Intelligent Design @ MindSay 
evolution
The Eye Of A Tokay Gecko
This is the winning photo in Wired’s macro photo competition: the eye of a Tokay gecko.
This picture just gets me all warm and fuzzy about the wonders of evolution. Isn’t it amazing what time plus chance will do?
For the other amazing photos in the competition, go here:
Ben Stein To "Expel" Science To the Dark Ages With New Film
Ben Stein isn't a scientist, but he plays one on TV, and now, apparently, on the big screen. In his new film "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," Stein will attempt to ascertain why Intelligent Design isn't being fast-tracked into the educational system despite the overwhelming disapproval of the scientific community. He blames "big science" for keeping "intelligent new ideas" out and their own dogma in.
I haven't seen the film, but from the previews and what I've seen with the older arguments for creationism-in-disguise, I'm guessing it's going to be the same old predictable rhetoric from religious people trying to hide the fact that they're religious. We're going to see creationists playing the victim card, saying that they're being "persecuted" for their beliefs because their theory, one that is backed not by facts but solely on criticism of the opposing theory, is not given equal time. Stein is even making the claim that not teaching ID in the science classroom is violating the first amendment. Really, Ben? Does "big science" have secret police roaming the halls of universities, ready to snatch science students that profess a faith in God from their dorm rooms and send them to secret prison camps? The fact that real scientists are putting up a fight against this ID nonsense and exposing it for what it really is is not a violation of the first amendment. Science is not a democracy. The truth is not what we want to say it is because it makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside. We don't get together and vote whether 3 and 3 should equal 7 because 6 is an "ongodly" number, and even if we did, 6 would still be the answer. Evolution and creation are not a battle of world-views; one is backed by facts, the other is backed by emotion.
Did Stein forget that the judge presiding over the Dover trial was not a raving atheist, but a creationist himself, hand-picked by President Bush? If Intelligent Design had any better time to prove it's legitimacy, the Supreme Court was it, but they failed. They failed even though they had the decked stacked in their favor. So how could a judge that personally sided with ID advocates decide against ID if it were really founded on good science and "smart ideas"? Could it be the facts backing evolution were so compelling, and the argument for ID so weak that even the judge set aside his personal feelings and ruled that ID is not science and should not be taught as such? It's not like ID wasn't trying. The proponents interviewed at the trial included none other than the ultimate poster-child of ID himself: Michael Behe. Unfortunately for him, all of his objections to evolution (including the "irreducible complexity" argument of the bacterial flagellum) were addressed and answered. ID put up the best fight it could possibly give and lost, miserably, to real science.
What concerns me is that a lot of people actually think Ben Stein is a scientist. I'm not going to attack the man's background, there's no need, but I think his personal bias towards creationism and the fact that the only scientific background he has is playing a science teacher on Ferris Beueler's Day Off should definitely be considered a factor on whether or not he speaks with authority. So what needs to be done?
I think we should fight fire with fire. We need an "Expelled" style rebuttal documentary. Stein may be right in one area: scientists too often sit in their easy-chairs and mock other theories with the assumption that everybody has had a thorough education on the subject. It is an unfortunate fact that many people who believe evolution do, in fact, take it on "faith." They haven't done the research, but just believe it because mainstream science does. "Big science" simply hasn't done it's job educating the public. While Intelligent Design advocates are out popularizing their bogus claims, science is just letting it happen, thinking that dignifying these theories with a response will only give it more attention.
The problem is there's a difference between astrology, phrenology, water dowsing, and creationism: well-funded religious groups aren't trying to get water dowsing and astrology into the science curriculum. People need to know just how compelling the evidence was that made the creationist Dover trial judge rule against teaching creationism in the science classroom. People need to know that ID is not a benign, secular Deist theory, but that it's arguments are lifted directly from creationist textbooks. They need to know that the book Of Pandas and People started out as a creationist book, but the editors just replaced the words "creator" with "designer" and "creationism" with "intelligent design." They need to understand WHY scientists reject the idea that ID is science. They need to understand what the word "theory" means in a scientific setting. They need to understand why science HAS to be independent from the supernatural, that it is neutral when it comes to the existence of God. They need to know that there are millions of people, ranging from top biologists to the Pope, that believe in God and evolution, and that's just fine.
