I will now discuss the last part of the movie. In this, Stein claims that "Darwinism" lead to the holocaust. I don't even know if I need to refute this. It is well known that the ultimate cliche cheap shot argument is to compare your opponent to Hitler or the holocaust. Doing so is almost admitting you lost and don't have any real content. The movie does not attempt to make an argument of cause and effect or look at the statements of the people who carried out the holocaust to see if they were influenced by Darwin. For the most part, they simply show the camps where it was carried out and show the holocaust was bad. Thanks, we already knew that.
What is the evidence? One quote from Hitler about inferior races and someone saying that the euthanasia programm was influenced by eugenics and social Darwinism. That's it. We could easily get a quote of Hitler referring to God being against the Jews and follow it with 10 minutes of footage from Dachau and claim to have made a case.
Eugenics was influenced at least as much by genetics as evolution. Eugenics became common only after the discovery of Mendelian genetics in 1900, 35 years after Origin of Species. It is based on principles of artificial selection that predate Darwin--needless to say, killing people with cyanide is not natural selection. Should we say that genetics lead to the holocaust? The point is that any idea can be distorted to serve a purpose. Hitler used appeals to religion in his hate against the Jews much more than appeals to evolution. Evolution was never mentioned in Mein Kampf, but creation was nearly two dozen times. Does that mean religion leads to the holocaust? No, it means that people will find whatever tools are available to justify their hate.
Obviously, the most important contribution to the holocaust is antisemitism, which existed for a millennium before Darwin and was mostly religiously based. It was only in Germany, with its long history of antisemitism, that evolution was applied against the Jews. In America, with a history of unbridled capitalism, it was used to justify unbridled capitalism and the robber barons. Evolution had the strongest hold in England, but England has no blemish such as the holocaust. If there is a cause and effect, shouldn't we see a correlation between belief in evolution and eugenics movements? We see no such thing.
Does the existence of the atom bomb prove the atom is false? True ideas can have bad consequences. In this case, there is no evidence even for that. The movie also quotes Darwin out of context to make it sound like he is in favor of the extermination of races, when if they had read one further sentence, we find that Darwin meant the opposite. But that is irrelevant. Who cares what Darwin thought? Darwin was compassionate and ahead of his time on these issues, but if he had been a bigoted sexist sheep lover it would have no relevance on the truth of his ideas or even on whether his ideas were abused by others.
This part of the movie is by far the most revolting and cheap. Although maybe the true believers would be influenced by this, I suspect even many of them would feel it has gone too far, and no one with a slightly open mind would possibly be swayed by the cheap shot.
The movie ends with a big confrontation with the devil, or Richard Dawkins, it isn't clear if they make a distinction. I've already discussed how they deal with him, but there is one more irony. At one point, they ask him to speculate about the possibility of design. He basically says that OK, if I grant you that just maybe there is some possible way we could find design, maybe by an alien, that still doesn't solve the problem because we would have to ask how that designer arose, which he argues is still natural selection. It was pure speculation and not an endorsement, but Stein interprets this as showing Dawkins would consider the possibility of intelligent design. Somehow the irony of that is lost. The first half of the movie was all about how Darwinists won't even consider design, and now Stein is trumping the fact that Dawkins would consider design as if that is a point for them? He just disproved the entire first half of the movie. The stupidity burns.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Expelled, part III
I will continue with my long review of Expelled. The second part of the movie tries to connect evolution, or science in general, with atheism. This is probably the strongest part of the movie, but it is still filled with misrepresentations. It probably connected with the target audience the best. We hear Dawkins, Myers, and William Provine belittle religion and religious believers. Generally, calling people idiots is not a way to create sympathy for your cause.
This is a stronger part because it has an element of truth. Scientists have a much lower belief in God than the general public (although this is not connected specifically with evolution or the biological sciences). It is true that evolution has affected some people's belief in God. Believers have a fear that if they send their children to college, they will come to reject what they were brought up to believe, and seeing Dawkins, Myers, and Provine say religion is bunk will only increase their fear of science.
It seems to me that if a belief is strong, you shouldn't be afraid to look at other ideas. You should be confident in its ability to confront those ideas. If your belief is correct, it should have nothing to fear from science. I certainly would never tell people not to read creationist materials for fear of them being contaminated. In fact, I bring in those materials and tell my students to read it.
But even if there is an element of truth to this part, it is still grossly distorted. They bring in Allistair McGrath and John Polkinghorne to argue against Dawkins. They point out that science does not need to go against belief. They edit it in such a way that it seems maybe they are even saying science and ID are compatible. What most viewers won't know is that McGrath and Polkinghorne both believe in evolution and reject creationism and ID.
This brings up the huge missing part of their story. They sought out the most outspoken atheist scientists to talk about religion, and found that they are outspoken against religion. This doesn't connect directly with evolution or ID. If they had found outspoken atheistic journalists or artists they could easily have found similar quotes against religion. Just read Mark Twain or H L Mencken (although Twain always colors his attacks with humor). And if they had interviewed biologist Ken Miller or Francis Collins they would have found devoutly religious people who support evolution and think ID is as foolish as does Dawkins. Or you could interview any of the 11,000 clergy who signed the clergy letter project to get similar views. There are a wide range of views on this topic, but if you interview only those on one end, you can leave the impression that the connection between science and atheism is necessary and complete.
