Forward.com

In a recent survey, 78% of evolutionary scientists declared themselves physicalists. You don't have to be a creationist to be nervous about the possibility of scientific materialism becoming the implicit worldview communicated in the science classroom. We may, without being creationists, find common cause with them in rolling back science's denial of a humanist conscious self ready to take responsibility for its choices. It is possible for those of a scientific persuasion to find faults in Darwinism, as I do in my book "Save Our Selves from Science Gone Wrong." Humanists and creationists may need to hold noses while collaborating to bring science to its senses.

There is no such thing as "Big Science". There is no controversy surrounding evolution except that manufactured by the comically named Discovery Institute, which is almost single-handedly pushing the failed theory of intelligent design on to the world stage for purely religious reasons. A quick search of the internet will reveal to anyone interested the dishonesty of the filmmakers and the bankruptcy of their claims against science.

I hear Mr, Stein's next movie will be about how universities push the dogma that the earth is round, the earth revolves around the sun, and 2+2=4.

Ben, Ben! Say it isn't so! Scientists are free to believe in God (why not?); they are not free to be taken seriously if they choose to claim that God's creation of the universe-- by definition, an act that transcends the laws of science-- is something that can be explored scientifically. Creationism is simply religion, and it does not belong in a science text any more than Newtonian mechanics belongs in a Shabbos prayer book.

Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller...

It is sad when a man of such intelligence proclaims that we must believe in mumbo jumbo because, at the present, every I isn't dotted and every t isn't crossed. Why these people think that evolution somehow negates religion and a belief in G-D is beyond me. I believe evolution simply illustrates G-D's wisdom.

This has to be one of the worst news stories I've read in years. You completely fail to give the reader any idea as to what Mr. Stein's argument in favor of intelligent design is. Although I doubt that there a valid or even marginally plausible argument in favor of the concept, I presume that the film makes some argument and it would have been useful to have had it presented, if for no other reason than to assess whether seeing the film is worth the time.

1. The synopsis trades, does it not, on the notion that 'marginalizing' a scientist is bad. Scientists who want to research hollow-earth theory, alien abductions, and whether Hitler really killed millions of Jews are kept at the margins of academic institutions for good reason. I can bring down any scientific discussion of, say, the Earth's origins by insisting loudly that every Zoroastrian, Hindu, Christian text be considered in great detail. No real science would be accomplished. To allow every idea to get 'fair' consideration is to end scientific progress - at some point science makes a judgement as to what a more likely fruitful line of inquiry will be. By the way, it is the same among the theologians - they too rightly marginalize weakly supported assertions. No, this is not science - it is politics.

2. I hope these 'facts' will be debated in Ben Stein's series: Thomas Jefferson produced a Bible with all miraculous assertions deleted, commenting that he felt belief in the supernatural not worthy of Americans. Also, Ben Franklin's copy of the Declaration in on view in Philadelphia, showing his crossing out of references to God. I also hope to see a discussion of how relevant it should be for us to retain every dogma and bit of ignorance the Founders had. Some of them were scientists (Frnaklin) who expected beliefs to change as a result of further observation - including the belief in God, insofar as its proponents insist on asserting it as a scientific proposition.

1. The synopsis trades, does it not, on the notion that 'marginalizing' a scientist is bad. Scientists who want to research hollow-earth theory, alien abductions, and whether Hitler really killed millions of Jews are kept at the margins of academic institutions for good reason. I can bring down any scientific discussion of, say, the Earth's origins by insisting loudly that every Zoroastrian, Hindu, Christian text be considered in great detail. No real science would be accomplished. To allow every idea to get 'fair' consideration is to end scientific progress - at some point science makes a judgement as to what a more likely fruitful line of inquiry will be. By the way, it is the same among the theologians - they too rightly marginalize weakly supported assertions. No, this is not science - it is politics.

2. I hope these 'facts' will be debated in Ben Stein's series: Thomas Jefferson produced a Bible with all miraculous assertions deleted, commenting that he felt belief in the supernatural not worthy of Americans. Also, Ben Franklin's copy of the Declaration in on view in Philadelphia, showing his crossing out of references to God. I also hope to see a discussion of how relevant it should be for us to retain every dogma and bit of ignorance the Founders had. Some of them were scientists (Frnaklin) who expected beliefs to change as a result of further observation - including the belief in God, insofar as its proponents insist on asserting it as a scientific proposition.

