Expelled isn't about Intelligent Design?

Then what the heck is it about? Rob Crowthier of the Discovery Institute thinks he knows. I don't think he saw the same movie PZ Myers didn't see. (And no, that's not a typo.)

Comments

[Rich]

I think it would be wrong for me to take your time with so many questions outstanding. But here's a question, Kevin, and count it as one of the five if you'd like:

Do you stand by what you've done and written, or if you had your time again would you change
anything?

You've interview half the discovery institute, read a book with a Hitler - Darwin "Link" paid for by them and written by one of their fellows and now they're using your film as part of a campaign to get creationism into Florida.

Go and have a good read of the wedge document. They really mean it. They're financed by postmillenial reconstructionists, the "stone gays, adulterers and blasphemers in the public square" kind.

There's plenty of room in life for religion. Parents can teach their kids, if the concepts resonate with someone they are SO free to pursue it. 90% of Americans are religious. There is no 'persecution' here. But there may yet be. People want religious belief taught in schools as 'fact', Some want America recognized as a 'Christian nation' and see the 10 commandments intertwined with our laws.

Then there's ID as science, which your film doesn't touch at all - which is the real issue. And I think it was intentionally left alone for a very good reason...

[Kevin Miller]

Is that all you're good for these days, Rich, snide remarks? Where's my five questions?

[CDV]

Mr. Miller, you have totally destroyed the argument for using DNA evidence to solve crimes.

Crime scene DNA doesn't necessarily incriminate anyone- the common creator of all mankind could be still at work, creating evil identical clones that get innocent people in trouble by leaving identical DNA at crime scenes, or in disputed paternity issues.

Lots of people must wish right now that your blog is a scientific reference.

[Rich]

Don't sweat it Kevin. Yoko Ono would only have spent his money on atheism. And Hitler.

[Kevin Miller]

What does it matter, Boris? You don't pay to see movies anyway.

[Jeffery S]

Came across Expelled Exposed while doing my porn browsing. Thought it was for misbehaving girls that expose themselves. Total bummer

[Boris]

Kevin is it true that only 655 or so theaters will be showing Expelled next week? Down from 1,052?

[MachiavelliDiscourse]

"...including chromosome 2 which is the fusion of two chimp chromosomes..."

Correction: chromosome 2 is the fusion of two chromsomes in the lineage that led to humans. These chromosomes remained separate in all other great ape lineages and were separate in the common ancestor that we share with chimpanzees.

[MachiavelliDiscourse]

Kevin:
"Could that same information be used to argue for a common creator as opposed to a common ancestor?"

The common designer argument fails for several reasons. Firstly, it doesn't make any sense. All living things fall into nested hierarchies where they exhibit unique combinations of character traits - does this mean that every node in this nested hierarchy has a common designer?

Do the vertebrates have a common designer? And do the fishes, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and birds have separate sub-designers? And do the primates have another sub-designer? And was there another sub-designer for the humans and chimpanzees? Indeed, does every pair of sister species have a separate designer?

Or do we roll it all the way back and say there was just one common designer for all species? But if we do this then we're left wondering why all organisms fall into a nested hierarchy. A single common designer could re-use parts of his/her design, but there is no reason why they would have to fall into nested hierarchies. Humans could have photosynthesis and wings and just about anything...he/she could mix and match as they pleased.

The nested hierarchy is very compelling evidence for evolution. Evolution is a branching process and we know that such Markovian processes lead to the development of nested hierarchies of character traits - there is no such argument for common designer.

Kevin:
"Or is there an accumulation of junk DNA at the same points in the human and chimp genomes, which would point toward them sharing the same DNA at some point in history?"

Yes, the comparative genetics points very strongly to common ancestry:
1. Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) replicate within genomes by inserting themselves at random into the chromosomes. Therefore, the probability that two separate species share the same ERVs in the same locations by chance is astronomically small. Rather this shows that the ERV is inherited from a common ancestor.
2. Our chromosome banding patterns match up exactly with chimpanzee chromosome banding patterns including chromosome 2 which is the fusion of two chimp chromosomes (and contains internal telomeres and a vestigial centromere). Banding patterns are like fingerprints for chromosomes.
3. Humans and chimps share the same psuedogenes. Pseudogenes are genes that have lost their function (due to a change in the environment) and they often accumulate stop codon mutations internal to their open reading frames. They are useless pieces of broken genes. And our vitamin C pseudogene shares the same sets of random, neutral mutations as the chimp version. In fact we can draw up a very exact phylogeny of primates based purely on this one pseudogene. And we can root this phylogeny with the guinea pig pseudogene which became non-functional independently of the primate pseudogene and hence has a different set of mutations. There is no explanation for shared random mutations in pseudogenes outside of common ancestry.