One other comment on the interviews with scientists. I know most of what they said was meant to inflame the audience, but as I listened most of what they said seemed imminently reasonable. They weren't flaming ideologues, although William Provine came across as a bit over the top. He is the only one I am only vaguely familiar with from outside of this movie. The producers got their interviews by deceiving the interviewees into believing this was a pro-science documentary. I can see that they are being open, trusting, and unguarded in what they said, and knowing how they were lied to makes the producers seem like scum. This is especially true for Eugenie Scott and Micheal Schermer. Neither of them said an offensive word in their whole interview. I know that, because there isn't an offensive word from them in this movie, and had they uttered one, they would have included it. So the movie sets them up as naive fools who believe we can all get along, but the evil Dawkins shows them to be wrong. It is grossly manipulative and an abuse of trust and of the good intentions of those interviewed.
I will discuss the last part of the movie in my next post.
This is a stronger part because it has an element of truth. Scientists have a much lower belief in God than the general public (although this is not connected specifically with evolution or the biological sciences). It is true that evolution has affected some people's belief in God. Believers have a fear that if they send their children to college, they will come to reject what they were brought up to believe, and seeing Dawkins, Myers, and Provine say religion is bunk will only increase their fear of science.
It seems to me that if a belief is strong, you shouldn't be afraid to look at other ideas. You should be confident in its ability to confront those ideas. If your belief is correct, it should have nothing to fear from science. I certainly would never tell people not to read creationist materials for fear of them being contaminated. In fact, I bring in those materials and tell my students to read it.
But even if there is an element of truth to this part, it is still grossly distorted. They bring in Allistair McGrath and John Polkinghorne to argue against Dawkins. They point out that science does not need to go against belief. They edit it in such a way that it seems maybe they are even saying science and ID are compatible. What most viewers won't know is that McGrath and Polkinghorne both believe in evolution and reject creationism and ID.
This brings up the huge missing part of their story. They sought out the most outspoken atheist scientists to talk about religion, and found that they are outspoken against religion. This doesn't connect directly with evolution or ID. If they had found outspoken atheistic journalists or artists they could easily have found similar quotes against religion. Just read Mark Twain or H L Mencken (although Twain always colors his attacks with humor). And if they had interviewed biologist Ken Miller or Francis Collins they would have found devoutly religious people who support evolution and think ID is as foolish as does Dawkins. Or you could interview any of the 11,000 clergy who signed the clergy letter project to get similar views. There are a wide range of views on this topic, but if you interview only those on one end, you can leave the impression that the connection between science and atheism is necessary and complete.
One other comment on the interviews with scientists. I know most of what they said was meant to inflame the audience, but as I listened most of what they said seemed imminently reasonable. They weren't flaming ideologues, although William Provine came across as a bit over the top. He is the only one I am only vaguely familiar with from outside of this movie. The producers got their interviews by deceiving the interviewees into believing this was a pro-science documentary. I can see that they are being open, trusting, and unguarded in what they said, and knowing how they were lied to makes the producers seem like scum. This is especially true for Eugenie Scott and Micheal Schermer. Neither of them said an offensive word in their whole interview. I know that, because there isn't an offensive word from them in this movie, and had they uttered one, they would have included it. So the movie sets them up as naive fools who believe we can all get along, but the evil Dawkins shows them to be wrong. It is grossly manipulative and an abuse of trust and of the good intentions of those interviewed.
I will discuss the last part of the movie in my next post.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Expelled, part II
I guess now it's time to review the rest of the movie Expelled. Plenty has been said before about its tactics. It is a propaganda piece, so one sided that only the truly committed would be swayed. I probably have never seen a documentary before for which I had so much knowledge about the details, so I could see exactly what lies or deceptions were occurring and how I was being manipulated at each step. I tried to keep mental notes, but there is no way to remember all of the distortions.
The most annoying tactic throughout the movie was the constant cuts to black and white footage, usually for an attempt at comic effect. It was often material from the 50s of square looking people, expressing the emotions you are supposed to feel. At first it wasn't that big of a deal, but by the end I was dreading each and every black and white clip. When PZ Myers compares religion to knitting, they cut to a woman knitting, for what reason I can't fathom. The cuts were endless and always meant to mock or induce emotion, never to make an actual point.
There are three parts to the movie. In the first part, they trot out examples of academics who have supposedly been oppressed by the "Darwinian establishment." These cases have been thoroughly refuted and documented at Expelled Exposed and other places, so I won't belabor it here. It is still astonishing to see the way they lie. Richard Sternberg is their biggest case. They claim he was fired for allowing an ID paper to be published. In fact, he never had a job at the Smithsonian, just an unpaid position, which he kept and still has if he wants it. At one point, Sternberg points to the Smithsonian and says "that's where my office used to be". The viewer would assume he was kicked out of that office. Sternberg doesn't point to the window of his new office, which he was moved to when 20 people were assigned new offices as part of an institution wide reassignment. Sternberg's indignant martyr act was played too strongly and he got cloying.
As I was watching this part, all I could think of is the many examples in which evolution has been attacked and the attackers made into heroes. Lynn Marguilus and the endosymbiont hypothesis was resisted, but she did the work, she was right, and she is a member of NAS. I think many of her views are actually on the lunatic fringe, and plenty of people will say that, yet for the part she got right, she is brilliant. Kimura suggested most change is neutral, not the result of selection and overthrew the establishment. Eldridge and Gould and Gould and Lewontin proposed puncuated equilibrium and attacked adaptationists. The acrimony over sociobiology in the 70s would make the polite way that Sternberg or Gonzalez were treated seem like child's play. But Gould or EO Wilson are still heroes.
The only difference between them and ID is that they did the work. They published, even when the establishment was against them. They argued with data, and against real theories, not strawmen. It also helps that they might have been right. The fact is, ID is wrong. It has been well-considered by the establishment. Most of its arguments are 100 years old and were rejected a century ago, yet the arguments are still dealt with freshly and patiently in dozens of books. For all of this, the only real persecution that the proponents actually suffered is they were told they are fools or wrong. Does academic freedom mean we are not allowed to criticize others and every idea deserves respect? If you can't handle criticism, you have no business in science.
