be allowed to graduate without accepting the theory.

It the same reasoning that was used on ID for years that without a peer reviewed study, it’s not really science. And when ID did produce a peer reviewed study, suddenly that doesn’t matter anymore either.

Well, ok, whatever. I’m not appealing to authority or trying to use some standard argument. It came up because it was asked.

I also realize what fields dominate ID research, but ID has implications throughout cosmology, physics, and molecular biology especially. These fields should be talking about it more than standard biology in my opinion, just as those fields should be talking about it more than archeology does.

I haven’t seen the “list,” you speak of, I’ve only heard about it. I would hope they weren’t all Christians, and weren’t all religious. Examining the complexity and questioning whether or not evolution can adequately explain everything we see in the diversity of life and the many elements of the universe, shouldn’t require a belief in a particular god. If God exists, that God would be as much a part of the universe as atoms, and discovering or postulating a God wouldn’t make one part of a religion. For me, ID is merely the reasonable way for a scientist to say, “I can’t prove god or disprove him” because there’s stuff here we can’t adequately explain yet, and some people attribute it to a God.

Today if the scientist were to say, “I lean that way,” he or she would occasionally get in trouble, but I’ve always thought that ID was just admitting the possibility based on the improbability of random forces producing such patterns and complexities.

We like to say science doesn’t prove or disprove God. Well then, allowing for His possible existence, even scientifically, should not be a big deal.

Speaking of physicians, it’s not the same, but should we fire any doctor that likes to pray with his or her patients? And I do like doctors who don’t just use the popular products simply because they are paid to push them.

It’s funny you would say “hard physical evidence” and then list organismal biologists, paleontologists, anatomists, geneticists, geologists. I’m a non-scientist, but some other scientists would say the term “hard physical evidence” is a bit of an exaggeration.

When I was in school, and what I’ve read recently, would say there’s a lot of “soft physical evidence” in biology, paleontology, anatomy, and geology. Biology (excluding molecular biology), paleontology and geology are (I recently noticed) called “soft sciences” (at least in one book) since their theories are not often based on mathematical equations but interpretations of the evidence that are often subjective to some degree. Those fields also change their theories quite often when new evidences is unearthed. One person’s hard evidence is another person’s debatable evidence.

I don’t think anyone is writing off evidence or stifling further inquiry except of course, those who refuse to graduate anyone who doesn’t accept the status quo answer. Or those who fire professors because they print a peer reviewed study on ID in the university paper, or…

or even those who harass and try to get a teacher fired because they believe in evolution. I’m arguing for more discussion, not less.

Your last paragraph I’d like to believe, but no such “proof” as you speak of will ever convince the world as a whole to recognize Him. Hasn’t yet. After all, case and point. You said yourself that any objective inquiry into Intelligent Design belongs only in comparative religion and philosophy classes and church services. What scientific proof can be found if science won’t even intellectually allow that God may exist?

June 29, 2008 at 2:46 am

Several times now you have repeated the claim that people have been fired for questioning evolution – this is not true. The central premise of Expelled is a lie in most cases, and disingenuous in others. For more information see the NCSE’s website Expelled Exposed. Take special note of the ‘Truth Behind the Fiction’ segment.

It’s funny you would say “hard physical evidence” and then list organismal biologists, paleontologists, anatomists, geneticists, geologists. I’m a non-scientist, but some other scientists would say the term “hard physical evidence” is a bit of an exaggeration.

No, you aren’t a scientist. As the statement above proves.

I’ll be interested to see any response after you have reviewed the evidence on the NCSE site.

June 29, 2008 at 6:45 am

Lee, the statement above that “proves” I’m not a scientist is a statement I took directly from a scientist. The rest of my statement which you didn’t quote gave his explanation as to why.

Secondly, I did mention the claims of Expelled that scientists have been fired, which is also the sort of thing I’ve read and heard from others before. If those claims are not true, then your claims to the contrary are a welcome response. I have no qualms about changing my opinion if the facts bear you out.

I don’t have time tonight to review much, but what I did read seemed to make some good and valid points about the level of “persecution” a few of the scientists claimed to have suffered. I’m willing to listen to that side. I can’t really give a good opinion on your rebuttal to Expelled since I haven’t seen anything but the previews yet.

