Darwin survives as the fittest

I think it's crucial in this debate to highlight the difference, as you do, between atheism and the theory of evolution. Granted, a lot of the time, the latter can lead to the former but that doesn't mean they are inseparable.

Also, regarding the origins of life, I am sure you are aware of the peanut butter experiment, which is regarded by scientists the world over as the most important scientific test mankind has ever carried out.

Ebert: How did I miss that one?

Goodness knows I am not smart enough to intelligently debate this topic. And I haven't read the 145,000 words already posted on this subject, but I do want to share one person's belief concerning this debate, and one that I have taken as my own.

Attending a Lutheran liberal arts college, in a freshman biology class, a student asked our professor how she justified her beliefs as a Christian and believer in God, when her knowledge of biological science seemed to contradict her religious beliefs.

She said without hesitation that what we know of God comes from the Bible, and the Bible has been proven to not be a historically accurate document. When Genesis states it took God six days to create heaven and earth, we do not know for sure if God's days are 24 hours or 24 centuries, or something that we might not understand. She chose to believe that God's days and our days were not the same. Thus He was still responsible, by intelligent design, for creating all creatures big and small. God allows evolution to occur as a consideration for changes made due to natural or man-made events. Evolution is how humans try to explain what God did and is doing. In this way, neither side is wrong.

Roger, thanks for letting me share, and for you sharing your thoughts with us. You are the best writer in the web.

Isn't it more like 50% of Americans believe God created the earth and all the species on it within the last 10000 years? Seems more than a small subset to me which is quite sad.

Ebert: A failure of our educational system. I suspect 10% believe that, and the rest have never given it a moment's thought, or are rehearsing for their appearance on the next Jay Walk.

I have never understood the need of some to divorce the possibility of God from evolution, or vice-versa. Of course, I wouldn't come down on anyone who personally felt one way or the other. To each his own

I, personally, am a Reasonable. Why couldn't God have used math and science as the mechanisms by which the Universe was created? And then, having set the parameters, let things unfold as they have?

I was in a similar discussion the other day over an article that talked about miracles, and how what is actually in effect is the Law of Large Numbers; that something that seems a "miracle" will actually occur at some point due to the rules of math.

And what I said was "What if God uses that as his vehicle to perform miracles?" There's no reason God can't be a math and science fan. I like to think that is why we find Fibonacci sequences in nature.

All this said, religion has no business in the science room. You teach the science and that is it.

Unfortunately, not everyone believes in Darwin, as the following poll results attest:

* A Gallup poll released this week shows that 39 percent of Americans say they "believe in the theory of evolution," while a quarter say they do not believe in the theory, and another 36 percent don't have an opinion either way.
* This follows an earlier Gallup poll on the issue, conducted last May, that found only 14 percent of Americans believe that humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. Forty-four percent believe that God created human beings almost overnight within the past 10,000 years, and another 36 percent believe that God guided humans' evolution from animals over a much longer period of time.

sourcce: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/02/12/darwin.birthday/index.html

------------------------

So it apparently doesn't matter what was taught in schools!

Ebert: So 39% of Americans believe in something that only 14% of Americans believe in. That Gallup, what a card!

When I was a kid, the ultimate origin of matter vexed me. Religion claimed to offer an answer, but actually only offered an excuse for dodging the question.

I eventually concluded that perhaps matter from the future, in which stuff existed, got sucked into a wormhole, spat out in the past (where there was nothing), and thus founded everything. A problematic idea, to be sure, but that's what comes of applying The Terminator's principles of time travel to Life, the Universe, and Everything. Of course, there may not have been an original nothingness at all, or so I seem to recall reading somewhere.

Incidentally, I've always thought that "Watson" would be a great name for a beagle ("Come, Watson, the game is afoot!"), but I suppose "Darwin" would be pretty good, too. (Or is it too obvious?)

Happy Darwin Day and Lincoln birthday to all! With luck, we'll soon be able to celebrate the latter with a fantastic Spielberg film.

Ebert: Isn't sucking matter from the future into the past sort of an Eternal Motion machine?

I was curious over your choices different species. I am both a believer in God and in evolution, but I think some of your categories may be a bit too rigid. Very thoughtful post, though.

The Playing It Safers: If I lead a good and blameless life, why should I be kept out of heaven, while an evil man could convert on his deathbed and make it in under the wire?

Never read a Chick Tract, have you? And Jack Chick is far from the only Christian to assert that very thing. For those of you who aren't familiar with them, Chick Tracts are mini-comic books warning kids off of the evils of the world, such as Harry Potter and Darwinism, as well as "false" religions such as Islam or Catholicism. Apparently, in Chick's world, regardless of how you live your life, unless you make your telepathic vow to the omniprescient one under his very select terms and conditions, and you have to figure out which "terms and conditions" are the correct ones on your own, he will delight in your suffering for all eternity in a lake of fire. Oh, but these tracts assure us that Jesus loves us. But yet he comes off as the World's Strictest Game Show Host.

As a person innocent in biology and evolution but a training in engineering and hence method of science, this long long discussion only makes me wonder as a layman whether the theory of evolution which one naturally assumes to be on a sound footing if for no other reason than by its wide acceptance in the community of science.....really has some serious challenge not from quacks but from scientists?

The whole discussion has interest mainly because of the sizeable number of people it seems to bother. bothers

All great points Roger, but do you ever think that by continuing to fight this fight we just prolong it?

Ebert: Think of it as a birthday present.

You have done a neat job of pigeonholing the respondents.

From Martin Luther King’s sermon “A tough mind and a tender heart”

Here, MLK argues that God wants us to be tough-minded and tender-hearted and from that thesis argues that science and religion are not rivals:

“Jesus recognized the need for blending opposites. He knew that his disciples would face a difficult and hostile world, where they would confront the recalcitrance of political officials and the intransigence of the protectors of the old order…So he said to them, ‘Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves.’ And he gave them a formula for action, ‘Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.’ It is pretty difficult to imagine a single person having, simultaneously, the characteristics of the serpent and the dove, but that is what Jesus expects. We must combine the toughness of the serpent and the softness of the dove, a tough mind and a tender heart

…Softmindedness often invades religion. This is why religion has sometimes rejected new truth with dogmatic passion. Through the edicts and bulls, inquisitions and excommunications, the church has attempted to prorogue truth and place an impenetrable stone wall in the path of the truth-seeker. The historical-philological criticism of the Bible is considered by the softminded as blasphemous, and reason is often looked upon as an exercise of a corrupt faculty. Softminded persons have revised the Beatitudes to read, ‘Blessed are the pure in ignorance for they shall see God.’

This has lead to a widespread belief that there is a conflict between science and religion. But this is not true. There may be a conflict between softminded religionists and toughminded scientists, but not between science and religion. Their respective worlds are different and their methods are dissimilar. Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals. They are complementary. Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism. Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism.”

I hate cutting out pieces of this beautiful sermon and highly recommend reading the whole thing. It’s in the book “Strength to Love,” a collection of MLK’s sermons.

But can we expect Christians to push God back? Or evolutionists to include God in their beliefs? Do evolutionists have a need for God?

Also, have you seen the "creationism vs. evolution" debate with Kirk cameron? I watched it on YouTube.... pretty interesting to see four believers go at it like that.