The target audience of this film doesn't understand the status of evolution, and they certainly won't learn it from this movie. It is as well established as the atomic theory. Imagine if people were trying to teach that the atomic theory was wrong in chemistry classes. Would we be suppressing academic freedom by failing to renew their contracts, or would we simply be enforcing reasonable academic standards? If one of my colleagues was teaching that germs don't cause disease, I would want them out of the classroom, not because I want to suppress their freedom, but because we need a minimal level of competence.
I know it seems rude or arrogant to say that ID is the same as teaching a flat earth, but that is the reality, and that is the amount of respect it deserves. Yet for all of that, if they do the work, it will be published. They will take the mantle of martyr and say they can't publish because they are discriminated against, rather than because they have nothing worth publishing. However, the Templeton foundation, with its millions of dollars that it was willing to throw at ID, could not find anyone with a research program worth funding. Templeton is a religious foundation, sympathetic to finding God in science. They no longer are interested in ID, not because or bias, but because they saw that ID is empty.
This is long enough. I will cover the other two parts of the film later.
The most annoying tactic throughout the movie was the constant cuts to black and white footage, usually for an attempt at comic effect. It was often material from the 50s of square looking people, expressing the emotions you are supposed to feel. At first it wasn't that big of a deal, but by the end I was dreading each and every black and white clip. When PZ Myers compares religion to knitting, they cut to a woman knitting, for what reason I can't fathom. The cuts were endless and always meant to mock or induce emotion, never to make an actual point.
There are three parts to the movie. In the first part, they trot out examples of academics who have supposedly been oppressed by the "Darwinian establishment." These cases have been thoroughly refuted and documented at Expelled Exposed and other places, so I won't belabor it here. It is still astonishing to see the way they lie. Richard Sternberg is their biggest case. They claim he was fired for allowing an ID paper to be published. In fact, he never had a job at the Smithsonian, just an unpaid position, which he kept and still has if he wants it. At one point, Sternberg points to the Smithsonian and says "that's where my office used to be". The viewer would assume he was kicked out of that office. Sternberg doesn't point to the window of his new office, which he was moved to when 20 people were assigned new offices as part of an institution wide reassignment. Sternberg's indignant martyr act was played too strongly and he got cloying.
As I was watching this part, all I could think of is the many examples in which evolution has been attacked and the attackers made into heroes. Lynn Marguilus and the endosymbiont hypothesis was resisted, but she did the work, she was right, and she is a member of NAS. I think many of her views are actually on the lunatic fringe, and plenty of people will say that, yet for the part she got right, she is brilliant. Kimura suggested most change is neutral, not the result of selection and overthrew the establishment. Eldridge and Gould and Gould and Lewontin proposed puncuated equilibrium and attacked adaptationists. The acrimony over sociobiology in the 70s would make the polite way that Sternberg or Gonzalez were treated seem like child's play. But Gould or EO Wilson are still heroes.
The only difference between them and ID is that they did the work. They published, even when the establishment was against them. They argued with data, and against real theories, not strawmen. It also helps that they might have been right. The fact is, ID is wrong. It has been well-considered by the establishment. Most of its arguments are 100 years old and were rejected a century ago, yet the arguments are still dealt with freshly and patiently in dozens of books. For all of this, the only real persecution that the proponents actually suffered is they were told they are fools or wrong. Does academic freedom mean we are not allowed to criticize others and every idea deserves respect? If you can't handle criticism, you have no business in science.
The target audience of this film doesn't understand the status of evolution, and they certainly won't learn it from this movie. It is as well established as the atomic theory. Imagine if people were trying to teach that the atomic theory was wrong in chemistry classes. Would we be suppressing academic freedom by failing to renew their contracts, or would we simply be enforcing reasonable academic standards? If one of my colleagues was teaching that germs don't cause disease, I would want them out of the classroom, not because I want to suppress their freedom, but because we need a minimal level of competence.
I know it seems rude or arrogant to say that ID is the same as teaching a flat earth, but that is the reality, and that is the amount of respect it deserves. Yet for all of that, if they do the work, it will be published. They will take the mantle of martyr and say they can't publish because they are discriminated against, rather than because they have nothing worth publishing. However, the Templeton foundation, with its millions of dollars that it was willing to throw at ID, could not find anyone with a research program worth funding. Templeton is a religious foundation, sympathetic to finding God in science. They no longer are interested in ID, not because or bias, but because they saw that ID is empty.
This is long enough. I will cover the other two parts of the film later.
The sound of zero hands clapping
I'll discuss Expelled in several posts. In this one, I'd like to discuss the scientific content of the movie. This will be short. Amazingly for a movie about intelligent design and evolution, in the entire movie there is no discussion at all about the content of either intelligent design or evolution.
Since this is a movie about ID, you would expect that at some point they would actually say what it is. They do not. There is not so much as a definition of intelligent design given. At one point, an ID proponent complains about an inaccurate boilerplate description of ID, but they do not explain how it is wrong or offer anything in its place. Another complains about being called a creationist, but no attempt is made to discuss how it differs from creationism in content. There are a few people at the Discovery Institute who explain that it does not involve God, but the rest of the movie is about how discrimination against ID is discrimination against religion, so that doesn't hold up very well. They do not discuss irreducible complexity or any of the other arguments of ID. If a person went into this movie not knowing what ID is, the only thing they would come out knowing is that it is opposed to evolution and that it is a terribly oppressed idea.