The analysis of ID on the website, from what I can tell, doesn’t convince me however. It repeats the mantra that ID isn’t really science, but the reasons seem to come back to the difficulty in testing it. Ok, but there is the valid questioning of whether or not current evolutionary theory adequately explains things like the Cambrian Explosion et al. And second, historically some considerations, even speculative ones, have shown up in science long before anyone could test them. And as least as far as the God of the Bible goes, we could do a bit of testing and examining, and we do.

If you ask me, (and I know you wouldn’t) you guys should really leave all your options on the table. Never know.

June 29, 2008 at 2:20 pm

Lee, the statement above that “proves” I’m not a scientist is a statement I took directly from a scientist. The rest of my statement which you didn’t quote gave his explanation as to why.

Hmmm… you originally said ’scientists‘. Anyway, who is this scientist? Any particular reason why anyone should pay particular attention to his personal views? And why on earth would you expect me to quote your entire statement? It’s right there, just a short scroll away… Anyhow, hi sexplanation is one long strawman – if this is the guy you previously referenced who was complaining that the Uni wouldn’t let him graduate, I’m not surprised.

I can’t really give a good opinion on your rebuttal to Expelled since I haven’t seen anything but the previews yet.

I haven’t written a rebuttal to Expelled since I haven’t seen it (it’s not available in Australia) – I pointed you towards a trusted science education organisation’s detailed rebuttal of Expelled’s factual claims. Incidentally, if you haven’t seen anything but previews, why are you posting ‘A Review of Ben Stein’s Expelled‘ at all? Of course, this is your blog and you can post whatever the heck you like – it’s just odd.

The analysis of ID on the website, from what I can tell, doesn’t convince me however. It repeats the mantra that ID isn’t really science, but the reasons seem to come back to the difficulty in testing it. Ok, but there is the valid questioning of whether or not current evolutionary theory adequately explains things like the Cambrian Explosion et al.

Ah, the venerable tu quoque fallacy – otherwise known as the ‘I know you are, but what am I?’ rebuttal…

‘ID isn’t really science’ is not a mantra – it’s fact. Science is testable, ID is not. Science generates testable explanations that lead to deeper questions, ID is a question stopper. Scientists have put the work in to gather evidence, ID has made a few brief populist forays, refused to engage in the process of peer review and refinement, and then simply sniped from the sidelines. They haven’t done the work. They haven’t even attempted to do the work. Also, the problems with ID don’t just just come back to the testability issue – ID makes many statements of ‘fact’ that are demonstrably false (such as pretty much anything regarding biology or information theory that’s original to Dembski, Wells, Behe or Denton).

And where did you hear the idea that the Cambrian Explosion is a problem for evolution? The so-called explosion took millions of years, and the strata referred to as Cambrian are not, in fact, the first appearance of complex multicellular life – google Ediacara fauna and/or Burgess Shale for more up to date information. The Cambrian Explosion, as misunderstood by creationists, is something of an ID/Creation poster child so I guess it’s understandable that you would have heard the idea around the traps – it’s also a fantastic example of a strawman.

Third – why would any difficulty, real or otherwise, with the cambrian explosion be considered evidence of ID? That is drawing a false dichotomy – an either/or statement that forgets to mention the fact of other possibilities, known or unknown.

And as least as far as the God of the Bible goes, we could do a bit of testing and examining, and we do.

Please describe the testing and examining – that could be interesting.

I’ll ignore your final claim to ‘know’ something about the future choices of a person you’ve had short correspondence with once…

June 29, 2008 at 3:36 pm

June 30, 2008 at 12:44 am

I linked a review up in my post. I didn’t give a review myself. In fact, I linked 3 reviews, two fairly harsh against the documentary. Sorry if that was odd.

I also talk to scientists and academics from time to time, have friends in the field, plus read books etc… I’ve interviewed a man who was at the time, one the science reporters for the Boston Globe and I think the Wall Street Journal, too. I’ve interviewed a former NASA scientist as well. I reference all of them in conversation when I say a scientist said this or that.

The Cambrian Explosion was a “problem” for evolution, as a peer reviewed study published in a scientific journal examined. I noticed you made the old claim that ID never submits anything to peer review but that isn’t true. Especially not any more. And that’s the reason why I referenced the Cambrian Explosion, was because it WAS examined in a peer reviewed study that promoted intelligent design. Millions of years isn’t much time in evolution as you know and evidently the time frame and the complexity of the development of life for that period was demonstrated to be difficult to reconcile.

Test the same way you test for black holes. Look for effects consistent with the theory, and in the case of a particular God, examine the historical and prophetic record as well.