Very insightful posts. Its funny how the religious aspect deals with theories that may, even in the slightest, detract from the unbending truth of their belief. This seems a very human reaction, not inspired by a higher power, especially the one in human form, "Turn the other cheek" anyone. I do believe in a higher power and have found great wisdom in the teachings of Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Scorsese, etc. but I don't see why these subsects of Christianity, ones not endorsed by the Pope, need to go around proving their own intolerance to modernity. So backed up they need to attack a man 200 years after the fact of his birth. Doesn't religion start in the home? Shouldn't it stay there? Again, "Keep your prayers indoors" to paraphrase Christ and "Dude, just meditate and chill out" to really paraphrase Buddha. If it is an incontrovertible proof they feel they must defend then...ah, but why even finish that statement. It is not the love of God they seek to spread but their continued hope for a world that will never exist where everyone thinks like them. Not to be mean but having grown up in Western religion and finding great wisdom in Eastern religion that then increased my understanding of Western religion I can, at no time, recall having any problem with science, the theory of evolution, the exciting but largely up in the air theories of quantum mechanics, nor the 80mm superwindow projection system whose name I cannot recall but which you tried to buck up a few years ago but that didn't happen (sorry for that). So if God exists as a force or a crotchety old man on a throne in the clouds he (she/it/us/them?) gave us a brain and would be sorely disappointed if we didn't use it. Happy Birthday Darwin!

Roger, thanks for including us Reasonables. One thing Evolution and ID both share, at least from my point of view, is that they involve groups of living things sharing the same space in some sort of harmony. In Evolution, plants and animals balance nature. In ID, or at least religion, loving thy neighbor was something that Jesus taught as a good thing. Both theories might suggest we get along and appreciate the differences of each idea, even if we don't subscribe to one or the other. So it perplexes me as to why we must tear each other apart on these issues.

And this fight has gone so bat-shit crazy in America that it's like abortion, an undebatable debate. Thank you for honoring the debate in this forum with respectable prose that acknowledges both sides.

I believe in God without question. That doesn't make me a religious funamentalist nor a bible-thunking irritant. I live at peace with God in my life, turn to him when I have troubles and ask simply for his guidance. Admittedly, I have not picked up a bible or set foot in a church for years. Still, I live at peace with God.

In terms of evolution, I look at it this way: All that is written about Creationism cannot be found in scientific fact while all that is written in Darwinism can be proven. As a man who believes in God, I have to speculate, Is it possible that God created the universe through a process of evolution?

My mind is opened to that possibility. The problem is that it steps on what is written in the Bible. Therefore when I bring it up, I always spark angry debates just as if I jammed a broomstick into a hornet's nest.

In a minute or two the birthday bells will ring down here at Knox College--where Lincoln first publicly denounced slavery on moral grounds--while in my writing class our current reading topic is "Nature," and we're reading bits of Darwin, Rachel Carson, Stephen Jay Gould, Michio Kaku on dark matter, and Francis Bacon, who scolds those who reach conclusions based on what they desire rather than what is.

Later in the term we'll do ethics and morality, and read from the Torah, Aristotle, the Sermon on the Mount, the Koran, the Dalai Lama, Iris Murdoch (who suggests one can be both non-religious and moral), and that card Nietzsche.

Many mansions, Roger. Happy birthday to a House United and "the great Tree of Life ... with its ever branching and beautiful ramifications."

The question becomes serious more than comical when questions are raised about the content of school curriculae. I think really good scientists (Einstein included particularly) understand the limits of science. Hence children need and can be taught there are limits. Else, for the awe-stricken, Science itself becomes the Great Watchammacallit.

Science deals with hows and not whys. My good professor at the IIT used to say we can tell what an electron does not what it is.

Fortunately, reality does not care how you think its processes happen. It will keep doing what it is doing regardless of your genius insight or foolish ignorance. Unless you are a policymaker, educator, or life scientist, your opinion on this "debate" does not matter in the slightest. That may sound belittling or even depressing, but at least there are no substantive consequences for anyone, including yourself, if you are wrong.

Ebert: I completely agree. Reality doesn't even care about a policymaker, educator, or life scientist. Stuff happens.

A good read for those interested:

"God vs. Science" by Dan Cray
Time Magazine
Sunday, Nov. 05, 2006

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132,00.html

Matthew Ryan

I thought this Onion piece was appropriate...

Evolutionists Flock To Darwin-Shaped Wall Stain
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/evolutionists_flock_to_darwin

I guess that makes me a Reasonable. I see science as looking at the world from the bottom up and religion looking at the world from the top down.

"Ebert: I have made public no opinion in the existence or non-existence of God, which to some makes me an agnostic, and to others a moderator."

So does this mean that you're sitting there typing up your next blog entry on whether you believe God exists?

Roger, as always your writing makes me think and wish I was more evolved so I could respond more intelligently. I'm wondering if it's possible to extrapolate where human evolution is taking us. Are we regressing towards a mean or are we continuing to evolve towards a better homo sapiens? Are the genetic outliers like Shakespeare, Newton and Einstein less likely to occur in the future? We could really use a few more like them right about now.

You say the debate may never end, but it will. Just as the debates ended over the the world being flat or the sun revolving around the earth. It will take even more overwhelming evidence, but we're clearly moving towards complete secularization as technology, observation, and knowledge advances.

Sure, there's room for Evolution and God. The Theory doesn't preclude a spiritual being. But as knowledge advances, we'll have less and less reason to shoehorn an undetectable omniscient being into our belief systems. After all, the being is completely arbitrary at that point. Ockham's razor and all that jazz.

So as society advances, with its tools of observation, we become less spiritual and more knowledgeable. It's been this way throughout history and will continue on. The debate will end. Eventually.

That's a fantastic sermon. In both the struggle for civil rights and in this debate, MLK was ahead of his time in recognizing and preaching the peaceful, sensible path. Bravo to him.

I'll raise you another quote, this one from Albert Einstein. As MLK Jr. was one of the most insightful religious men of the 20th century, Einstein was one of the most insightful scientists. Those two men might have shared similar opinions on this matter:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Interesting, Roger, how this argument on your website has evolved.

Irreducible complexity maybe become more and more inaccurate of a term as science continues to reduce complexity. But that aside, the human body, for example, IS very complicated! And to be presented with the idea that maybe a very long time ago our ancestors looked kinda like the creatures we saw under a microscope in biology class, well, it's only somewhat natural we'd be a bit taken aback. It sounds almost impossible, doesn't it?

Well, if my other option is Intelligent Design, then I'm going to stick with Evolution, since it's the theory that doesn't require magic. No matter how statistically improbable something is, if there's physical evidence as opposed to a simplistic, non-answer based on a belief in something unproven and materially impossible, I'm going with improbable over impossible.

Believing the Theory of Evolution does not require abandoning religious belief. But I am of the opinion that it does threaten the theistic belief in an involved superbeing, which is a common thread in the Abrahamic religions. Is it possible God created the universe billions of years ago and let Evolution take its course? Sure. But that sounds more like the work of someone who wound the clock and watches, not the God I read about in the newspaper who reaches down to Earth to cure folks' cancer, telepathically communicate with televangelists, and guide planes safely into the Hudson.

I'm a pretty much a Reasonable with touches of Hard-Noser and Playing Safe for a garnish. I've always belived in God, from childhood, and something as elegant, long reaching and flexible as the Theory of Evolution had always seemed to me proof of a kind that we were in the hands of Something who knew what He was doing, so calm down.

I highly recommend Nova's two hour program on the Dover, Pennsylvania case for insights into the thought process behind science teaching and the fact that ID is nothing but Creationism with a "Don't Feel Stupid, We Came Up With A Scienc-y Sounding Name" bow on top. Also the book "A World Lit Only By Fire", for a fascinating view of the mideval mindset as it evolved (HA!) into the Renaissance.

And what's the peanut butter experiment? Is that where you send the peanuts to one lab, disagree with the results, send them to another, and then merrily ship tons of samonella-contaminated paste across the country?

An epiphany that came to me at a young age gave me an insight to the evangelical mindset: people who describe themselves as evangelicals are not concerned so much in convincing people that God exists; rather, they are obsessed with convincing people that God is useful. Yes, there are perfectly rational theists who justify coexistent belief in God and evolution by pointing out that there's no reason evolution couldn't simply be God's mechanism. That's all well and good, but in simple terms, that's less useful - it has less explanatory power - than a god that creates human beings out of nothingness, performs a thousand miracles before breakfast, talks back to people when they pray, and actively embodies all that is perfect and good in the universe. Such a god actively lives outside the rules of the universe as science observes them, meddling as he sees fit. The other sort of god is a very different being, one that has created a universe that seems very much like the sort of universe one would expect if that universe had no guiding force whatsoever.