I guess the closest they come to an argument is an animation without any explanation. At one point they discuss how much more complicated we now know the cell to be compared to the time of Darwin. They then show the semi-pirated video of processes in the cell. It is not explained or narrated. There is no attempt to show how ID explains it, or how evolution fails to explain it, or even of the idea of irreducibly complexity. The entire argument is "see how complicated things are? Therefore, evolution is false", and even that is only implicit.
Of course, ID doesn't really have any content to present, since it is almost entirely negative arguments against evolution, so maybe they have some of that? Surprisingly, there is no description of what evolution is, no attempt to deal with the evidence for it, nothing at all. The closest they come, the absolute only time in the entire movie in which they deal with science, is the origin of life. Amazingly, they first have Jonathan Welles telling us, correctly, that evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life. It deals with what happened once the first cell formed and how the rest of life arose from that. I was surprised to see Welles get it right, and then Stein ignores him and looks at the origin of life anyway.
First, they describe the Urey-Miller experiment. The description is OK, but they then say that it was a failure--we didn't get any cells. They honestly seem to believe that Miller expected to see cells arise in a few weeks in his apparatus. He wasn't trying to form cells, just to show how organic material could have formed, and in that he was successful.
Next they explain how the simplest cell today would have about 250 genes. This is our estimate of the smallest genome that could work in a living bacteria. There isn't a biologist on the planet that thinks that this 250 gene organism arose by a single step by chance, but this is creationism and it wouldn't be complete without an incorrect argument from chance. So they show some fourth-rate animation of Richard Dawkins trying to get a jackpot on 250 slot machines simultaneously. I wonder if there will ever be a time when I see creationist material that represent the probabilities correctly? Do they enjoy disproving scenarios that no human on earth believes?
Finally, there is Michael Ruse trying to explain one of the theories about the origin of life, in which simple reactions occur on the faces of crystals. The only reason this is done is so they can make fun of it, by references to crystal balls and mud. No time is given for him to explain the theory or for any evidence for it or against it to be given. Since it seems odd, it must be false.
That's it. You now have a complete summary of all of the discussion of the content of ID, evolution, and the origin of life in the movie. Notice that the only place with any content at all is the origin of life, which they admit isn't within the realm of evolution. I'm sure based on that, the viewers will be well armed to weigh the relative strength of the opposing views.
At one point in the movie they talk about the sound of one hand clapping. They claim that is what we get when we only get one side of the story, the evolution side, and ID is oppressed. Dr Lang laughed next to me at the irony, watching a movie that is so amazingly one sided. However, when it comes to the scientific content, this movie doesn't even give one side. It is the sound of zero hands clapping.
Since this is a movie about ID, you would expect that at some point they would actually say what it is. They do not. There is not so much as a definition of intelligent design given. At one point, an ID proponent complains about an inaccurate boilerplate description of ID, but they do not explain how it is wrong or offer anything in its place. Another complains about being called a creationist, but no attempt is made to discuss how it differs from creationism in content. There are a few people at the Discovery Institute who explain that it does not involve God, but the rest of the movie is about how discrimination against ID is discrimination against religion, so that doesn't hold up very well. They do not discuss irreducible complexity or any of the other arguments of ID. If a person went into this movie not knowing what ID is, the only thing they would come out knowing is that it is opposed to evolution and that it is a terribly oppressed idea.
I guess the closest they come to an argument is an animation without any explanation. At one point they discuss how much more complicated we now know the cell to be compared to the time of Darwin. They then show the semi-pirated video of processes in the cell. It is not explained or narrated. There is no attempt to show how ID explains it, or how evolution fails to explain it, or even of the idea of irreducibly complexity. The entire argument is "see how complicated things are? Therefore, evolution is false", and even that is only implicit.
Of course, ID doesn't really have any content to present, since it is almost entirely negative arguments against evolution, so maybe they have some of that? Surprisingly, there is no description of what evolution is, no attempt to deal with the evidence for it, nothing at all. The closest they come, the absolute only time in the entire movie in which they deal with science, is the origin of life. Amazingly, they first have Jonathan Welles telling us, correctly, that evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life. It deals with what happened once the first cell formed and how the rest of life arose from that. I was surprised to see Welles get it right, and then Stein ignores him and looks at the origin of life anyway.
First, they describe the Urey-Miller experiment. The description is OK, but they then say that it was a failure--we didn't get any cells. They honestly seem to believe that Miller expected to see cells arise in a few weeks in his apparatus. He wasn't trying to form cells, just to show how organic material could have formed, and in that he was successful.
Next they explain how the simplest cell today would have about 250 genes. This is our estimate of the smallest genome that could work in a living bacteria. There isn't a biologist on the planet that thinks that this 250 gene organism arose by a single step by chance, but this is creationism and it wouldn't be complete without an incorrect argument from chance. So they show some fourth-rate animation of Richard Dawkins trying to get a jackpot on 250 slot machines simultaneously. I wonder if there will ever be a time when I see creationist material that represent the probabilities correctly? Do they enjoy disproving scenarios that no human on earth believes?
Finally, there is Michael Ruse trying to explain one of the theories about the origin of life, in which simple reactions occur on the faces of crystals. The only reason this is done is so they can make fun of it, by references to crystal balls and mud. No time is given for him to explain the theory or for any evidence for it or against it to be given. Since it seems odd, it must be false.
That's it. You now have a complete summary of all of the discussion of the content of ID, evolution, and the origin of life in the movie. Notice that the only place with any content at all is the origin of life, which they admit isn't within the realm of evolution. I'm sure based on that, the viewers will be well armed to weigh the relative strength of the opposing views.
At one point in the movie they talk about the sound of one hand clapping. They claim that is what we get when we only get one side of the story, the evolution side, and ID is oppressed. Dr Lang laughed next to me at the irony, watching a movie that is so amazingly one sided. However, when it comes to the scientific content, this movie doesn't even give one side. It is the sound of zero hands clapping.