Obscure PBS documentaries and YouTube videos aren't enough to get the message out. Only a major motion picture will be enough to do the job. It has to be just as gritty and entertaining as Expelled at least, but preferably more so. Will it draw controversy? Absolutely. But, it WILL make a difference. Rocking the boat is what needs to be done. The evidence for evolution can no longer be locked away in some university or museum. It needs to be shown, promoted, and it needs to piss people off.
I haven't seen the film, but from the previews and what I've seen with the older arguments for creationism-in-disguise, I'm guessing it's going to be the same old predictable rhetoric from religious people trying to hide the fact that they're religious. We're going to see creationists playing the victim card, saying that they're being "persecuted" for their beliefs because their theory, one that is backed not by facts but solely on criticism of the opposing theory, is not given equal time. Stein is even making the claim that not teaching ID in the science classroom is violating the first amendment. Really, Ben? Does "big science" have secret police roaming the halls of universities, ready to snatch science students that profess a faith in God from their dorm rooms and send them to secret prison camps? The fact that real scientists are putting up a fight against this ID nonsense and exposing it for what it really is is not a violation of the first amendment. Science is not a democracy. The truth is not what we want to say it is because it makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside. We don't get together and vote whether 3 and 3 should equal 7 because 6 is an "ongodly" number, and even if we did, 6 would still be the answer. Evolution and creation are not a battle of world-views; one is backed by facts, the other is backed by emotion.
Did Stein forget that the judge presiding over the Dover trial was not a raving atheist, but a creationist himself, hand-picked by President Bush? If Intelligent Design had any better time to prove it's legitimacy, the Supreme Court was it, but they failed. They failed even though they had the decked stacked in their favor. So how could a judge that personally sided with ID advocates decide against ID if it were really founded on good science and "smart ideas"? Could it be the facts backing evolution were so compelling, and the argument for ID so weak that even the judge set aside his personal feelings and ruled that ID is not science and should not be taught as such? It's not like ID wasn't trying. The proponents interviewed at the trial included none other than the ultimate poster-child of ID himself: Michael Behe. Unfortunately for him, all of his objections to evolution (including the "irreducible complexity" argument of the bacterial flagellum) were addressed and answered. ID put up the best fight it could possibly give and lost, miserably, to real science.
What concerns me is that a lot of people actually think Ben Stein is a scientist. I'm not going to attack the man's background, there's no need, but I think his personal bias towards creationism and the fact that the only scientific background he has is playing a science teacher on Ferris Beueler's Day Off should definitely be considered a factor on whether or not he speaks with authority. So what needs to be done?
I think we should fight fire with fire. We need an "Expelled" style rebuttal documentary. Stein may be right in one area: scientists too often sit in their easy-chairs and mock other theories with the assumption that everybody has had a thorough education on the subject. It is an unfortunate fact that many people who believe evolution do, in fact, take it on "faith." They haven't done the research, but just believe it because mainstream science does. "Big science" simply hasn't done it's job educating the public. While Intelligent Design advocates are out popularizing their bogus claims, science is just letting it happen, thinking that dignifying these theories with a response will only give it more attention.
The problem is there's a difference between astrology, phrenology, water dowsing, and creationism: well-funded religious groups aren't trying to get water dowsing and astrology into the science curriculum. People need to know just how compelling the evidence was that made the creationist Dover trial judge rule against teaching creationism in the science classroom. People need to know that ID is not a benign, secular Deist theory, but that it's arguments are lifted directly from creationist textbooks. They need to know that the book Of Pandas and People started out as a creationist book, but the editors just replaced the words "creator" with "designer" and "creationism" with "intelligent design." They need to understand WHY scientists reject the idea that ID is science. They need to understand what the word "theory" means in a scientific setting. They need to understand why science HAS to be independent from the supernatural, that it is neutral when it comes to the existence of God. They need to know that there are millions of people, ranging from top biologists to the Pope, that believe in God and evolution, and that's just fine.