Here's the rub, then. When Dawkins insists (as he does in "The God Delusion") that belief in God is in fact a scientific question, he's talking about the evangelical's God. He has a point. A universe with such a god at the controls would look very different than one without. There would be evidence of such a god, breaking as he does the rules of science when and where He sees fit, and where there can be evidence, there can be science. Of course Dawkins is not talking about the non-interventionist version of god, and that's the source of much confusion. Evangelicals are always promoting the existence of a god whose acts push into the scientific arena, and when challenged will always fall back to the "...but it's not science, it's God" agreement, which is a point the pro-science side often concedes too quickly. The statement that "the existence of God is not a scientific question" is one that I (and Dawkins) argue. I agree that the existence of a non-interventionist God is not a scientific question (and so would Dawkins), but the adjective is important. The distinction allows the Creationist side of this particular argument to make challenges whose claims are ultimately scientific in nature, but disguise them as religion and fall back on the "it isn't science, it's religion" defense when the inevitable scientific counter-argument is made.

I suppose that in your taxonomy, I qualify as a "True Believer". I'm an atheist, and am as certain that no god exists as I am that there aren't invisible unicorns flying around in the sky, as I see no reason to believe in something for which I've never seen or been presented with any evidence that is at all compelling. I fail to see how my failure to believe in something for which there is no evidence can possibly be controversial, but nevertheless, it is. On that much I agree with Dawkins. Any god that posits that science must be wrong is a lie, and any that posits that science can be considered correct is superfluous, even useless. That philosophical stance, and not the rejection of the sort of god that actually breaks the rules of science, is what makes me an atheist.

That being said, I have no quarrel with those who believe differently than I do so long as their beliefs do not result in anything that tangibly limits others their basic freedoms, which includes the freedom to gain an education in science that is free from religious bias. We're willing to stay out of your churches if you stay out of our schools.

Ultimately this is not a scientific fight (the scientific fight over the validity of evolution was over, like, a century ago), nor a philosophical one, but a political one. This is why ID is and always was doomed to failure. When you strip the overt religion from Creationism, all that you have left is (very) bad science.

Ebert: I've felt for a long time that if there is a god, that god would by definition be entirely outside of and beyond our possible conceptions.

That there's a debate in which certain individuals vehemently oppose the validity of Darwin's theory reminds me of an Einstein quote:
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."

Roger, I really enjoy your blogging, and particularly admire your gutsiness in painting such a big target on your head. I think that the world in general is becoming more enlightened and reasonable, and you're helping to make it happen a little quicker.

You might be interested and amused by the following Wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheist

"Apatheism (a portmanteau of apathy and theism/atheism), also known as pragmatic or critically as practical atheism, is acting with apathy, disregard, or lack of interest towards belief, or lack of belief in a deity. Apatheism describes the manner of acting towards a belief or lack of a belief in a deity; so applies to both theism and atheism. An apatheist is also someone who is not interested in accepting or denying any claims that gods exist or do not exist. In other words, an apatheist is someone who considers the question of the existence of gods as neither meaningful nor relevant to his or her life; nor to human affairs.

Apathetic agnosticism (also called Pragmatic agnosticism)—the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of God or gods, but since any God or gods that may exist appear unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic anyway."

Ebert: What do they call an agnostic who does care?

Here is a quote from Billy Graham:

"I don't think that there's any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we've tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren't meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. ... whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man's relationship to God."1

1 Source Book: Billy Graham: Personal Thoughts of a Public Man, 1997. p. 72-74

I think point number three needs some fine tuning. I do not believe it is a matter of opinion that you can or cannot hold contradictory religious beliefs and scientific ones simultaneously (even though I am ironically stating my opinion on the matter). Of course it is possible. However, just because people are able to hold two contradictory thoughts in their heads at the same time does not mean that you don't have to logically abandon one of them. The mere fact that cognitive dissonance exists does not prove that it makes fundamental sense. It almost sounds like the religious argument that "because we exist, it proves God exists," which I also do not buy. Logically, two ideas that promote incompatible claims cannot both be correct. I have yet to see a theistic religion that is compatible with the theory of evolution, although I am not a scholar on the matter.

Let's not forget the propagandistic use of the word "debate" to make it seem as if Intelligent Design is actually up for valid consideration.

Indeed this debate of yours does not seem to cross borders. Just here in Canada there is absolutely no discussions about this subject. I really tried to find something but simply couldn't because it doesn't exist.

Funny thing is that we are so alike on many ways but I guess the catholic church was so abusive for so many years that we simple dropped it one day and never looked back, we refer to that transition as the "quiet revolution" back in the early 70's.

I even brushed on the subject with my father, who is a devout catholic, even he didn't seem bothered same goes for the people of his parish, I guess their discussions revolves around other....dare I say it... more important subjects.

America really is a bubble and it's people never seem to be aware that at the same time you can inspire awe and inspirations while still continuing to pursue a system of belief that makes us drop to the floor with laughter.

Case in point: here you are atoning for your sins by electing a president that is the complete opposite of the last one and yet you still manage to waste such an amount of valuable time to a conflict that has long been resolve.

Philippe

I've posted here several times, and I have to say that as much as I love your movie reviews, these have been some of my favorite posts.

I'm a strong Christian, coming from Evangelical circles. And yet I don't understand the insistance that many religious people have that says Evolution automatically disproves the entire existence of God and faith. If God is sovereign, then the development of science has been something He intended and the theory of evolution is also something He has allowed.

I've heard some theorize that Evolution exists because it's a temptation to draw man away from God...I don't know how it does that. Couldn't God have guided Evolution? Does Evolution mean there was no Creation...couldn't evolution have been the tool God used for Creation? And if I have to take that on faith and cannot reprove it (I cannot be God) then why should I teach that as science? As you stated, we should just be teaching what we know...not what we have faith in but cannot prove.

I was mulling this over this week (Smithsonian Magazine had a fascinating article on Darwin). If you read the Creation accounts, it mirrors--in a constricted time frame--the Evolutionary process...a void world, then covered with water (and gases?) and a progression from smaller and simpler life forms all the way up to humans. One thing I wonder is whether or not that exists because, thousands of years ago, humans obviously had no concept of evolution or natural selection--could it be that, using the theological concept of inspiration, the Biblical accounts is simply a way of explaining evolution in a way that humans could understand? If God reveals Himself in the Bible, then wouldn't it make sense that He reveals His work this way instead of just having the writers jot down scientific ideas that hadn't even been discovered yet?

To me, that makes more sense than the idea posited by many Evangelicals, which is that God created the Earth and then--boom!--gave it the appearance of old age. I don't doubt that that is possible--but it makes no sense. Why create the world and reveal yourself to your creations and then fool them into thinking it's older than it is?? When scientific evidence proves that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago and DID NOT live alongside man, why are so many religious folk so eager to say that the scientists are lying and dinosaurs did, in fact, live alongside man (although I find it astonishing that, were man living with dinosaurs, we would not find any writings of these giant beasts that would most-likely be revered as Gods or monsters).

Had the Internet existed in the 1600s, I wonder if we'd be having the same debates about the solar system and whether the world was flat or if the Earth revolved around the sun.

Ebert: The dinosaurs didn't even make it into cave paintings. If you can believe they walked the earth with men, you probably visit your safety deposit box to admire your deed to the Brooklyn Bridge.

What is the Peanut Butter Experiment referred to in the first comment?

Reply to: *i> Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals. They are complementary. Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism. Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism.”