Ben Stein got some of my money
I did it. I saw Expelled. I told you I was torn between seeing it so I am informed about what they say and giving money to a propaganda film. Yesterday, JC philosophy professor and sometime evolution critic Dr. Brian Lang called and asked if I would like to go. He wanted someone who was informed along. So I went. Afterwards we went out for a drink and had an enjoyable talk for about an hour and a half. I think I'll have a lot to say, although I don't know when I'll have time to write about all of it.
I only have time for a quick note now, so I'll just say some things about the audience. I'll review the movie later. When I got there, there was a woman asking the owner if a lot of people were coming to see it. He said no, which pleased me. She seemed shocked or upset. She said over and over that she's here to see Ben Stein, that's why she's here. Brian got there just before the movie was to begin. Right after him, a group of about a dozen showed up. It was obviously a church group. They all greeted Brian and obviously knew him well. I found out later they were from his church, Temple Baptist. I strongly suspect that most of the audience around the country is similar to the audience I was with, mostly church groups.
Brian introduced me to a few of them. One woman seemed intent on questioning me. She asked me what I think about evolution. I said it is very well supported. She asked "How do you think that?" I think she felt she was really going to catch me. I said with my brain. She asked where my brain came from. I said from a simpler brain, which came from a still simpler brain, which came from some simple nerves, which came from cells that had ion channels. Then she said "well what about irreducible complexity?". I said I'm afraid it's all baloney. I'd love to talk to you about it some time if you are interested. But at this time we weren't entering the theater, where the film had just begun.
It's no surprise I found the film unpleasant. Dr. Lang also considered it weak, a propaganda piece. At least one recent student of mine was also there and didn't seem impressed. However, I think most of the church members enjoyed it. They laughed at parts they were supposed to laugh. Afterwards, they invited us to Perkins, where they were going to discuss it. Dr. Lang declined, and we went downtown. As Dr. Lang pointed out, I'm sure the discussion they had is very different from the discussion we had.
Dr. Lang is engaging to talk to. We didn't discuss the film much, since it is almost entirely lacking in actual content, but did spend a lot of time discussion ID. I'll write about that later, and the film, but now I have to prepare for class.
I only have time for a quick note now, so I'll just say some things about the audience. I'll review the movie later. When I got there, there was a woman asking the owner if a lot of people were coming to see it. He said no, which pleased me. She seemed shocked or upset. She said over and over that she's here to see Ben Stein, that's why she's here. Brian got there just before the movie was to begin. Right after him, a group of about a dozen showed up. It was obviously a church group. They all greeted Brian and obviously knew him well. I found out later they were from his church, Temple Baptist. I strongly suspect that most of the audience around the country is similar to the audience I was with, mostly church groups.
Brian introduced me to a few of them. One woman seemed intent on questioning me. She asked me what I think about evolution. I said it is very well supported. She asked "How do you think that?" I think she felt she was really going to catch me. I said with my brain. She asked where my brain came from. I said from a simpler brain, which came from a still simpler brain, which came from some simple nerves, which came from cells that had ion channels. Then she said "well what about irreducible complexity?". I said I'm afraid it's all baloney. I'd love to talk to you about it some time if you are interested. But at this time we weren't entering the theater, where the film had just begun.
It's no surprise I found the film unpleasant. Dr. Lang also considered it weak, a propaganda piece. At least one recent student of mine was also there and didn't seem impressed. However, I think most of the church members enjoyed it. They laughed at parts they were supposed to laugh. Afterwards, they invited us to Perkins, where they were going to discuss it. Dr. Lang declined, and we went downtown. As Dr. Lang pointed out, I'm sure the discussion they had is very different from the discussion we had.
Dr. Lang is engaging to talk to. We didn't discuss the film much, since it is almost entirely lacking in actual content, but did spend a lot of time discussion ID. I'll write about that later, and the film, but now I have to prepare for class.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Questions and the understanding of evolution
For my army of loyal readers (Hi R!) I haven't been able to post much lately because it is the end of the semester and I have been very busy. I don't expect to post much for the next week or two, but I should be able to be much more active after that.
I teach a class on evolution as a general education class. One thing that I do is I give students credit for submitting questions about anything they want. It's interesting to see what those questions say about how people think about evolution.
There are a few themes or questions that keep coming up. Probably at least half of the questions I get have to do with humans. A common question is either what is the future of human evolution, or how are we affecting evolution. The questions about the future of evolution seem to reflect a view of evolution as progressive or as pre-programmed. I try to point out that the future of human evolution is simply a result of who has kids. There is no internal force making us become smarter or more complex. If less intelligent people have more kids, then the population will become less intelligent (of course, I add caveats that this assumes intelligence is genetic and some of the problems with eugenics).
Similar are questions about why everything else isn't trying to be human. Why doesn't every other organism become intelligent like us? This shows how widely people assume humans are the epitome of evolution, the high point. Most do not even realize it is an assumption and never consider the possibility it is not true. Throughout the course I try to dispel the view of evolution as a ladder or progressive. I try to show that bacteria or insects are in many ways more successful than humans. I like to use the example of the bill of the platypus. This is an amazing organ, an electrical sensing organ that can "see" nerve impulses of prey invertebrates in muddy waters, something in every way as amazing and complex as our brains. Just as we wonder why other organisms don't have as large of a brain as us, I imagine a platypus would wonder why other organisms haven't developed an electrical sense.
Other questions also betray a belief in evolution as progressive or internally driven, asking why some organism hasn't evolved into something else. It is so ingrained that even those of us who know better have to work to avoid it. Like Darwin, I have to train myself not to refer to "higher" or "lower" organisms.