[John]

Kevin wrote:
"As for Mach's question, I have no reason to doubt that humans and chimps share 98.5% of their DNA or whatever the number is."

That's a myth.

"Most biologists assume that means humans and chimps descended from a common ancestor."

You're using the standard creationist lie, Kevin. The mere existence of similarity does not support such a conclusion. The evidence is much more richly detailed than a single number, but since you are a profoundly dishonest person, I see why you need to lie about that.

"And I have no philosophical objections to that."

That's another lie. If you had no philosophical objections, you wouldn't be lying about the very nature of the evidence.

"But I have always wondered: Could that same information be used to argue for a common creator as opposed to a common ancestor?"

No, because of the mathematical relationships between the sequences. It's not mere similarity, no matter how many times you tell that lie.

"Perhaps he/she/it used slightly different versions of the same code for humans and chimps."

Why? You can't show a single case in which designed objects have the same type of mathematical relationships (calling it merely "similar" is LYING).

"Or is there an accumulation of junk DNA at the same points in the human and chimp genomes, which would point toward them sharing the same DNA at some point in history? I haven't had time to look into it."

You had a moral duty to do so before writing your dishonest film. What does YOUR Bible say about hearsay, Kevin?

"That sounds good enough to me. So my question is, how does Intelligent Design--which is the study of patterns nature that are best explained as the cause of intelligence--fail to meet this criteria?"

There's absolutely no hypothesis testing. ID is all rhetoric all the time.

BTW, as a writer you should know that the word "criteria" is plural, and therefore "this criteria" makes you look illiterate. But given your scientific, historical, and moral illiteracy, that's not surprising.

[Mark]

Kevin asks:

"how does Intelligent Design--which is the study of patterns nature that are best explained as the cause of intelligence--fail to meet this criteria?"

And the answer, Kevin, as I am sure many others have pointed out to you, is that ID has never provided anything resembling a testable hypothesis.

[Michael Trice]

Well, I would say that it depends on the means of study for ID. If experiments are produced from a hypothesis with quantifiable test results that either prove or disprove the hypthesis, I think it might qualify as science. Are there examples of this?

If it's looking at patterns and drawing conclusions without the testing process and guidelines of the scientific method, that's more an Art--and thus humanistic.

[Kevin Miller]

Michael: I think I pretty much agree with your definition of science, even though it's somewhat vague. I think you could say science is a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.

But then that requires further clarification. For example, what do we mean by the term "scientific method"? Wikipedia says, "Scientific method refers to the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses."

That sounds good enough to me. So my question is, how does Intelligent Design--which is the study of patterns nature that are best explained as the cause of intelligence--fail to meet this criteria?

[ellazimm]

A common creator? You mean there might have been more than one? Wow. Like the one who made humans scored more points and so his creations got to talk? Cool.

Anyway, I think I'm going to give up trying to explain things to you Kevin. If, after having spent however many months you have on researching, writing and promoting this film you don't know if there is an accumulation of junk DNA at the same points in the human and chimp genomes then clearly you don't care. You could have answered that question in five minutes by yourself if you'd wanted to. Clearly understanding the science was pretty low on your priority list. I guess that's why Expelled isn't about ID or evolution. It's about money, politics and influence. Have a nice life at the Discovery Institute. I've had some email conversations with Casey Luskin and he seems like a nice guy actually. That Bruce Chapman though sounds like a real whackjob based on his blog.

Good luck and Good night.

[Kevin Miller]

Questions, questions, why won't Kevin answer our questions? Scroll back a few weeks folks and you'll see me responding to tons of questions. I put a fair amount of time into this blog leading up to the film's release in my effort to help promote it. Now that it's in theaters, I'm still working to promote it, but I've had to scale back the amount of time I alot to my blog because other projects have taken priority.