I'm going to mark my response as

D. Strongly disagree

Martin Luther King was a minister. He was recruiting. He was selling. Like Lee Strobel, he gave you "The Case For..." without mentioning "The Case Against...."

Christianity is based on a collection of writings and gospels that don't change.

When science learns new information, theories change.

That's the difference.

The moral fortress of the Catholic Church has gotten stuck in the past. The Pope still preaches against using condoms in AIDS-ridden sections of Africa. If you talk about moral nihilism in modern times, that's the textbook example.

You can give me a list of the good things that religion does, but I can give you a shorter list of the bad things... and my list wins.

Science doesn't dumb people down. Religion does.

If we're talking about Charles Darwin, we need to remember that his book appeared in 1859. He was under a deadline, to get his version out before other similar books appeared. He didn't get it all right. He didn't have access to modern equipment, or the published genomes.

However, Darwin was remarkable for proposing a theory that disagreed strongly with the position of the Catholic Church... and it didn't immediately disappear under a cloud of Hail Mary's. As so many others have.

Yes, there is a war going on in America, between Ignorance and Science. America desperately needs Roger Evert. There, I said it.

Reply to: Ebert: I suspect 10%

(of Americans believe God created the earth and all the species on it within the last 10,000 years)

and the rest have never given it a moment's thought, or are rehearsing for their appearance on the next Jay Walk.

Every so often, we see a football player thanking God for his victory, or his one-handed catch, or for the gift of athletic ability. I think most of us underestimate just how far the Dumbing Down process has gone. There are athlestes who spend an hour in Bible Study every single day. Often, Bible Study includes several creationist texts, in the form of comic books or graphic novel.

It isn't a misprint or a mistake when polls suggest that 48% of Americans believe the Creationist position. That position is taught in classrooms in every city, on Tuesday mornings or Wednesday evenings, under the name Bible Study.

A major problem with Intelligent Design, or evolution guided by God, is the time frame. Earth is 4.6 billion years old. For over 2 billion of those years, life took the form of microscopic, single-cell organisms. If there's a Designer, why is the Designer fixated on such a tiny form of life? TOE is a much better explanation. It fits the known facts.

Though I'd like to respond to the post itself in some way, for the time being I offer this: Roger, your work is too easily identifiable to ever require actually having your name on it. I can think of no one else alive who could write about so serious a topic and evoke repeated guffaws of laughter as you do.

Thank you so much for writting this! The only problem with Darwin's birthday being today is that it's being completely overshadowed by Lincoln (for example: I've been sitting here with CNN going for the last two hours, and it's been nothing but Lincoln).

Lincoln was a great man, no doubt about it. He freed millions from slavery. But I'd argue that Darwin was, in the long run, more important, for he freed not just people's bodies, but their minds as well.

The New Agers make me think of Daisy and Benjamin...

In high school in Georgia, my brother was the only person in his class who believed in evolution. Therafter, other students referred to him as "the monkey's uncle." That these kids apparently thought you could descend from your niece/nephew not only disqualifies them from having much to say on science (or religion), it also left them wide open to redneck jokes. But until these blog entries, that was about as civil as I ever saw this debate get.

Ebert: Isn't sucking matter from the future into the past sort of an Eternal Motion machine?

The Terminator franchise, so far as I know, has yet to really engage with that particular question.

Your "New Agers" remind me of "ignostics", who, Wikipedia reports, are sometimes defined as considering formal theologies' claims too "meaningless" (in the cognitively coherent sense) to productively contemplate.

Which is all well and good vis-à-vis the Ultimate Origin of Stuff, but not re: evolution. It happens, people.

Since there are much reported evidence in support of evolution, how long do you suppose it'll be before we stop throwing around the word theory and just use law?

Wikipedia says something empirical means it is "information gained through observation, experience, or experiment, as opposed to theoretical", and to the best of my memory, that's what I learned in high school as well. If evolution has been observed and is as definite as the grand majority of the scientific community says it is, how can it still be just a theory?

Ebert: Science is reluctant to declare anything a Law. Even Newton's Law of Gravity, which is still useful in almost every practical situation, has had to be modified after Einstein. A Theory always leaves open the possibility and the challenge of its improvement, which is what science is all about. If the TOE were declared a Law, think of the unemployment that would result among biologists.

Out of curiousity, since you have reduced and typed the opinions expressed in your comments, how would you reduce your own opinion on the matter? The patient, yet firm hard-nose with a soft-spot?

Ebert: And a funny-bone.

I think you forgot probably the largest subset: the confused.

Two evenings ago, I found myself watching NOVA and the Dover School District case where the school district attempted to have ID taught as a theory in 9th grade biology.

I am a Christian/Conservative/Attorney. I usually find bias (generally my own) when watching PBS and I fully admit that I would not have viewed the program without Ebert's Blogs. I sat there for the first 10 minutes angry about the fact that we as a society find no problem with pushing religion out of the public eye. The general tone of the hour long program seemed to me to be rather smug (as in how could these idiots in Pennsylvania actually BELIEVE in a god?). The ACLU has filed lawsuit after lawsuit to remove Boy Scouts from receiving gratis use of public space in exchange for service to that park because it is a quasi-religious organization. Lawsuits against national cemeteries for having crosses on gravestones. Lawsuits against towns and cities for having "Christmas" as a part of their traditional festivities. There was a case where a worked in California was told not to wear a cross pendant because it was offense to the atheist co-worker. I am not saying all these cases are winners for the plaintiffs, but they suck so much money from these less-than-wealthy defendants, they are forced to settle out of court or face financial ruin. I think the neoconservative (short-lived as it was) movement in the 1990s was a result of this backlash against traditionalism in America.

Then I spent the next 15 minutes watching the program and actually getting angry at the school district board for their motives behind teaching ID. It was evident that the motive was a religious one and the Bush-appointed Federal Judge saw through that too. Now, as an attorney I found much of the "reason" behind the judge's 100 plus page decision went beyond the scope of what he was there to decide upon. Other legal critics have stated as much.

So I find myself in a conundrum from which I cannot remove myself. I believe in God, creator of Heaven and Earth, of all that is seen and unseen. I believe that traditionalism has a place in America and I don't find religion in public offensive. I find the attack on traditionalism offensive. We can (as I am sure my friend Ron Barth Jr. will) debate about this. I despise judicial activism and find judges that interdict their personal views into the law to change voter will more offensive than anything else. But I also find it offensive when a Jehovah Witness knocks on my door telling me that I am going to Hell because I don't believe in his or her views. And I want to do violence on those idiots that protest American soldiers' funeral services because of the idiots' views on homosexuality.

So, count me in the confused category. I am not confused about my belief but it is just that - a belief. I can no more prove my view on my personal religious belief than I could prove evolution so both are equally fruitless for me to do. I am also not confused that the theory of evolution explains the mechanisms of how life is here now. I am not confused that I do not want some schmuck in California suing my City because we have a manger scene at City Hall, Pennsylvania. I am not confused that I do not want a religious (or social) zealot trying to indoctrinate my child on something that we do not teach at home.

I am confused on the tightrope walk - keeping religion a viable part of American culture without having religion become the overriding influence in America. My legal instruction and understanding of American government teaches me that this tension is a healthy one. But in the meantime, I will continue to tell people "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Hanukah". If they are offended, so be it. There is nothing in any law that says you as an American citizen have a right not to be offended.

Ebert: Actually, I think you make pretty good sense. There is a reason for separation of church and state, and also a reason for the ACLU to be less rabid in picking its fights.