Here we go again. It must be that superstition is built into the human genetic code. Why so many of us bask in that silly sea continues to be beyond me. But I can understand why those who feed at the trough of religious swill are constantly in fear of their food supply being cut off by science. So we will continue to have mini-Inquisitions by those who insist that there is a god on their side.

Three cheers for Ben!! Why shouldn't intelligent design be taught as an alternative view.

Intelligent Design is NOT a theory - has no data and noeveidence

The fact that science cannot go back and back to find antecedent causes does not mean that there is a "designer." It only means that we just look harder - we always find another step back if we look hard enough.

The problem with "ID" as presented by its proponents also is that is a veiled form of Creation as theorized by Fundamentalist.

Even St. Augustin of Hippo didn't believe in literal interpretation of Genesis.

Evolutionar theory will change as time goes on, as did Classical Physics evolved intoQuantum Physics.

Ben Stein is a complete idiot and knows nothing about astronomy, geology and paleontology. He chooses to ignore human knowledge and align himself with Christian fundamentalists. He might as well just become Messianic, after all, these people are not Jews at all.

If there is no problem with Darwinism, or now "Anti-informationism," then the statements below are psuedoscience. But they are not:

Peer-reviewed and accepted July 2006 Physics of Life Reviews

"Self-organization vs. Self-ordering Events in Life-origin Models"

by David Abel and Jack Trevors

Self-ordering phenomena should not be confused with self-organization. Self-ordering events occur spontaneously according to natural "law" propensities and are purely physicodynamic. Crystallization and the spontaneously forming dissipative structures of Prigogine are examples of self-ordering. Self-ordering phenomena involve no decision nodes, no dynamically-inert configurable switches, no logic gates, no steering toward algorithmic success or "computational halting".

Hypercycles, genetic and evolutionary algorithms, neural nets, and cellular automata have not been shown to self-organize spontaneously into nontrivial functions. Laws and fractals are both compression algorithms containing minimal complexity and information. Organization typically contains large quantities of prescriptive information. Prescriptive information either instructs or directly produces nontrivial optimized algorithmic function at its destination. Prescription requires choice contingency rather than chance contingency or necessity. Organization requires prescription, and is abstract, conceptual, formal, and algorithmic. Organization utilizes a sign/symbol/token system to represent many configurable switch settings. Physical switch settings allow instantiation of nonphysical selections for function into physicality. Switch settings represent choices at successive decision nodes that integrate circuits and instantiate cooperative management into conceptual physical systems. Switch positions must be freely selectable to function as logic gates. Switches must be set according to rules, not laws. Inanimacy cannot "organize" itself. Inanimacy can only self-order. "Self-organization" is without empirical and prediction-fulfilling support. No falsifiable theory of self-organization exists. "Self-organization" provides no mechanism and offers no detailed verifiable explanatory power. Care should be taken not to use the term "self-organization" erroneously to refer to low-informational, natural-process, self-ordering events, especially when discussing genetic information.

Mr. Goldstein might want to check out a new book, Founding Faith which was written by the man who started BeliefNet and was recently interviewed on NPR. According to him, Jefferson was a believer in what we would call today "intelligent design." I agree that we don't really know, from this article, what this documentary is really about although, judging from the producer, we might be able to make an intelligent guess (just kidding) A case could be made that although there is not a "Big Science" there is definitely a poor method of teaching science to the teachers of our students and this poor(if not duplicitious) teaching methods is covered in the book, Moths and Men.

There are certainly poor methods of teaching science, and the worst (and most duplicitous) would be the one where religion, aka IDC, is taught as science.

RE: “Expelled! No Intelligence allowed!”

Good for Ben Stein! How far we stretch to try and eliminate The Creator, so individuals do not have to obey higher laws, and can be their own “gods.” One exception to the article. America was founded as a REPUBLIC based on the Idea that MEN are FREE and obligated to recognize the principles of The Creator.

The Hebrew people who followed Joshuah, founded Israel much the same as America – Divinely Ordained. Each man, was admonished to KNOW the Creator's ideals, character and concepts of Justice. - And TO LIVE ACCORDINGLY. ISRAEL had JUST judges. Yet they DEMANDED A KING, to do all for them. 3 GENERATIONS later Israel was divided and fell because men failed in their own watchful, dutiful, self determination responsibilities. Through Samuel, Father warned what would happen. Through the cautions of the American Founding fathers, the U S was warned. We should have listened more seriously.