Of course, I get a lot of questions about religion and many questions about how some particular structure evolved. Again, people like to know how language or other intellectual abilities evolved. With those, it's fun to be able to say that we basically don't know. We have ideas that we are trying to test, but it is often difficult to determine the selective pressure that produced a trait. I try to say we don't know fairly often. I think it's good for students to see that there are things we don't know, and that doesn't mean that somehow the whole edifice comes crashing down. All it means is that we have more fun science do.
I teach a class on evolution as a general education class. One thing that I do is I give students credit for submitting questions about anything they want. It's interesting to see what those questions say about how people think about evolution.
There are a few themes or questions that keep coming up. Probably at least half of the questions I get have to do with humans. A common question is either what is the future of human evolution, or how are we affecting evolution. The questions about the future of evolution seem to reflect a view of evolution as progressive or as pre-programmed. I try to point out that the future of human evolution is simply a result of who has kids. There is no internal force making us become smarter or more complex. If less intelligent people have more kids, then the population will become less intelligent (of course, I add caveats that this assumes intelligence is genetic and some of the problems with eugenics).
Similar are questions about why everything else isn't trying to be human. Why doesn't every other organism become intelligent like us? This shows how widely people assume humans are the epitome of evolution, the high point. Most do not even realize it is an assumption and never consider the possibility it is not true. Throughout the course I try to dispel the view of evolution as a ladder or progressive. I try to show that bacteria or insects are in many ways more successful than humans. I like to use the example of the bill of the platypus. This is an amazing organ, an electrical sensing organ that can "see" nerve impulses of prey invertebrates in muddy waters, something in every way as amazing and complex as our brains. Just as we wonder why other organisms don't have as large of a brain as us, I imagine a platypus would wonder why other organisms haven't developed an electrical sense.
Other questions also betray a belief in evolution as progressive or internally driven, asking why some organism hasn't evolved into something else. It is so ingrained that even those of us who know better have to work to avoid it. Like Darwin, I have to train myself not to refer to "higher" or "lower" organisms.
Of course, I get a lot of questions about religion and many questions about how some particular structure evolved. Again, people like to know how language or other intellectual abilities evolved. With those, it's fun to be able to say that we basically don't know. We have ideas that we are trying to test, but it is often difficult to determine the selective pressure that produced a trait. I try to say we don't know fairly often. I think it's good for students to see that there are things we don't know, and that doesn't mean that somehow the whole edifice comes crashing down. All it means is that we have more fun science do.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Ben Stein Dynamite?
Expelled is playing in Jamestown. Apparently we are considered fertile ground--small and rural. I wasn't even aware it was here. I found out because my daughter called me and asked if she could go to a movie. I asked which one and she said Expelled. I refrained from yelling "why the hell would you want to see that?" and instead asked if she knew what it was. She didn't. Her friend had just asked her. When she found out it was a documentary, she wasn't interested, and my summary of it made her even less interested.
I was wondering why her friend had wanted to go. It didn't sound like it was something she would be interested in. I asked my daughter. Apparently her friend thought that maybe it was something like Napoleon Dynamite, based on the poster. That made me wonder how many of the people seeing the show were duped 13 year old girls, expecting maybe a show with an idiot principal (I guess that's what Ben Stein looked like on the poster). I guess the title does kind of sound like a teen comedy. Name recognition for the movie must not be too high in the general public.
Now I have a dilemma. Do I go, so I can say I'm informed and have seen it and know exactly what is in it when I criticize it? To do so I have to waste a couple of hours of my life and give money to fools. I could wait for the video--they still get some money, but not as much. I'll sleep on it for awhile.
I was wondering why her friend had wanted to go. It didn't sound like it was something she would be interested in. I asked my daughter. Apparently her friend thought that maybe it was something like Napoleon Dynamite, based on the poster. That made me wonder how many of the people seeing the show were duped 13 year old girls, expecting maybe a show with an idiot principal (I guess that's what Ben Stein looked like on the poster). I guess the title does kind of sound like a teen comedy. Name recognition for the movie must not be too high in the general public.
Now I have a dilemma. Do I go, so I can say I'm informed and have seen it and know exactly what is in it when I criticize it? To do so I have to waste a couple of hours of my life and give money to fools. I could wait for the video--they still get some money, but not as much. I'll sleep on it for awhile.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Being right proves you wrong, part 2.
In a previous post I discussed how creationist can often use arguments that contradict themselves or their own beliefs. Consistency isn't important. They simply accept any argument that seems to go against evolution, no matter how it relates to their other views. Thus they attach themselves to arguments against peppered moth evolution even though they accept microevolution. In fact they depend on microevolution, so they can fall back on "yes, but that bacteria didn't evolve into a human".
Another inconsistency is when creationists, especially YECs, fall back on fine tuning arguments. A fine tuning argument (or the anthropic principle), says that if the physical constants of the universe were even slightly different, there would be no life. If we were to change the strength of gravity, or of the strong or weak nuclear forces, etc., then life could not exist, so the universe must be designed. I actually don't have any problem with fine tuning arguments, even if I find them less than convincing as an argument for God. Acceptance of a fine tuning argument doesn't necessarily involve the rejection of any of modern science, it simply involves saying there is a reason for the way things are. Accepting ID, on the other hand, involves actively rejecting most of biology.
Fine tuning arguments are inoffensive because they assume science has it all right. We know how the universe formed, how stars formed, how carbon and oxygen formed, how life formed--by natural processes. An example of a fine tuning argument is that if gravity were just a little stronger, the universe would collapse on itself or have too many black holes, and if it were weaker, no stars would have formed. If you change the strength of the nuclear forces the early universe would have been all helium instead of hydrogen and star formation and the formation of other elements wouldn't have formed.