I have to disagree with point #2. I don't believe religious belief is outside the purview of science when it makes specific claims about the physical state of the universe. If because of your religion, you believe the earth is 6000 years old, then science does have an opinion on your religion. Think of all the things that used to be under the purview of religion that are now safely snuggled in the science tent: the rotation of the earth, the position of the moon, meteorology, our relative position in the solar system, microbiology, etc. It seems to me that as a species, we are compelled to fill in any gaps we have in our collective knowledge of how the world works. When we don't understand something we have tended to make up a story to fill that gap, until a scientific explanation comes along. Thus we (or most of us)no longer believe that Apollo drags the sun across the sky on a chariot, or that animal sacrifice is required to ensure hearty crops, or that disease is caused by evil spirits. The more we learn, the less we need to rely on generations old stories. The bible, or any of the holy books, are filled with since discarded claims about the physical way the universe works (i.e. the sun revolving around the earth). The reason these books still resonate with so many people is because science cannot, and maybe will never, be able to tell us what happens after we die. And it doesn't seem to be in our nature to be happy with "I don't know."

Ebert: Hey, I'm happy with not knowing what happened before I was born.

I've really never understood what religion or persons of this or that faith have to fear from science. I guess there are some branches of faith that have boxed themselves into a corner -- in order to adhere to their text-based dislike of gay people or whatever, they must stay consistent and demand the Universe is only 5,000 years old. This group needs no response -- particularly not one as thoughtful as yours, Roger. They don't want it. They don't need it, and discourse is not possible because their world view consists precisely of denying rationality.

But putting this group to the side, it seems eminently reasonable to me that science and religion can easily -- and happily -- coexist. I guess this makes me a "reasonable." If it was good enough for Albert Einstein, it's good enough for me.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

I believe in evolution, but as a tool used by God to simplify his task. If each of a billion species was completely unique and different, he may not have had the time to get around to us, and just as well left it at stink bugs. As much as anything, the fact that we find so much amusement in debating the idea of where we came from and why, proves to me the existence of something greater. If not we would be just like dogs and sit around, tongues wagging in the breeze, waiting for someone to pet our belly. Not that I don't wait for that.

Ebert: Oh, he had the time, all right. And the stink bugs thank him.

I would have to respectfully disagree with Paul B.'s comments about there being no conflict between religion and science. How does religion interpret an expanding universe, or the idea that there may be other life forms on the planets we are just now starting to find around other stars? (Please note the modal verb "may" does not mean I believe there is, just the possibility of.)
To have a scientific mind set does not imply a lack of values. Since when did religion (with all it's own contradictions to modern morals) come to have a monopoly on morals and values?
Neurology and social psychology are continuing to make advances that are attempting to explain the evolutionary nature of our morals and values (what I have read about seems to me to be promising but in no way would I like to imply there is any certainties involved).
The study of history would also serve us well. For example, the destruction caused by the Isreal and Palestine region today is, comparatively speaking, mild when referenced to what peoples in that region used to do to each other before, during and immediately after "Biblical" times. Today we are, rightfully, horrified by the deaths of a dozen people. Historically they used to exterminate whole cities, hundreds and thousands of people died / killed and it was considered ok by the victorious side.
Thankfully that is no longer the case, our emotional and moral capacities have changed in a way that I consider more humane. That does not change the fact that religions of whatever stripe do try to act as a stop on progress, even today, and even if it is a very vocal minority; Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and others have pointed out that this radical group seeks cover in the more moderate religious thinking.
And while it is very convenient to showcase a social leader like MLK and high light his religious aspect, the civil rights movement was a secular fight and millions of Black Americans had to fight against the many Christian sects that preached every Sunday how good segregation was for society. Not unlike many of the same churches in the south that defended slavery based on Christian biblical interpretations in the 19th century.
I agree with Roger Ebert when he says that science doesn't have a position on whether God exists or not. Unfortunately, religion has always brought this fight to the door of science and has wanted to have a say on what science can and cannot do.
They have just as much right to freedom of expression as anybody but once they speak up they also have all the same rights to be criticized for trying to apply archaic belief systems to modern society.

Ebert: Has there ever been a movie about whites-only churches?

It is not entirely correct to say that science has no opinion on religion. In fact, some scientists are very interested in studying the biology, neurology, mechanisms, and social functions. Religion is a tangible phenomenon of human behaviors and psychology. There is plenty of elements to be studies: religion's effects and functions on organizing human tribes/societies, regulating mass behaviors, redistributing resources, strengthening socialization and cooperation, coping with "an indifferent universe," coping with the fear of death (perhaps a byproduct of consciousness), the biological basis of the appeal of religion, the neurological process, the subjective sense of transcendence induced by chemicals (eg, certain hallucinogens) or a crowd, etc., etc.

Research has produced some very early data on the genetic links to religious tendencies (surely you have heard of "The God Gene") and the neurological and biochemical basis of religious/ecstatic/hallucinatory physical sensations. Yes, there is a region in the brain that, when stimulated, can send out signals that give the person a feeling of transcendence.

Religion, just like other human behaviors and experiences (including morality, competition, love/mating), can be observed, studied, analyzed, and understood using systematic scientific method. Many scientists may be afraid of offending religious sentiments of the public and choose to stay away from this type of research, but that does not mean it cannot be studied. Science itself is fearless.

This is why this lapsed Catholic, often frustrated over Mother Church's often stunted teachings on sexual morality, will always have a warm spot for the institution: it's not threatened by evolution, considering the Bible a guide to be "interpreted" and not always taken literally. Even better, it's even okay to discuss and support evolution over drinks! And on the way back from "Vegas" night in the school auditorium.

Ebert: Most Catholics and most priests get along just fine. It's the bishops who seem more like Sister Mary Frowning.

I enjoyed reading this entry and I often find myself to be a cross between the reasonable and play it safer. Why does it have to be one or the other? Is it possible that God has guided evolution? I often love debating the point on how the universe started because scientists can bring us back to the Big Bang and the "super atom" which allowed it to happen, but where did this super atom originate, God? Better yet, was the "super atom" God? Thank you for this insightful and provocative blog.

Ebert: If God is the universe, we'll never find an answer, because God must be asking the same question.

All those years listening to collegiate professors wasted, because Roger Ebert was able to explain the debate of Evolution so simply.

Bravo.

Re. Mark on February 12, 2009 11:06 AM:
I couldn't access your link, but those numbers imply to me that 50% of Americans, or at the very least 39%, agree that evolution is the correct theory. Evolution from animals "guided by God" over a long period of time...sounds like evolution to me. It sounds like a recognition that biological evolution is virtually irrefutable. So they believe that God tinkered with some adenine there, some cytosine there. In the religion of the majority, God is fate, the force guiding people through their lives to some greater end. If fate exists, then it may very well be said that it guided our evolution.

The most baffling thing to me is why people so stubbornly and ignorantly feel that they have to 'pick a side,' as if the existence of a God and the evolution of species are like two opposing teams in a debate competition where there can only be one winner. In fact, if understood correctly, they complement each other perfectly.

Evolution, the process and its discovery, is magnificent and beautiful, so shouldn't that only strengthen the power and love of God in the eyes of believers? As opposed to eliciting angry reactions that simply act (I assume) as an excuse to demonstrate righteousness and superiority?

I enjoyed reading this entry and I often find myself to be a cross between the reasonable and play it safer. Why does it have to be one or the other? Is it possible that God has guided evolution? I often love debating the point on how the universe started because scientists can bring us back to the Big Bang and the "super atom" which allowed it to happen, but where did this super atom originate, God? Better yet, was the "super atom" God? Thank you for this insightful and provocative blog.

Americans are the only people fat enough too argue about survival of the fittest on the internet.

Ebertblog: The fittest posts, the strongest arguments.

The importance of Darwin's contributions are beyond words. However, why is he celebrated more than, say, Einstien or Newton? Is it because he can be used to "stick it" to religious people? It seems that whenever Darwin is discussed, and his theories are shown to make a lot of sense, there's a need from Darwin lovers to shout "Ha ha!"at religious folk.

Is he the most important scientist ever? Well, evolution has lead to things such as genomics, a study which has important medical implications. Evolution has been called the theory which "unifies" all other scientific fields. Evolution then, would be the most important theory in scientific history.