American Secular Humanism, elitism without ethics, and a passive public - have little in common today with the vision of the Founding Fathers. So they embrace "political correctness" as being above Justice, Reason, and Righteousness. Ari Yosef

Evolution (was) and (is) A SCIENTIFIC FACT!!!!! Get over it, BEN!!! (Whether) there is a (so-called) "Man-centered" "Micro-managering" (of Human events) "GOD" (OR NOT, as I THINK!!!!!), Evolution is TOTALLY CORRECT, because the Scientific Evidence is UTTERALLY OVER WHELMING----OVER WHELMING!!!!!!! And, BEN, you may be an Economist, and an actor, and a comedian: BUT, you are NO BIOLOGIST (SCIENTIST), you see. Let the EXPERTS (in this area prevail)!!!! AND: (VIRTUALLY) ALL OF THEM, except for some fundamentalist--Christians (who may indeed be Scientists, as well), say that the EVIDENCE [FOR] DARWINIAN EVOLUTUION IS SOUND!!!!! INDEED, EXTREMELY SOUND---as SOUND as ATOMIC THEORY IS!!! And, BEN: Even YOU wouldn't be as so ignorant to think that "Atoms don't exist"---which (OFCOURSE) they do!!!! EVOLUTION is (ALSO) as SOUND as RELATIVITY (first proposed by Albert Einstein, a GREAT PHYSICIST (SCIENTIST), as well as a Jewish man, (ALTHOUGH A TOTALLY NON-believing Jewish man, TOO)!!! SO: yoummay be a HORRIBBLE Right-Wing Fundamentalist (Jewish) Republican, but you MUST, (I SAY, YOU MUST), as a THINKER (at least) agree that EVOLUTION is a SCIENTIFIC FACT!!!! I'm sorry, sir, but it's TRUE---EVOLUTION IS CORRECT; and we HUMANS did EVOLVE from "a COMMON ANCESTER to the great apes", (whether it "bothers you or not")!!! I Bill Wise, am a TOTALLY NON-believing Jewish man, being a rational-atheist myself!!!!----as well as a Liberal-progressive-Democrat!!! And: most imortantly: I'm an amateur astronomer, and an avid PRO NASA Space program Enthusuast, too!!!! SO: I KNOW SCIENCE!!!!!! You may "DEBATE POLITICS": BUT, With EVOLUTION, "there is NO DEBATE"!!!!! You can even "DEBATE GOD VERSUS "NO GOD" with me, but (still) EVOLUTION IS UNDEBATEABLE---because the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE (since 1859) is UNsurmountable, UNsurmountable!!!!! Sincerely, Mr. William Wise.

William Wise, why did you repeat the same comments 21 times?

Ben Stein...Bad for the Jews...

Say you wanted to build a house, but you distrusted the members of the "house-building academy", so you decided to examine some houses to see how they were built. At House #1, the owners allowed you in and let you examine the foundation, let you open up the walls to see the structure of the walls and how the electrical and water systems are arranged. You may not have all the information you need to build a house, but you'd have a pretty good idea. At House #2, the owners tell you "This house was built by someone whose knowledge and abilities are so far beyond yours, that you could never understand how it was built. Just admire its magnificence."

You can learn something at House #1 - you can't learn anything at House #2. House #1 has a place in a house-building course - House #2 doesn't.

The Myth of Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

As Jews, our belief in G-d would not change regardless of whether evolution is true or false. Atheists and the secular left however, need evolution to be true because they think evolution disproves the existence of G-d. As Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins said, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” That is why the left panics whenever someone mentions the vast accumulating evidence against evolution. After 150 years of looking, and with no proof of evolution being found, the only reason this idea is being held on to is because it has become the religion of the left, believed with blind faith, against a staggering amount of evidence that disproves it. Every so-called discovery “proving” Darwinism has turned out to be a hoax. Philosopher and mathematician David Berlinski was correct when he said, “Darwinism is the last of the great 19th century mystery religions.” The reason that after 150 years it is still called a theory is because the evidence does not support it and it has not been able to explain the history of life. If it had proved to be true it would be called the law of evolution. In addition, with the advancements in molecular biology and an extensive fossil record, we are able to study the potential for random evolution like never before. We must be honest and get beyond the cognitive dissonance between claim and fact.