In other words, in order for the fine tuning argument to work, you have to assume the big bang is true, stars evolve as astronomers tell us, the universe is billions of years old, the stuff of life formed in the interior of stars so the earth was seeded with simple carbon based molecules which then could form life by natural processes. That doesn't sound like something an evolution denier would support, especially a YEC. If it was all created by God, he could have just put created the sun and put the carbon on earth from scratch, in any universe. Yet you will find them using the argument, because they do not try to make a coherent whole but just find the parts that support their view, kind of liking searching the Bible for a verse to prop up their position.
Another inconsistency is when creationists, especially YECs, fall back on fine tuning arguments. A fine tuning argument (or the anthropic principle), says that if the physical constants of the universe were even slightly different, there would be no life. If we were to change the strength of gravity, or of the strong or weak nuclear forces, etc., then life could not exist, so the universe must be designed. I actually don't have any problem with fine tuning arguments, even if I find them less than convincing as an argument for God. Acceptance of a fine tuning argument doesn't necessarily involve the rejection of any of modern science, it simply involves saying there is a reason for the way things are. Accepting ID, on the other hand, involves actively rejecting most of biology.
Fine tuning arguments are inoffensive because they assume science has it all right. We know how the universe formed, how stars formed, how carbon and oxygen formed, how life formed--by natural processes. An example of a fine tuning argument is that if gravity were just a little stronger, the universe would collapse on itself or have too many black holes, and if it were weaker, no stars would have formed. If you change the strength of the nuclear forces the early universe would have been all helium instead of hydrogen and star formation and the formation of other elements wouldn't have formed.
In other words, in order for the fine tuning argument to work, you have to assume the big bang is true, stars evolve as astronomers tell us, the universe is billions of years old, the stuff of life formed in the interior of stars so the earth was seeded with simple carbon based molecules which then could form life by natural processes. That doesn't sound like something an evolution denier would support, especially a YEC. If it was all created by God, he could have just put created the sun and put the carbon on earth from scratch, in any universe. Yet you will find them using the argument, because they do not try to make a coherent whole but just find the parts that support their view, kind of liking searching the Bible for a verse to prop up their position.
A challenge
For the past three years, I have a standing challenge in all of my classes that involve evolution. I offer to give students an automatic A in the class if they can meet one of these, such as showing mathematically how evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, define kind consistently in a way that shows why there can be no change between kinds, or to explain various biogeographic observations. I think I will add another one to the page as soon as I have some time (after finals).
ID often claims science uses inferences to design all of the time. Popular examples are SETI or archeologists determining that an artifact is designed, or inferences in criminal investigation. What all of these have in common is that we know something about the designer, or make assumptions about the designer in the case of SETI. But ID claims we can infer a "rarefied" design without knowing anything about the designer. We can simply say that something is designed, even if we know nothing at all about the intentions or methods of the designer. My challenge is to find any example of someone doing that in any field, excluding arguments for divinity. If a student can find any example of a crime, archeologists, SETI researcher, etc. that was able to say that something was designed without any suppositions at all about the nature of designer, my students will get an A in the class. As with all of my other challenges, I know it won't be met.
Of course, ID really does make assumptions about their designer. They believe it is God, and God is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, etc. But they aren't allowed to say that and admit it is religion, so they try to pretend design can be independent of the designer. Prove it.
ID often claims science uses inferences to design all of the time. Popular examples are SETI or archeologists determining that an artifact is designed, or inferences in criminal investigation. What all of these have in common is that we know something about the designer, or make assumptions about the designer in the case of SETI. But ID claims we can infer a "rarefied" design without knowing anything about the designer. We can simply say that something is designed, even if we know nothing at all about the intentions or methods of the designer. My challenge is to find any example of someone doing that in any field, excluding arguments for divinity. If a student can find any example of a crime, archeologists, SETI researcher, etc. that was able to say that something was designed without any suppositions at all about the nature of designer, my students will get an A in the class. As with all of my other challenges, I know it won't be met.
Of course, ID really does make assumptions about their designer. They believe it is God, and God is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, etc. But they aren't allowed to say that and admit it is religion, so they try to pretend design can be independent of the designer. Prove it.
Friday, April 11, 2008
When being right proves you are wrong
Evolution deniers seize on all possible arguments against evolution, even if they are mutually exclusive or contradict their own views, demonstrating their lack of understanding of the scientific process.
One place we see this is attacking the peppered moth as an example of evolution. It was a centerpiece of Jonathan Wells’ Icons of evolution, and many others have attacked it as well. The specific charges have been well answered elsewhere. But what is fascinating is the complete irrelevance of the attack. I have yet to hear of an evolution denier that denies “microevolution”. Every one of them admits it happens. They have to because the evidence is so strong. They depend on it as a refuge, so that they can dismiss many great examples of evolution as “just microevolution.” YECs depend on microevolution to diversify a few surviving “kinds” of the ark into the diversity we see today. Jonathan Wells believes in microevolution. The peppered moths are an example of microevolution. So what exactly is the point of attacking it, as if it is an attack on evolution?
Let’s just say that every single charge Wells levels against the peppered moths is correct. What would be the significance? Nothing at all, to evolutionists or creationists. There are well over 2,000 documented examples of selection in nature, and if we found out one of them was wrong, it would have no effect on the overall evidence. It wouldn’t be the first observation not to hold up. And if Wells proved the peppered moth was wrong, he and all creationists would still believe in microevolution, and still use it as a refuge. Since they concede the point, why are they arguing over it?