But again: why all the hooplah? Since when did the general public really care about science? Is the love of Darwin really about science? If someone said that they didn't believe in Einstien's theories, would it generate as much offense? Try sometime, during a dinner party, saying "Stephen Halking has no idea what he's talking about." I bet the average response would be one of indiference. Then, at that same dinner party, say "Dawin was way off."

Watch the sparks fly.

I have no problem with Darwin. I do take offense, however, to people who ordinarily have no interest in science, giddily jumping at the chance the chance to "stick it" to religious people, with their googled knowledge of pro-darwin/anti-ID/religious arguments.

Ebert: Seems to me the Darwin "debate" is fueled mostly by ID advocates. All scientific knowledge, not simply googled knowledge, is on the side of Darwin. That's just the way it is.

In addition to the 5 points you make. I've found myself having to make a 6th. Just because you don't believe something doesn't mean it's not worth knowing. In America, being an educated person means you have to know the basic tenets of both evolution AND the Bible.

I don't care whether people believe in evolution themselves. I just expect them to know that it's what science believes. Similarly, I don't care if people believe in God but I expect them to recognize the standard biblical references.

Ebert: Agreed. The King James Version, in particular, inspired the rhetoric of recent centuries. Modern translations dumb-down the language.

The Lord is my shepherd: I shall not want.
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures; He leadeth me beside the still waters.
He restoreth my soul; He guideth me in straight paths for His name's sake.

or

The Lord is my shepherd; I have everything I need.
He lets me rest in green meadows; he leads me beside peaceful streams.
He renews my strength. He guides me along right paths, bringing honor to his name.

The new versions maketh me want to tear out my hair.

We've witnessed evolution:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1688507.htm

I think we should pitch this to those who do not believe in evolution as: Ford puts out a new and improved model of the Taurus every year... maybe God has some things he wants to change too.

Anyway, I think you'd also like the Simpsons couch gag that shows the evolution of Homer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faRlFsYmkeY

I have a concern about your placing atheists in the category of "The True Believers," as it promotes the popular myth that atheism is inherently based in belief. I don't have so much of a problem with Creationists making this assertion - it's a drop in a sea of ignorance, and should be treated as such. But when agnostics (I am assuming, despite your apparent lack of confirmation, that you are one) or those who are otherwise intelligent make it, it does tend to get under my skin.

I'd ask the man who thinks atheism is a matter of belief if he considers himself a "unicorn agnostic," a "dragon agnostic," a "Zeus agnostic," or a "Russell's Teapot agnostic." Chances are, neither you nor any other person out there who thinks that atheism is a matter of belief and not logical conclusion believes in any of those things. However, you cannot offer a shred more evidence for the existence of any god, Christian or Greek, than for any of them. They are all unnecessary to our understanding of the universe. You can observe that all of them are contradicted by scientific knowledge. If you lack any reason to think something is real, but you have reason to think it is not, why make the claim that it very well could be?

Of course, you can't prove a negative. I, as an atheist, cannot prove that no god of any sort exists. It can't be done. Neither can I disprove any of those things. Why, then, should they not all be placed on the same plane? Isn't there equally as much chance that any one of those things exists as there is that any sort of god does? I think, personally, that I have every bit as much a right to assert that no god is real as you have to assert that dragons are not, and you can no more call my atheism a belief than your adragonism. They may both technically be beliefs, but I don't think either can be argued as anything other than the absolute logical conclusion based on given observations.

Please note that I haven't read the full discussion, and due to its length and frustrating nature, I don't intend to, so I don't know if any similar points have been previously made.

I fall into several of those categories. The Reasonables, and the Playing It Safers. Either way, I wanted to say that there's a beautiful Arabic saying that applies rather nicely here: "The best of things is their middle." Meaning that a compromise is always best. Evolution and God do not necessarily need to be mutually exclusive.

So what books on Evolution do you recommend? I've already read On the Origin of Species, but there's so much tripe coming-out now for today's anniversary that I might as well ask an expert instead of buying something written for a buck.

I am a 20 year old college student, and for most of my life I basically accepted the stories preached to me out of the bible. Admittedly I was never a consistent church goer, but my mother and father were both what I would call 'believers'. However, around the time I came to be a sophomore in high school it became pretty obvious to me that the stories out of the bible were complete fairy tales, written as moral fables to teach lessons, not to be taken as fact.

Over the years I have become increasingly frustrated as I continually run into people, friends and strangers, who flat out deny that evolution is a fact, and insist that the stories in the bible are true. I've never gotten in an actual argument over the subject of religion because I typically avoid that discussion with people(I usually actually stay silent on the subject. It seems to admit that you don't believe in the bible and believe in evolution is to commit social suicide), but it is becoming increasingly harder for me to bite my tongue.

I recently saw Bill Maher's "Religulous", and while he may not present the most fair or unbiased view on religion, I agree wholeheartedly with a lot of his views. One interesting point that he makes in the movie, which I have come across in some of my history classes, is that the template for the Jesus Christ story was used in ancient societies way before the advent of Christ. It would seem obvious to me that the story of Christ is just another version of this ancient myth, but most of the time when I bring this point up it just gets dismissed (I'm not trying to offend anyone, just making an observation). Does this mean that there is no God? Of course not, it simply means that if there is one, we don't understand him nearly as well as some people pretend.

I also agree with your point about evolution's relation to God. Too many people think that accepting evolution as fact means that you deny the existence of God, which is simply not true. I admit to not knowing the answers to life's great questions (how it all began, what happens when we die), and it astonishes me that so many people absolutely believe they know what is going to happen, when there is no proof behind their claims. To paraphrase Maher, "How can people, who are otherwise completely rational in all aspects of their lives, completely abandon that same rationality when it comes to life's most important questions?"

Go metaphysicians!

I think I've read all of the comments on this blog as well, and I confess I've had much of the same internal debate my entire life. I was raised an athiest but found, obviously, that it lacked a defining answer...especially given the guidance an adolescent needs. However, I still have not come to any personal conclusion. Sometimes I look at my family and wonder how I'm even related to them, much less a monkey.

But doesn't the debate seem, in some sense, futile? Of course everyone has their own point of view, but it's a mystery that will be solved upon one's death, no? If your death brings about the end of your consciousness, then as an athiest you would have been correct, although you could not appreciate your triumph. If you die and go to Heaven then you could approach Darwin and have a reasonable discussion on the matter. Perhaps he was wrong and would shrug his shoulders and say, "Eh, it was just a theory." Perhaps everyone is wrong and there is a yet to be considered option.

In any case, it doesn't much change the very fact of life and its temporal nature. Whatever we as individuals intend to do in this world, we'd better get crackin'. Time is short. That's our advantage over our primate ancestors: we know it.

What an emotional topic!

What is the probabiliy for anyone's point of view encapsulating the truth? People belong to a particular religion in order to feel as though they matter. Imagine 500 years from today, the History Channel sharing the primitive notions of creationism and evolution from the 21st century.

As it stands, the Theory of Evolution flies in the face of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

The entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.

Darwin observed evidence supporting diversification. Diversification of entities to possess different traits, none of which were advancements. This is one reason evolution is a theory. Unobserved data is the other reason evolution is a theory.

What would scientists do if presented with evidence contradicting evolution? Ignore it? I believe the truth is not aligned with conventional positions on creation, be their source science or religion. I believe nature is much, much bigger than we realize.

I have enjoyed reading your journal.

Ebert: I hope no honest scientist would ignore any credible evidence. I agree that particularly when you go back to the Big Bang of the First Cause or whatever you prefer, at this point in time we are left only unprovable hypothesis. I agree the "truth" is beyond us, and may always be.

Incidentally, evolution is not disproved by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html

Personally I'm sick to death of hearing "You can believe in evolution and still believe in God, too!" thrown around as a "defense" of why it's "okay" to believe in evolution, when in fact nothing could be more irrelevant. If a theory seems to all available evidence to be correct, isn't that reason enough to accept it? Does it matter whether you have to change your beliefs to accommodate it?