“And as least as far as the God of the Bible goes, we could do a bit of testing and examining, and we do…Test the same way you test for black holes. Look for effects consistent with the theory, and in the case of a particular God, examine the historical and prophetic record as well.”

Can you clarify? Are you speaking of evidence of the existence of God, or evidence that God created not by evolution but by some other means? I’m finding it hard to follow exactly what issue you’re addressing, but I’ll admit I’m kind of just skimming the comments now.

I’ve certainly read and heard appeals to history and the prophetic record when speaking of the existence of God, but not in any way related to evidence (or lack thereof) of evolution.

June 30, 2008 at 1:19 am

I’ve always felt ID is mainly just that, an argument that God exists. Lee asked about testing Intelligent Design and testing the historical and prophetic record seems to me would be a good place to start, as well as looking for evidence in the universe consistent with a designer. Looking at the historical and prophetic record however would examine if the Christian/Judeo God has real evidence for existence, thus one avenue for establishing the existence of a designer. Philosophically, Intelligent Design doesn’t necessarily displace evolution, which is one reason I’ve never thought ID deserved the heated arguments as far as science goes. ID would say the complexity and variety of life in a certain period of time, as well as many of the patterns and structures of life and the universe, are not reasonably explained by pure chance and random forces. BUT… it also doesn’t necessarily force anyone to say evolution doesn’t exist either. They could just as easily say God created evolution and used it to form the universe as we know it. I might disagree, but there are lots of Intelligent Design evolutionists out there. People who believe in God and believe He started and guided evolution.

June 30, 2008 at 6:32 am

I also talk to scientists and academics from time to time, have friends in the field, plus read books etc… I’ve interviewed a man who was at the time, one the science reporters for the Boston Globe and I think the Wall Street Journal, too. I’ve interviewed a former NASA scientist as well. I reference all of them in conversation when I say a scientist said this or that.

Okay – so you’ve read a few polemics, got a couple of ’sciency’ friends who are part of the same circles you are in, and an engineer. Sorry – that’s not gonna cut it. Why are these probably-fringe elements enough for you to countermand the larger scientific consensus of thousands? (The inclusion of science journalists in this list is nothing short of hilarious…)

The Cambrian Explosion was a “problem” for evolution, as a peer reviewed study published in a scientific journal examined. I noticed you made the old claim that ID never submits anything to peer review but that isn’t true. Especially not any more. And that’s the reason why I referenced the Cambrian Explosion, was because it WAS examined in a peer reviewed study that promoted intelligent design. Millions of years isn’t much time in evolution as you know and evidently the time frame and the complexity of the development of life for that period was demonstrated to be difficult to reconcile.

References please – saying ‘I heard of’ just isn’t good enough. How old is the paper? Has it been superceded? Have you read the paper you are referring to – or are you actually just repeating someone else’s opinion of what the paper said? Misquoting/misreading scientific papers for an audience that will never check the original is a common tactic of the ID crowd. (And since we are talking Cambrian Explosion, I really hope you are not just referring to Gould and punctuated equilibrium – that would be really dissapointing).

Which papers have been published by cdesign proponentsists? Where? When?

Sorry to seem so prickly and needle-ing but I come across such claims all the time, and they have always turned out to be worthless on closer inspection.

June 30, 2008 at 5:47 pm

June 30, 2008 at 11:23 pm

Lee,… Wow, LOL. I’m thinking the point of Expelled applies over there where you work.

Didn’t you jump on me earlier for a little comment that assumed something about you? You know nothing of who I’ve spoken to, what I’ve read, or how “fringe” anyone is. Doesn’t matter who anyway, it matters WHAT. Either it’s a good point, a good question for science, or it isn’t. Belittling the skeptic does not prove the skeptic wrong, just makes the belittler look less intelligent.

As for the rest, do your own research, (although don’t read anything written or said by a science journalist, wouldn’t want that) and look up the published peer reviewed study that suggested ID as an alternative explanation to the Cambrian explosion yourself. Google it. I can’t do all the work for you my man.

The Other Intelligent Design Theories by David Brin

LOL. Ok pot calling the kettle slightly grey… You know nothing of who I’ve spoken to, what I’ve read, or how “fringe” anyone is. Doesn’t matter who anyway, it matters WHAT. Either it’s a good point, a good question for science, or it isn’t. Belittling the skeptic does not prove the skeptic wrong, just makes the belittler look less intelligent.