Most people, due to their ignorance, think Darwin’s theory is a fact. Since there is so much misinformation about Darwinian evolution let’s be clear about what the theory says. Darwin’s theory of evolution states that life began with single-celled life forms which evolved into multi-celled life forms which eventually evolved into higher life forms and finally into man. Evolutionary theory states that changes in morphology are induced purely by chance and that evolution is not directed in any way regardless of the challenges presented by the environment. Random mutations occur and favorable mutations are preserved by natural selection. Pink daisies evolving into blue daisies or small dogs evolving into big dogs are impressive. However, the daisies remained daisies and the dogs remained dogs. This is called, micro-evolution, and of course this occurs in nature. However, there is not even one example of one phylum (body type) or class of animal evolving into another. That process is called macro-evolution and that is precisely what Darwin’s theory tries to explain. The problem with Darwin’s theory was that he based it on animal husbandry rather then the fossil evidence.

The first piece of fossil evidence relates to the fact that life, single celled organisms, appear in the fossil record 3.3 billion years ago, a mere 500 million years after water appears 3.8 billion years ago. 530 million years ago the Cambrian explosion of animal life occurred. About 50 phyla (basic body plans) suddenly appeared in the fossil record. Only about 34 survived and the rest became extinct. Since then no new phyla have evolved. Darwin’s theory also holds that nature does not make jumps. Abrupt morphological changes do not occur according to Darwin. The Cambrian era‘s sudden appearance of all the phyla known today appeared with fully developed limbs, claws, eyes with optically perfect lenses, and wings. These exploded onto the scene with no underlying hint in the fossil record that they were coming. Directly beneath these fossils are older fossils of one-celled bacteria, protozoans, and algae. The appearance of wings is a classic example. There is no hint in the fossil record that wings are about to come into existence. And they do, fully formed. These findings have been shown to be true in fossils all around the earth. Random processes could not have suddenly formed such complex structures. Something else is at work. Some other process produced these unexpected sudden developments. It was not Darwinian evolution. It is not surprising that Darwin himself, in the Origin of Species, pleaded many times with the reader to ignore the fossil record if his theory is to be believed, and today we have even more fossil evidence. The fossil record did not then nor does it now support this theory. In fact the sudden appearance of new species in the fossil record is so common that the scientific journal Science featured an article, “Did Darwin get it right?” And they answered that question no.

Advances in molecular biology have also given us the ability to statistically analyze the mammalian genome and calculate the probability of possible protein combinations required to form life coming together solely by chance. That probability number has 405 zeros behind it and that is with using assumptions we know to be false about protein combinations but assumptions that make the calculations favor random evolution. To make matters worse this trick needs to be repeated a billion times. Probability calculations show that random evolution is a statistically impossible explanation of the history of life. The statistical impossibility of randomness producing order is not different from the attempt to produce a meaningful string of letters more than a few words long by a random letter generator. This is because the number of meaningless letter combinations greatly exceeds the number of meaningful combinations. The same is true with life.

We also have the ability to measure statistical similarities of genes between animals. The gene that controls the development of the eye is the same not only in all mammals, but is shockingly similar to the gene that controls the development of the eye in mollusks and worms. Somehow the same gene was selected in all visual systems in animals. The similarity of these genes is so great that it could not have occurred randomly. To continue to advocate that random events led to the independent evolution of structures so similar in different phyla (convergent evolution) is dishonest. These discoveries prompted the scientific journal Science to report: "The hypothesis that the eye of the cephalopod [mollusk] has evolved by convergence with vertebrate [human] eye is challenged by our recent findings of the Pax-6 [gene] ... The concept that the eyes of invertebrates have evolved completely independently from the vertebrate eye has to be reexamined."

In 1909, Charles D. Walcott discovered this explosion of life in the Cambrian era. He collected about 70,000 fossils from the Burgess Shale in Canada. These fossils were representative of all the phylum that exists today. Remember, no new phyla ever evolved after the Cambrian explosion (which is an interesting topic in itself). Walcott, being an adherent of Darwinian evolution, could not believe that such a burst of complex life forms could have appeared simultaneously. He unfortunately decided not to report his findings. He allowed ideology to take precedence over the evidence. A typical liberal trait. In 1985 these fossils were found in drawers at the Smithsonian Institute. Imagine how different our perception of evolution might be today if he had not buried the evidence.