As for Mach's question, I have no reason to doubt that humans and chimps share 98.5% of their DNA or whatever the number is. Most biologists assume that means humans and chimps descended from a common ancestor. And I have no philosophical objections to that. But I have always wondered: Could that same information be used to argue for a common creator as opposed to a common ancestor? Perhaps he/she/it used slightly different versions of the same code for humans and chimps. Or is there an accumulation of junk DNA at the same points in the human and chimp genomes, which would point toward them sharing the same DNA at some point in history? I haven't had time to look into it.

[Dominion]

Just to point out the irony. Someone asks a question. Kev once again replies by asking another question. When the original poster goes to the trouble of answering the question, Kev completely ignores it. Will Kev ever develop intellectual honor? It looks doubtful.

We who have been posting here a bit know this is Kev's modus operandi, but it never hurts to make newbies aware of the extant of Kev's dishonesty.

[Boris]

Kevin keep reading those DI press releases. Read Casey Luskin too. Even you will begin to notice a pattern of deception.

Who knows, maybe one day you'll find a moral compass.

Boris

[MachiavelliDiscourse]

Of course they could have done a fair bit of research with the $10 million or so they shoveled into the Expelled project. And then there are the deep pockets of the Christian Dominionists who fund the DI. Oh, and the DI also failed to submit a research proposal for the Templeton funding they had secured, and so they lost the grant.

It looks as if ID proponents would prefer to spend their money on political projects than on real science.

[MachiavelliDiscourse]

Kevin, I assume that you accept the old age of the Earth and that Noah's Ark is a myth, but could you indicate whether you accept that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor? Please don't tell me you're too busy, this is a yes/no question.

[MachiavelliDiscourse]

Crowthier:
"A key point made in Expelled is that modern evolutionary theory can’t explain where new information — genetic or otherwise — comes from."

Oh, really? But when I offered to explain where new information comes from in evolutionary theory, you, Kevin, didn't want to hear about it.

If this is your central argument then why aren't you interested in discussing it? How do you expect us to interpret your lack of curiosity?

You chose to raise the argument which suggests that you must understand it. If not, are you just uncritically accepting the arguments put forward by ID proponents and then parroting them?

[ellazimm]

I would guess that the activity MachDi points out above will probably have a severe negative blowback. Clearly there was no intelligence allowed when making or promoting the film. I trust no one from the production company thought that getting a large number of biology instructors to denounce the film was in any way verifying its claims?

Oh and Kevin: you can find the reference I gave to the Lynn Margulis article easily enough if you want to. I get the distinct impression you don't really give a shit.

By the way, did the producers lie about the title of the film just so they could get Richard Dawkins to appear? Eugenie Scott and Michael Shermer would have talked to you anyway but they might have put the word out that there was an ID promotion being made and then Dr Dawkins would not have even answered your phone calls. And the film really tries to make him look foolish. Is he your Dark Lord Kevin? Is he the one you really wanted to get? I mean, he did write that book that became a best seller didn't he? He's very famous and respected. Making him look like a doofus would be a real achievement. Dr "Root of All Evil?" Dawkins.

[MachiavelliDiscourse]

I see you guys have taken to concern trolling American universities:

http://thefaithfulpenguin.blogspot.com/2008/04/fundamental-dishonesty-e-mail-from-my.html

This is pretty stupid. You can get your lies past the general public perhaps, but university professors? This will just be treated as nuisance mail. Will the sleaze never end, Kevin?

[Michael Trice]

Up way too late writing.

I'd define science as a means of gathering empirical evidence via the observation of predictive results filtered through a criterion/a of quantifiable testing capable of confirming or refuting the predicted result.

So, how about yours?

I think it's a legit line of reasoning to examine why criteria might differ. There seems a clear variance in contextual discourse that suggests we do not share a like definition on one or more aspects of our conversation. One element that linguists have really neglected is how negotiated context seems to fail group discussions.

[ellazimm]

There's a new book coming out by Dr Jerry Bergman which claims to further support the contention that there is an organised attempt to squelch dissent from evolution. The book is called The Slaughter of the Dissidents and its webpage is:

http://www.slaughterofthedissidents.com/

[Kevin Miller]

How about this, Michael. Why don't you tell me how you define science?