Actually, based purely on your own words, I do know how ‘fringe’ they are – you are referring to individuals who have made comments to you that deny/question/cast doubt on the overwhelming consensus. By definition they are ‘fringe’ elements.

And the final line of that paragraph is just a restatment of the ‘they laughed at Galileo’ defence – very thin and silly. It denies the simple fact that the ‘good points’ and ‘good questions’ from ID have been asked and answered many times now and found to be not that good at all. It is no longer a case of ridiculing or dismissing a fresh, exciting new idea – the idea is stale, unproductive and eminently dismissable.

Your implication that I think science journalists are not worth reading is just a very silly non sequiter (and actually, I’ve read plenty of science journalists, some good, some awful). The point, as I’m sure you might notice upon a passingly-careful re-reading, is that to take a science journalist’s understanding of the scientific questions over that of the scientists themselves is laughable and absurd. I guess the journalist’s opinions just happen to mesh with or support your own, so consensus be damned…

Look brother, do your own research, (although don’t read anything written or said by a science journalist, wouldn’t want that) look up the published peer reviewed study that suggested ID as an alternative explanation to the Cambrian explosion yourself. Google it. I can’t do all the work for you my man.

Er, actually you haven’t done any work for me, unless you consider replying to comments on your blog to be some kind of favour…

I’ve simply lost track of how often I’ve seen this crap being pulled during creo/evo discussions: “I’ve got this paper that blows your position away!” “Where?” “Find it yourself – meanwhile, trust me. The evidence I’m not showing you just blows you away!”

Anyway – the paper most likely to match the one you may have read is:

Meyer, Stephen C. 2004. The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117(2):213-239.

In this paper, Meyer argues that ID is a better alternative explanation for the emergence of new taxa in the Cambrian explosion. This is the paper that supposedly got Richard Sternberg ‘Expelled’ – actually he had already given notice at his unpaid voluntary editor position at the PBSW. The only reason this was published at all is that one of Sternberg’s final acts at the PBSW was to dishonestly bypass all review procedures so as to insulate this paper from criticism and publish it anyway. Of course, quality and fact checking don’t matter to most cdesign proponentsists – all they wanted was to be able claim a publication in a peer reviewed journal. The peer review part of that was too difficult for them so they did an end run around it.

Is this the paper you’re referring to? Do you recognise it by the title, or have you in fact never read it and have only heard about it? I’m not going to waste my time on its deficiencies if it’s the wrong paper – which is, of course, the reason why it’s common practice and basic politeness for the person citing a paper to be the one who provides the references to it…

July 1, 2008 at 5:04 am

Sheri

Your choice to post links to reviews of a movie you haven’t seen really shouldn’t be in question, but I can’t say the same for your choice to insult a vast and diverse field of scholarly inquiry about which you are profoundly ignorant.

This concerns me deeply because you claim to be a pastor, which puts you in a position of molding impressionable minds, and you abuse this position by offering poorly informed opinions about a contentious and complicated topic. It was particularly absurd for you to question the “hardness”of the life science, especially after telling me in great detail why “my” interpretation of Scripture is wrong. You used the “No True Scotsman” fallacy to duck my main point, that all of the passages in question were interpreted in times past exactly as I characterized them (even by such a brilliant intellect as Sir Issac Newton, author of one of the Bible chronologies) and many are still interpreted as literal truth by millions of Christians. I’m relieved to know that you don’t view the Bible as a science textbook, but there are millions of people, including clergy, who do. Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis has built quite an empire for himself on the ignorance and gullibility of these sincere believers.

Some scientists would probably prefer to follow the advice given in Matthew 15:14: Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

Unfortunately, the “blind” are leading the “blind” not into some ditch of obscurity where they belong but straight into school board meetings, state capitols, and science classrooms. If we don’t rein in this idiocy, we risk having our entire nation dragged backward into the Dark Ages, and we know how that worked out for Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.

You’d have to undertake a second education in biology to understand just how profoundly you’ve erred in your remarks, but at the very least I hope you’ll undertake to educate yourself on “intelligent design.” The term as its coiners use it doesn’t mean what you think it does. What the Discovery Institute and related organizations are trying to wedge into public schools is nothing more than Biblical creationism hiding behind vague language in hopes of sneaking past the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. This isn’t just my opinion – it was the finding of a Bush-appointed federal judge in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, based on ID textbook passages entered into evidence.