Let's say (I know this isn't possible given our current limitations, and it may well never be possible, but bear with me) that it became somehow possible one day for us to prove, once and for all, the existence or non-existence of God. In that situation, wouldn't the only real issue be the soundness of the underlying science, and not whether we liked or didn't like the answer? Is it better to know the truth, however it may affect one's faith, or to preserve one's faith, even at the cost of knowing the truth?

I guess my real question is rhetorical: does anyone ever feel the need to temper their arguments with the disclaimer "Don't worry, you can agree with this and still be an atheist"? Of course not. Sounds stupid, right? Sounds irrelevant, right? Sound logic is sound logic. Good science is good science. Bending over backwards to avoid any possible association with that nasty old boogeyman Atheism is just good PR, and has nothing to do with either logic or science.

I enjoyed your Taxonomy. It has inspired me to come up with few others from my own experiences in the fray:

- The Pedants: Those who insist that ones argument is flawed due to irrelevant typos or slight misstatements of fact. Also, like a mathematician scouring a proof for tiny leaps of logic, Pedants often complain that an argument is not well fleshed out enough. Obliging a Pedant with more verbiage to more soundly address a given issue simply gives him or (less likely) her more material to from which to pick nits.

- The Logarrhea Afflicted: (A.K.A. The Need-To-Get-A-Life) These folks are either best friends with CTRL-C, CTRL-V and obscure, unknown-to-Google websites- or have an inhuman tolerance for typing. The text of these "writers" is often a hodge-podge of only the most loosely connected arguments going off in all directions. They often subscribe to the dubious idea that dozen half-baked arguments are far more airtight than a single one. Warning: Never attempt anything approaching a complete rebuttal! You do not have enough time in the day to keep on top the exponentially expanding number of elements the discussion will come to involve- There are movies to watch, sunsets to enjoy, and other thoughts to think. However, confining yourself to one just issue from one of these fo1lks, opens yourself to a charge of incompleteness or fear. The venn-diagram of this group overlaps with:

- The Totally Incoherent: Despite often exhibiting a reasonable command of English grammar, the folks, while seemingly quite passionate, inspire only confusion. Often type like: "It'll be a cold day in hell when I choose to go there!" without actually bothering to inform us where "there" is.

- The Victims: This group, a subset of the Conspiracy Theorists, bemoan the fact that their arguments not getting a fair shake. Ironically, they spend most of their time defending this proposition, only rarely hinting at what they claim to be wanting to say in the first place.

- The Actual Scientists: Rarely seen in the fray- they're too busy actually writing papers and doing real research. Appearances are usually pedagogic, interesting, factual, and, sadly, brief.

Incidentally, creationism is gaining quite a lot of traction in a few other countries- most notably Turkey.

I think Roger Ebert was placed on earth to test our faith ;)

Seriously though I don't think it takes more than an ounce or two of imagination to see how religion and Darwin's theory can coexist peacefully. That alone makes the volume and frequency such debates surprising to me.

Always nice to see someone write about this subject with insight, clarity and wit. You talked recently about a big regret you had about cheating in chess? Well one of mine is that I accepted free tickets to watch "Win Ben Stein's Money" during a vacation to West Hollywood around a decade ago. I really wanted to see "Jeopardy" but could not get a ticket. I know it sounds incredibly silly as something to regret, but I truly do!

While in the (tiny) audience, I diligently cheered when prompted and sat through taping an episode or two. After 9/11 when he called the terrorist attacks "atheistic" - when they could not have been more opposite - I was appalled. Since then I've watched him become a paragon of ignorance and stupidity and a hero to some really misguided people.

Thanks for taking him down a notch. I just hope there are a few thoughtful people out there outside the "true believer" category that may actually think about evolution in a different way thanks to your intelligent writing.

One way to convert people to believe in evolution would be to deny flu shots to those politicians and religious groups that waste our nation's time and money with their defense of ID programs. After all, if evolution is a fallacy, we wouldn't have to worry about the flu virus mutating and evolving every year. Therefore, one flu vaccine should be good for a lifetime.

Eventually, flu season will descend upon us, as it does every year, and those of us who have adapted and taken the new flu vaccine will be healthy as horses and able to articulately make arguments in favor of evolution, while those politicians and priests will be in bed, throwing up copious amounts of bile and impotent in their attack on evolution. Thus, natural selection will have done its work and we can move past this incredibly stupid (and decided) argument that depleting America's competitive edge in the sciences, as many of our children are learning fairy tales in biology class.

Ebert: I remember going to get the polio vaccine, and my mom telling me, "This is your lucky day. A lot of non-Catholics aren't allowed to be vaccinated."

I have always been a nonbeliever. I would not say that I've ever been militantly atheist, though the influence of the Christian right has at times tempted me to be so. I took a class on evolution in college and ever since -- though I am by no means a scientist -- have taken a srong interest in it. One of my pet peeves when evolution comes up in discussion is how often and to what great extent atheism is bashed. I know better than to assume you meant it, but even you yourself clumped atheism in with the Holocaust and purposeful oversimplification of the evolution theory.

On another note, it's easy for people to make the claim the science doesn't belong in religion and religion doesn't belong in science. While teaching religion certainly doesn't belong in science classes, and science doesn't answer "religious questions" (whatever that means), a problem with this easy-way-out answer is that religion -- especially the major ones -- imposes itself on a variety of topics, including science.

While we may say that questions of meaning and a higher power are religious questions (I say they are equally philosophical questions) the Bible and other texts purport to answer questions of science, history, morality, philosophy and literature even. Advances in knowledge in all of the fields have exposed untruths in religious thinking and the Bible. Even "Jesus the Philosopher or Moral Teacher" doesn't stand to later philosophers and ethicists.

The real conflict also isn't necessarily between science and religion, but rather between reason and faith. They are in fact polar opposites. Believing truths without evidence (often despite counter-evidence) is faith. Requiring evidence for believing truths, is using reason. Science operates based on reason. Religion based on faith. This is a problem for people trying to believe in both.

I trust though that plenty of believers will have no trouble believing in both God and evolution. Historically, I can't think of any better group of people to believe something without evidence supporting it, and with large amounts of evidence against it, than people who believe in God. They will be up to the task.

Ebert: I wasn't including atheism in that grouping. I was only quoting people who do.

do you have a position on evolutionary psychology? one school of thought would posit that you are subconsciously making waves in an argument in which there can be no winner in order to assert your alpha male status. not that it doesn't make for excellent reading.

i've spent a lot of time talking to intelligent design proselytizers and creationists and have learned one sure thing, other than the flimsiness of their argument: there is no point in reasoning with them. you cite education as one reason americans don't accept natural selection or even evolution; i say it's like negotiating with a brick wall.

Ebert: Why do we always hear about alpha males, but not so much about alpha females?

The fact that there exist religious scientists says nothing about the compatibility of science and religion. It shows only that the human brain is easily capable of storing mutually contradictory information and rationalizing the conflict away on demand.

Evolution is not compatible with theism. There's no direct conflict with deism, but no support for it, either. A theist who accepts evolution is not demonstrating anything but the brain's remarkable ability to cover its ears and say "La la la, I'm not listening!" whenever the two ideas collide.

There's something quite humbling about being placed on a categorized list, cruelly jammed between other inferior categories. Imagine observing a monkey in a cage, and then quite suddenly, the monkey jumps in his car and heads off.

Unfortunately you can't make a dent in Creationism with Reason as it is not Reason-based, but yet another desperate effort to rationalise Faith, which Mencken I believe defined as "an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable". There is nothing so adamant as The Will To Believe.
(Is C. Hitchens the Mencken for our age?)
cheers
dave

I find it discouraging when people try to discredit Evolution by slandering Darwin's character. I think that people coming out of the educational system should know that the credibility of science is based on evidence and testability, not revelation, and therefore the character of the one who articulated the theory is irrelevant.