Obscure PBS documentaries and YouTube videos aren't enough to get the message out. Only a major motion picture will be enough to do the job. It has to be just as gritty and entertaining as Expelled at least, but preferably more so. Will it draw controversy? Absolutely. But, it WILL make a difference. Rocking the boat is what needs to be done. The evidence for evolution can no longer be locked away in some university or museum. It needs to be shown, promoted, and it needs to piss people off.
The Painting Argument Rebutted 
If I were to tell you that this painting suddenly appeared out of nowhere, you'd laugh at me, and you'd be right. It's a ridiculous notion. It's obvious that this painting had an artist, a designer if you will.
This painting and subsequent argument were used by creationists Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron on a live NBC debate about the existence of God. Debating Comfort and Cameron were two representatives from the Rational Response Squad. Many of the arguments along this line tend to degenerate into arguments about evolution vs. creation. The painting argument is often used to "debunk" evolution as well. The RRS responded with the fact that we can look up who painted the painting or who built the building, but we cannot visit God's "universe factory." I don't feel that was an effective rebuttal, because it only applies to living artists and builders, or those who have available records.
A better rebuttal would have been to point out the problem with the painting argument is that it presumes that there is no difference between living creatures and non-living, inanimate objects. A painting cannot reproduce, nor can words written on a beach, nor can a Boeing 747. Someone had to make these objects because they are non-living. Life behaves much differently than non-life. It contains DNA, a crucial element of biochemical evolution. It replicates this DNA to produce new life. Evolution is a theory of life, not one of inanimate objects. That is why the painting argument fails.
If I were to tell you that this painting suddenly appeared out of nowhere, you'd laugh at me, and you'd be right. It's a ridiculous notion. It's obvious that this painting had an artist, a designer if you will.
This painting and subsequent argument were used by creationists Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron on a live NBC debate about the existence of God. Debating Comfort and Cameron were two representatives from the Rational Response Squad. Many of the arguments along this line tend to degenerate into arguments about evolution vs. creation. The painting argument is often used to "debunk" evolution as well. The RRS responded with the fact that we can look up who painted the painting or who built the building, but we cannot visit God's "universe factory." I don't feel that was an effective rebuttal, because it only applies to living artists and builders, or those who have available records.
A better rebuttal would have been to point out the problem with the painting argument is that it presumes that there is no difference between living creatures and non-living, inanimate objects. A painting cannot reproduce, nor can words written on a beach, nor can a Boeing 747. Someone had to make these objects because they are non-living. Life behaves much differently than non-life. It contains DNA, a crucial element of biochemical evolution. It replicates this DNA to produce new life. Evolution is a theory of life, not one of inanimate objects. That is why the painting argument fails.
An Open Letter to God
Dear God,
I keep hearing about how wonderfully you designed us. We're so awesome. Look at how perfectly we can walk on two legs. Look at how well we can see with our complex eyes. Apparently it's really obvious a very smart creator like yourself designed us all. It's just too complex to have all come about by itself!
If that's true, then thanks, I appreciate it. It's really cool how you made us so we're not getting our hands dirty all the time by running around on all fours. Our backs sure would hurt, too! Also, thanks for the nose. Seriously, without the nose, how could we ever fit glasses on there?
As an engineer, I often wonder about your design considerations. To put it frankly God, the human body is just as much a mess as it is a wonder, so I just wanted to go over a few improvements on human design you could possibly implement and bring more praise to your great name (whatever it is).
B
I keep hearing about how wonderfully you designed us. We're so awesome. Look at how perfectly we can walk on two legs. Look at how well we can see with our complex eyes. Apparently it's really obvious a very smart creator like yourself designed us all. It's just too complex to have all come about by itself!
If that's true, then thanks, I appreciate it. It's really cool how you made us so we're not getting our hands dirty all the time by running around on all fours. Our backs sure would hurt, too! Also, thanks for the nose. Seriously, without the nose, how could we ever fit glasses on there?