Your concept of ID may conform more closely to Progressive Creationism or the more scientifically consistent Theistic Evolution or Guided Evolution, which many scientists find reconciles their beliefs with the reality they see in the world and universe we live in. Here’s a convenient primer on this and other “competitors” to the creationist brand of ID, all of which have exactly as much supporting scientific evidence as ID:

A note of caution: You may find some of these ideas uncomfortable to contemplate.

BTW, Expelled is getting panned in Canada, too.

July 1, 2008 at 2:07 pm

Hey Lee! Well, here’s my take…

Actually, based purely on your own words, I do know how ‘fringe’ they are – you are referring to individuals who have made comments to you that deny/question/cast doubt on the overwhelming consensus. By definition they are ‘fringe’ elements.

It just seems like name-calling though because of the connotation of calling someone a “fringe element.” Yes, I understand the “by definition” thing, but it has a larger connotation. My question to you then becomes: Any scientist who disagrees with the majority is worthy of being dismissed as a “fringe element?” How big of a majority would that take to officially be considered fringe? Does this apply to every theory in science? Shall we give them the same respect we give other “fringe” groups such as the KKK or Al Queda? Just trying to get parameters on the precise meanings of your labels.

And the final line of that paragraph is just a restatment of the ‘they laughed at Galileo’ defence – very thin and silly.

Is it? Because I wasn’t thinking of Galileo, although he was a Christian. I was thinking that instead of engaging in discussion, you were throwing generalizations around and showing contempt. For the record, I quit drinking diet coke and diet mtn. dew yesterday and was working on a monster headache. Maybe I was still annoyed up over the “fringe” thing and condescending view of my “sciency” friends as you put it. At any rate, I do believe you are very intelligent and appreciate your thoughts.

It denies the simple fact that the ‘good points’ and ‘good questions’ from ID have been asked and answered many times now and found to be not that good at all. It is no longer a case of ridiculing or dismissing a fresh, exciting new idea – the idea is stale, unproductive and eminently dismissable.

Even a casual search reveals this debate is still raging at every level. The documentary Expelled wouldn’t generate this much furor if ID was eminently dismissable. Can you give me some details that show the idea of ID is not worthy of anything more than ridicule? Other than your opinion? If it’s merely your opinion, then that’s fine too.

Your implication that I think science journalists are not worth reading is just a very silly non sequiter

lol I simply warned you about reading them since you did say that MY speaking to a science journalist was “nothing short of hilarious.” I was just looking out for you brother.

(and actually, I’ve read plenty of science journalists, some good, some awful). The point, as I’m sure you might notice upon a passingly-careful re-reading, is that to take a science journalist’s understanding of the scientific questions over that of the scientists themselves is laughable and absurd.

And I am sure upon a passingly-careful re-reading that you would notice I never claimed to have taken “a science journalist’s understanding of the scientific questions over that of the scientists themselves.” I said I interviewed a science journalist. That’s it. He wasn’t giving me HIS opinions based on HIS research. Why did you assume that?

it’s common practice and basic politeness for the person citing a paper to be the one who provides the references to it…

I wasn’t citing the paper, nor did I quote from it. In some respects, I was just tired of defending every jot and tittle. I apologize if you felt disadvantaged by my lack of a bibliography section.

You seem to have found it with no ill effects however. Yes, of course it was the Meyer paper. Was it peer reviewed or not?

Hmmm…. you say he subverted the peer review process…

The U.S. OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
1730 M Street, N.W., Suite 218
Washington, D.C. 20036

said this:

….They could not fathom that they Meyer article had been peer-reviewed and, if it was, it could only have been reviewed by “like minded individuals.” In fact, there was a serious effort by some to take the drastic step of piercing the veil of peer review, an unprecedented and unethical act within your field. They assumed that you violated editorial regulations of the Proceedings because you were the primary editor of the article. These comments were made to and by SI and NMNH managers and were published to several outside organizations. It was later revealed that you complied with all editorial requirements of the Proceedings and that the Meyer article was properly peer reviewed by renowned scientists. As an aside, the information received by OSC does not indicate that any effort was made to recall or correct these comments once the truth was made known…..

Now Lee, as a non-scientist, but as a human being, I’m left with believing I’m hearing one side of the story from you and another side from the scientists who claim mistreatment for supporting Intelligent Design.

As a general rule, one can never totally believe either side. So I’m left with this…

You guys can fight it out all you want, and claim any scientist who disagrees with you is “fringe” and claim there’s no way any peer reviewed article would have ever supported the idea of Intelligent Design. You can fight over this until your heart is content.