Of course, scientists are the ones who first pointed out a few problems with the original peppered moth experiments—controls that could have been done, problems with some catch and release experiments, etc. That’s what scientists do, they criticize and demand high standards of evidence. If that is all Wells was doing, it would be no problem, although he is a few decades late. None of the scientific critics of the work thought their criticism discredited the case for evolution, however. By some strange logic, creationists do.
The logic seems to be that if scientists are wrong about anything, then somehow that proves the whole enterprise is wrong. Even if scientists are wrong about something that creationists admit we are right about, it still proves it is wrong (read it a few times, it makes sense). Their approach to science is to flail about and attack blindly everywhere and if anything sticks in any way, they believe they have made a point against the theory. They have no comprehension of working within a theoretical framework, of the accumulation of evidence, of consistency of results. They don’t understand that experiments are wrong all the time, and that is a strength of science (after all, these are the same people that think that since the Bible hasn’t changed in thousands of years, that is a strength). They have the amazing ability to think disproving their own belief in microevolution is a victory. The easiest way to respond to an attack on the peppered moth or similar experiments is to say “so what?” and wait for them to fall back on microevolution.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Apollo and me
I watched the documentary In the Shadow of the Moon recently and was reminded how much I loved Apollo. The movie is about the Apollo program, told from the point of view of the astronauts. I was about to enter first grade when the first man landed on the moon. Although my memories are weak, I can remember watching on TV, seeing a splashdown in school, and the general excitement.
It was the space program that got me interested in science. In third grade, just about the time the Apollo program was ending, I read a book about Allan Shepard, the first American in space. I loved it. I read all I could on space travel, and then on Astronomy, and then on physics, chemistry, and eventually biology. I made and flew model rockets, a hobby that I continued again when my own kids were young. I have a detailed model of the Saturn V rocket, a gift from my love. It's in my office now. Every time I saw that majestic rocket in the movie, I was overcome with a thrill.
It struck me again how amazing it is that we actually walked on the moon. It captures the imagination. What the movie brought home is also that this was an international event. Yes, we went to the moon out of cold war competition. But the accomplishment was one for all of humanity. The whole world watched, and it was a giant step for mankind, not for America. It was a proud time to be an American. I am struck by how much more we could have achieved if the world really was one, and not divided.
I don't think anyone at the time imagined in 1972 that we would not even leave low earth orbit again in the next 35 years. I was sure this was the first step, not the high point. I understand that sending humans into space is costly and risky. I usually support the sending of robotic probes instead. However, there is something to be said for the pure awe and majesty of human beings being on another world. It's a vision that tied the world together for a moment, and that inspired a love of science in at least one child.
It was the space program that got me interested in science. In third grade, just about the time the Apollo program was ending, I read a book about Allan Shepard, the first American in space. I loved it. I read all I could on space travel, and then on Astronomy, and then on physics, chemistry, and eventually biology. I made and flew model rockets, a hobby that I continued again when my own kids were young. I have a detailed model of the Saturn V rocket, a gift from my love. It's in my office now. Every time I saw that majestic rocket in the movie, I was overcome with a thrill.
It struck me again how amazing it is that we actually walked on the moon. It captures the imagination. What the movie brought home is also that this was an international event. Yes, we went to the moon out of cold war competition. But the accomplishment was one for all of humanity. The whole world watched, and it was a giant step for mankind, not for America. It was a proud time to be an American. I am struck by how much more we could have achieved if the world really was one, and not divided.
I don't think anyone at the time imagined in 1972 that we would not even leave low earth orbit again in the next 35 years. I was sure this was the first step, not the high point. I understand that sending humans into space is costly and risky. I usually support the sending of robotic probes instead. However, there is something to be said for the pure awe and majesty of human beings being on another world. It's a vision that tied the world together for a moment, and that inspired a love of science in at least one child.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Drinking water and teaching science
Someone caught me at lunch yesterday and said I'm the one she wanted to talk to. She had heard a study or report about drinking water and wondered what I thought. I told her I hadn't heard anything recently, but that I knew the standard recommendation, 8 glasses of water a day, was not based on careful science. It was a back of the envelope rough calculation from several decades ago. It was for total water, including water content of food, so the actual number of glasses required was smaller. The basic rule is drink when you are thirsty.
She said the amount of water being less important but that water itself was important. She was clearly indignant that they should suggest drinking water isn't as much as it was cracked up to be. I noticed she had three glasses of water on her tray. Then she made the kind of statement I frequently hear but cannot quite understand. She asserted "I disagree with it". The way she stated it was clear that she just didn't like it emotionally. She felt water was good and was offended that they were suggesting we didn't need quite as much. She had no reasons. She hadn't looked at the data. She wasn't aware of a weakness in the study. She didn't seem to have any interest in weighing the evidence to find out if maybe she was wrong. She just disagreed. I think it was almost a moral disagreement.
I don't know why people would have an emotional attachment to drinking a lot of water. I suppose it makes them feel they are cleaning their system. Of course, they can drink all they want. When the science supported her preference, she was happy, but she was indignant that maybe it was wrong. To me, it makes more sense just to see what the evidence suggests, and adjust accordingly. The same view is often expressed by students and others. "I disagree" with this result or that, because it doesn't feel right emotionally, without even thinking they need to look at the actual study. It happened in class this week when we discussed the role of genes and evolution in human behavior. Many confidently asserted their view on what affects our behavior without feeling the need to weigh evidence or look at the studies that have been done. I tried to point out that although studies with humans are difficult, it is possible to test these views, not just assert them.
I remember as I progressed in my scientific training I found myself more and more likely to question when people would make such an assertion. I would ask what evidence they had. This doesn't make you too popular, and I try not to do it too much in casual conversation, but it is a habit of mind in science. It's a habit that should be more common. More than any actual knowledge, it is habits of mind like these that is most important in a science education.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