As an engineer, I often wonder about your design considerations. To put it frankly God, the human body is just as much a mess as it is a wonder, so I just wanted to go over a few improvements on human design you could possibly implement and bring more praise to your great name (whatever it is).
- Get rid of the appendix. I don't know if you just happened to have 6,000,000,000 appendixes lying around when you created us and needed a place to put them or what, but seriously, they've got to go. They don't do any good at all, really. Plus, most of the time they get infected and explode. It took us thousands of years to figure out how to remove them ourselves, and will probably take several thousand more for us to figure out why you put them there in the first place.
- Lose the body hair. Sure, hair is awesome, on our heads. Anywhere else it's just kinda gross. It's just enough to make us look incredibly ugly, but not enough to keep us warm. Now I realize that you probably gave it to us knowing that the 70's would come around, but we're past that now, so you can go ahead and just take it back now. Thanks.
- Make it so we breathe and eat from separate tubes. Seriously, bad form sir. It's really easy to choke to death the way it is. How great of a design is it when you can kill someone by telling a joke while they're eating? You got the right idea with whales, so I think the glory of your creation, made in your own image deserves at least that bit of good design.
- Make it so we can see invisible things that kill us. Why the hell can we only see a tiny portion of the light spectrum? You do realize that UV rays can kill us right? It'd just be really helpful if we could see things like UV rays and Radon gas so we could just avoid them instead of having to guess or invent a biopsy.
- Give us gills. We can't live on over 75% of this wonderful planet you gave us. By giving us gills we can conquer the rest of the planet that was so obviously made for us to conquer. Plus, no one would ever drown again.
- Add wings. While we're conquering the sea, why not the air, too? There's no reason we shouldn't be able to fly. No more falling to our death off of cliffs. Plus, it'd be awesome and it'd make us really unique. We'd be the only creature that can live on land, sea, and fly.
- Bigger penises. A lot of us guys feel insecure about the size of their willies. One instant solution would be to give every man the same size (huge) penis. This would almost eliminate guys buying huge SUVs and trucks that ruin the planet. If everyone is the same size, there would be no need to feel insecure.
B
Too Darned Hot
Oh it is hot. I've been in hotter, so I *shouldn't* complain, so I won't -- I'll just say. And what I want to say is that a day like this proves that the Intelligent Design "theory" is a lot of hogwash. If the world was so perfectly designed, it wouldn't get this effing hot and humid! Where is your god now?
Just kidding, of course. Even god forgets sometimes... leaves the thermostat set too high. No harm done.
I even ran this morning, before all the temperatures rolled in. I have some trouble with one ankle, and have always thought that it was my achilles' tendon. Finally I've come to see that is not that at all, but some other muscles. Do you know the knobs on the sides of your ankle? Well, the muscles that bother me are the ones just below the inside knob. I started massaging them; I don't know what else to do.
I go out nearly every day to run for a half hour, but I can't do it. Not because of breath, but because of those ankle muscles. As soon as they start bothering me, I stop running and start walking. Today I was wishing that I could talk to somebody who really knew running to see if I'm doing something wrong.
Just kidding, of course. Even god forgets sometimes... leaves the thermostat set too high. No harm done.
I even ran this morning, before all the temperatures rolled in. I have some trouble with one ankle, and have always thought that it was my achilles' tendon. Finally I've come to see that is not that at all, but some other muscles. Do you know the knobs on the sides of your ankle? Well, the muscles that bother me are the ones just below the inside knob. I started massaging them; I don't know what else to do.
I go out nearly every day to run for a half hour, but I can't do it. Not because of breath, but because of those ankle muscles. As soon as they start bothering me, I stop running and start walking. Today I was wishing that I could talk to somebody who really knew running to see if I'm doing something wrong.
Showing 1 - 5. [ Next ]
Quick Links
Latest Comment
Re: FOR LAURALEW - HOW I MET GRANDPA DAVE - chuckling.. spitfire and full of life ^_^
| Terms of Service
| Privacy Policy