I happen to personally know the God who created the universe, so to me it’s a moot point.

July 1, 2008 at 3:27 pm

Sheri, I enjoyed your last comment! Got me thinking again. I still think you’re cool even if we disagree ya know.

I can’t say the same for your choice to insult a vast and diverse field of scholarly inquiry about which you are profoundly ignorant.

Is it insulting to say God exists and was the Intelligent Designer behind the formation and development of Creation? That’s all I’m saying Sheri. Did you expect different from a pastor?

If I have profound ignorance, enlighten me with details. I applaud you for at least going back to the Bible earlier in the conversation though. I didn’t mean to insult you by disagreeing with your assertions there either.

you claim to be a pastor, which puts you in a position of molding impressionable minds, and you abuse this position by offering poorly informed opinions about a contentious and complicated topic.

Such as? I mostly repeat what scientists have written or said to me personally when speaking of science. I do that mainly just here because anytime the word evolution gets used around here, I get attacked for being a skeptic of it.

The vast majority of the time, I teach and study the Bible. And believe me, where science may disagree with the Bible, I’ll still be sticking with the Bible. Science usually catches up with it eventually. At least, that’s the case historically.

You used the “No True Scotsman” fallacy to duck my main point, that all of the passages in question were interpreted in times past exactly as I characterized them (even by such a brilliant intellect as Sir Issac Newton, author of one of the Bible chronologies) and many are still interpreted as literal truth by millions of Christians.

You’re right that Issac Newton was brilliant, but one can find all sorts of “interpretations” of the Bible right this minute and they can’t all be correct.

Anyway, I didn’t realize I ducked your main point. I just tried to show that’s not what the Bible is actually saying, (flat earth, stationary earth, center of the universe) and particularly with the age of the earth, the Bible doesn’t specifically address it, -although as I said, people do infer an age. And those who infer it are inferring the time since man was on the earth. As it so happens, on that issue, current science theory and the Bible aren’t nearly as far apart either.

It’s important that we don’t mischaracterize the Bible, but instead take note of what it DOESN’T say as much as what it DOES. The primary reason I’m quick to be careful with the Bible is it simply isn’t fair to claim it says this or that, when in fact, that is not necessarily the case. I don’t want someone to have their faith shipwrecked because of a misunderstanding. The stakes are too high. As a teacher of the Bible, isn’t that what I should be doing?

I’m relieved to know that you don’t view the Bible as a science textbook, but there are millions of people, including clergy, who do. Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis has built quite an empire for himself on the ignorance and gullibility of these sincere believers.

True. Although, to be fair, Ken doesn’t believe in a flat earth, stationary earth, or the earth as the center of the universe. Ken does believe in a 6000 year old earth I think, although a great many scientists who believe God created the universe, still believe in a much older age. Ken also tries to argue science with science and most guys and gals like Ken are available for public debates. I find it to be interesting stuff. Hovan and his $250,000 offer to anyone who can show proof of evolution (ie.. any change that adds new genetic information) is entertaining. I don’t believe Hovan or Ham are right on everything by any means, but especially, I don’t like the way a lot of those guys go about disagreeing. A person can still believe in Evolution and believe in God. They might be right or wrong, but in the end, who cares? It’s not the most important thing. God will not judge us for how much we figured out scientifically. If Hovan or Ham create an us versus them mentality over science issues, then they are forgetting what is really important. Belief in Christ and repentance of sins.

I know lots of Christians who are wrong about some peripheral issue. I’m sure I’m wrong on plenty. Finally we agree right?

If we don’t rein in this idiocy, we risk having our entire nation dragged backward into the Dark Ages, and we know how that worked out for Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.

Oh now. Any world view taken to an extreme by power hungry people will result in dark ages. Disagreement is fine, it’s when we say disagreement is not allowed that we’re in trouble.

You’d have to undertake a second education in biology to understand just how profoundly you’ve erred in your remarks, but at the very least I hope you’ll undertake to educate yourself on “intelligent design.”

Again, details. Give me an error of what I’ve said that a degree in biology would fix.

The term as its coiners use it doesn’t mean what you think it does. What the Discovery Institute and related organizations are trying to wedge into public schools is nothing more than Biblical creationism hiding behind vague language in hopes of sneaking past the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. This isn’t just my opinion – it was the finding of a Bush-appointed federal judge in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, based on ID textbook passages entered into evidence.