We are doing our children a disservice by still teaching Darwin’s theory as a viable explanation for the evolution of life. It should be taught as one of the theories that was believed in the past, like the earth is flat, but was later shown not to be true. All the evidence points to some intelligent design to life as being far more likely than random evolution which turns out to be a statistical impossibility. Isn’t it ironic that it turns out that you need more blind faith to believe in evolution than intelligent design? And they say religious people are irrational. We owe it to our children to be honest about the scientific evidence. It speaks for itself. Dr. Francis Collins (who was an atheist) headed the team of scientists who worked on the Human Genome Project. After he completed his work he said, “The choice to believe (in G-d) is actually the most rational conclusion when you look at the scientific evidence.” We should follow his lead. Our children deserve the truth.

simply put - the level of ignorance by the "educated" in this country is beyond comprehension

Why is the Forward interested in Ben Stein or his movie? Is it because he looks Jewish or has Jewish ancestors and a name that could be Jewish? So far as I can tell, Mr. Stein is a Christian public figure who has no reputation for Antisemitism and whose issue is not likely to have particularly profound effects on either this country or the Jews. So why pay attention at all?

Evolution? A primitive fossilized theory of the 19th century still in vogue among the anti-religion and/or anti-Intelligent design adherents. Dr. Israel has illuminated the glaring gaps in Evolution 'theology.' Indeed, to accept this ridiculous theory as the Be-All and End-All of Creation is a sign of severe intellectual necrosis.

I think it should be pretty clear that there is nothing in ID to teach. All ID advocates do is distort science in regards to theory of evolution (and various other things that are incompatible with creationism.)

I recently was privileged to hold my new-born grandchild for the first time. As I looked down at this little girl with eyes that blinked at me and a faint trace of a smile, I could not help but think that only 9 months ago, she was no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence. Yet, in this brief period of time, with no help from her mother except nourishment, she has acquired a brain more complicated than any computer; eyes that can adjust their focus from inches to infinity and a heart that started beating shortly after conception and is able to continue beating for a hundred years or more without interuption. I am told by learned men this is a result of evolution; that this incredibly complex body came about purely by chance. We are asked to prove evidence of intelliget design. I think I held it in my arms not long ago. An old saying,"There are none so blind as those who do not want to see:

I continue to be absolutely amazed by individuals who stand dogmatically on the theory of evolution as proven science! It is not...it is merely a theory. Creationism is another theory. Why can they not each be explored? What I always see in these discussions is those who prefer not to believe there could be a God attacking condemning as total idiots anyone who does not buy wholeheartedly into the theory of evolution.

Scientific method apparently has no place. There is no hypothesis which is tested. There is merely a previously determined answer to the question. anything seeming to disprove it is thrown out without examination, and anything which seems to prove the desired outcome is embellished. There are facts, though not enough to be conclusive, to support each theory.

A scientist, by definition, should be objective when testing his/her hypothesis. There is no attempt at objectivity on the part of many individuals. Darwin's theory is touted to the exclusion of the creationism simply because of some people's apparent fear of religion and denial that there could be a Creator. That is NOT science, but a total denial of science; it is ignorance in its highest, or should I say lowest, form.

I choose to believe in creationism for a variety of reasons, many of which are scientific. I believe it is important to understand that both darwinism and creationism are theories, and equally important to continue exploring each. That is what is necessary to arrive at the truth, which should always be the goal of science.

Darwin wrote "The Origin of Species" in 1859. Since then, the major findings in the fossil record and biological science have run counter to the theory. The fossil record - which in Darwin's day was sparse - is quite developed today (to the point where discoveries of new species are becoming rarer and rarer and the fossil record now shows that species appear suddenly, live for millions of years with virtually no change, and then either disappear suddenly or continue virtually unchanged to today. 999,999 of every million genetic mutations are known to be deleterious or neutral. Since 1859, we have discovered the inner workings of the cell - with irreducible complexity of incredible sophistication - and DNA, a code of incredible sophistication. Random? Designless?

Two-step genetic mutations have never been accomplished. The degree of genetic mutation necessary for speciation has not been performed by scientists - even when forced (which by the way, would constitute "intelligent design"). If there is dogma, it is on behalf of the antiquated 1859 theory.

It is also important to honestly consider the implications of such a theory. These include 1) humans are no more significant than worms, 2) there is no higher order or purpose - it is all just random chance, and 3) there cannot be true "choseness" or "Torah" since it would be man-made or random.

Fortunately, science (and not the science taught in popular American Universities and media) disproves Darwinian macroevolution.

A 'fact' is simply a theory that hasn't yet been disproven. Thus, gravity itself is merely a theory. I therefore suggest that those who denigrate evolution as a mere theory walk off a cliff as a test of the theory of gravity.