Kitzmiller v. Dover may have been correct on the textbook, (I don’t remember the specific passages) but they were wrong to generalize all of Intelligent Design from it. It is intelligent design to believe God used and directed evolution. To push the very idea of ID out because someone promoted creation science with it, is the same as pushing out the very idea of evolution because someone promoted atheism with it. And that happens every day.

I personally believe God created the universe from nothing without the help of many aspects of evolution. That would be in regards to origin of life. As life developed, there are many aspects of evolution in play since God, in His wisdom, created life with the ability to adapt to changing conditions. But I don’t believe evolution was the cause of the origin of life any more than I believe my particular car caused global warming all by itself.

I also believe that a strict reading of Genesis that doesn’t add into the text, is true in the sense that someone could describe what happened exactly the way it was described. But it was from the writer’s perspective, not a scientific article published in a journal. It is a layman’s summary, and a brief one at that.

A strict reading has to admit the earth itself can be very old, or could be much younger. It simply doesn’t detail it. It does, however, make God the primary cause of everything that came to be.

July 2, 2008 at 1:09 am

Howdy CP

rather than engage in a ‘Summer Glau‘ style reply, just a few points:

Even a casual search reveals this debate is still raging at every level. The documentary Expelled wouldn’t generate this much furor if ID was eminently dismissable. Can you give me some details that show the idea of ID is not worthy of anything more than ridicule? Other than your opinion? If it’s merely your opinion, then that’s fine too.

The guy on the street is ‘debating’ it, sectarian school boards are ‘debating’ it, ill-informed governors are ‘debating’ it – science is not. The so-called debate over ID is a public relations campaign to provide fodder for the ‘teach the controversy’ angle – the controversy is manufactured.

The ‘furor’ over Expelled was predominantly howls of laughter – Expelled, by almost all accounts, is a terribly made film built on ad hominem attacks, false links to Hitler (a move that rightly disgusted a lot of people), and documented falsehoods. (Again, check out the Expelled Exposed site.) What wasn’t laughter was annoyance, irritation and anger that this rubbish, that has been dealt with in everyone’s eyes but the publics’, is refusing to die.

The paper you kind-of-almost referred to contains plenty of evidence itself for why ID is fit for ridicule. Read the paper, then read this: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/08/meyers_hopeless_1.html

And I am sure upon a passingly-careful re-reading that you would notice I never claimed to have taken “a science journalist’s understanding of the scientific questions over that of the scientists themselves.” I said I interviewed a science journalist. That’s it. He wasn’t giving me HIS opinions based on HIS research. Why did you assume that?

I assumed nothing of the sort – please try to read for comprehension. Of course you weren’t quoting a journalist’s research, for goodness sake! You mentioned this journalist in the context of explaining who you meant when you say phrases like, “a scientist said”. You also made it clear that these ’scientists who said’ justified your doubts about the consensus opinion of science. My point stands: you take the opinion of a journalist as a justification of your doubts on the work of the scientists themselves.

I wasn’t citing the paper, nor did I quote from it. In some respects, I was just tired of defending every jot and tittle. I apologize if you felt disadvantaged by my lack of a bibliography section.

Silly sarcasm presented as faux politeness. If you say you have evidence it’s incumbent on you to show it.

On the points of peer review and the Us Office of Special Counsel: first, Sternberg himself said, “As managing editor it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would work directly on the paper, and as I was best qualified among the editors I chose myself.” Sternberg was the only reviewer – a paper advocating ID was reviewed by an ID advocate only. Sternberg’s claim to be the best choice is also false – his relevant training is in systematics, the paper is about invertebrate paleontology. There were actually many people on staff at the PBSW better qualified to review the paper, three of whom were actually experts in the very cambrian invertebrates discussed in the paper.

Sternberg’s religious discrimination case was actually dismissed by the OSC, and the remarks you highlighted above are not borne out by the material in the appendix to the report. If you are interested and open to being challenged, you may want to check here and follow some of the links presented there.

I happen to personally know the God who created the universe, so to me it’s a moot point.

So, an upfront statement of certainty and a priori bias – a complete conversation stopper and evidence blocker. Ah well…

Try this, instead: “I happen to think that I personally have regular conversations in my head with what may be the God who may have created the universe, so to me it’s a moot point and I’m insulated from changing my mind.”

Bit more honest.

July 2, 2008 at 2:30 pm