Observing the discussion "Evolution versus religion" is quite a unique experience when viewed from Europe (from "apatheistic" Northern Germany to be exact).

Even the choice of words, the term "belief" –or disbelief– in a theory (with all its religious connotations) is rather disturbing, as the theory of evolution seems to be the only scientific theory one has "to believe in" (imagine the same premise for the theory of thermodynamics, fiber optics or gravity).

Here in Germany no educated person would dare to express "disbelief" in any scientific theory not consistent with his or her worldview, no politician who wants to be elected would expect to be elected when expressing doubt in any scientific theory in public. He –or she– would simply be seen as rather uneducated. someone whose bias would contradict his or her ability to fill a position of a public office.

On the contrary, expressing a disbelief in a certain scientific theory seems to be a prerequisite to get elected in the USA.
Observing this one starts to wonder what would have happened if the bible contained vague allusions being contradictory to evidence in other scientific areas, say, the periodic table in chemistry, for example.

Strange, very strange, indeed.

Ebert: "Belief" is necessary only when actual knowledge is impossible. The most lasting harm done by proponents of ID is their paralyzing effect on public discourse about science. Consider also the stem cell question. Research has been delayed for years because of Bush's inability to offend his "base."

Reply to: I've really never understood what religion or persons of this or that faith have to fear from science... it seems eminently reasonable to me that science and religion can easily -- and happily -- coexist. I guess this makes me a "reasonable."

When you're talking about Christianity, they're afraid that their religion will be exposed as a sham. Right now, all Christianity has going for it is people who refuse to think. Refuse to examine the evidence that says Christianity is NOT credible.

From NYTimes: David Campbell teaches Biology in Orange Park, Florida:

"He scanned the faces of the sophomores in his Biology I class. Many of them, he knew from years of teaching high school in this Jacksonville suburb, had been raised to take the biblical creation story as fact. His gaze rested for a moment on Bryce Haas, a football player who attended the 6 a.m. prayer meetings of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes in the school gymnasium.

"'If I do this wrong,' Mr. Campbell remembers thinking on that humid spring morning, 'I’ll lose him.'"

"'Faith is not based on science,' Mr. Campbell said. 'And science is not based on faith. I don’t expect you to ‘believe’ the scientific explanation of evolution that we’re going to talk about over the next few weeks. But I do expect you to understand it.'"

That, to me, is the bottom line. Campbell's students, although they probably don't think so, are incredibly lucky to have him.(end)

http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/strollerderby/archive/2008/09/07/teaching-evolution-as-theory-not-fact.aspx

And that's the problem.

Christianity asks their victims to "believe" something that doesn't make sense. Science says, "If it doesn't make sense, reject it. Perform tests. Collect data. Find the Correct Answer."

If you want to know WHY science wants to get rid of religion:

Reply to: What would scientists do if presented with evidence contradicting evolution? Ignore it?

Religious folks see nothing wrong with assuming that scientists are dishonest. Why? Because every minister and pastor and priest they've ever met is the gullible victim of a con, and they instinctively assume everyone is just as dishonest.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/21/newsid_2565000/2565197.stm

http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/religion/pentecostal/godfraud.shtml

Darwin is attacked by some religious for the word theory because they see it as a belief rather than evidence. But, at the same time, they are in the business of belief. What a double standard; Yours is belief than fact because it does not go along with what I believe to be fact (example; the existence of God which is the only reason for them to protest The Origin of Species). It goes beyond evidence and belief towards control through the religious route.

I stopped reading your previous blog because of what you summed up in the 5 (and now 6) generalizations. I participated in another similar discussion on a newspaper comments section. The discussion boils down as you describe. To me, science, knowledge, is the pursuit of the face of the Lord. It is the lost words of Shakespeare, the forgotten chord and the smell after a rain.

The rules of physics, chemistry and biology did not emerge in recent history. They existed all along. That was how the past begot the present, which will in turn behold the future. Why would there be thought that the rules were suspendable? Things that happened, happened within those rules.

Yes, much was written to the best of the abilities of the writers. They wrote what they understood. They weren't present at the beginning. Even more, they had issues scribing then. They wrote to guide. They wrote to create a society and to provide a common basis. Words were written to enforce order and obediance. Disorder and disobediance was punishable. That disorder was considered the cause of the schism. But it wasn't. The schism is in not pursuing the Lord, through arts, through senses, through science.

HE is the least among you. Teach, tell, provide, heal.

The other thing that happened is that two men were born the same day in far different places. Both were essential for the world to progress. The world might have come to the same place with other people in their stead, but it is unlikely. They were both uniquely qualified for the time, the place and the purpose they fulfilled.

As a Catholic school survivor and vocal atheist, I must disagree with you on Point #2, which is that science has no opinion on religion. Science is always continuing to push its boundaries -- for years, we thought luck and love were off-limits, only to be presented with research that "love" produces the same chemicals in our brains as chocolate, that "lucky people" are simply more observant and open to possibilities than unlucky ones (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3335275.stm). Scientists have begun studying the centers of our brains that are active when we pray, not to mention outlining the evolutionary principles that gave rise to religious belief in the first place (Religion Explained, by Pascal Boyer). While it is up to the individual to decide whether or not the voice in their heads is that of an external being, or merely their own brain cells, it is inaccurate to say that science doesn't have an "opinion" on the matter, because it certainly does.

As we continue to look beyond into the far reaches of the galaxy, I think we will find that any God that mankind worships is an incredibly localized God, visible only from our particular vantage point in the universe. There will be no evidence of him on other planets -- but there will be plausible explanations for "miraculous" phenomena. Science did not need to "disprove" that Zeus was in charge of the weather; it is simply impractical to believe in two parallel explanations -- that weather is a natural phenomenon AND that Zeus is in charge of it. A God who "put evolution into play," who "caused the Big Bang," etc., is simply putting a supernatural face on natural phenomena. One either believes in Santa Claus, or in one's parents, but I yet to meet someone who believes that one's parents take on the "Body of Santa Claus" and transubstantiate the gifts their bought from K-Mart into toys made by elves.

My point is this -- so long as science takes the conciliatory approach, and says that we're not out to prove or disprove religion, we are in essence giving religions free reign to develop whatever ridiculous notions they like. As God's existence in our own universe becomes less and less likely, I don't particularly wish to be subject to a bunch of fanatics who claim there is a God in some parallel universe, which we can neither see, hear, nor touch, but who knows what's best for us anyway.

I believe that the answer has to lie somewhere between Science and a higher power. All of the science in the world can't change the fact that, at the beginning, something magical happened to spark the creation of our universe, making something unimaginably massive out of nothing. "Magic" meaning, of course, something that we can't explain.

Why is there a universe at all? The answer right now: "there just is". Someday we may have all of the answers, and I can bet that will be a pretty boring day.

Ebert: On the other hand, it could be pretty exciting. Why is there something instead of nothing? Because there isn't nothing, so that only leaves something. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen! Thank you very much!

Ebert: "'Belief' is necessary only when actual knowledge is impossible."

But the philosophical background behind science is basically pyrrhonic, in which absolute knowledge is not attainable, but some things are more probable than others to be true. Many (but of course not all) religions believe in something not through an analysis of the data but through faith.

I can "believe" in something religious that seems to contradict the evidence, and still use the evidence to my benefit. The evidence overwhelmingly supports Darwin (or, more accurately, it supports the current scientific theories that have, ahem, evolved since Darwin); if there is a God will I go to hell for using evolution? Or Gauss's Law, or the Maxwell-Boltzman distribution? All those things are not "the truth," but they're accurate. And they're pretty darn useful.

Longtime reader, first-time commenter. I've been reading your blog since the summer (I believe my first taste was your belated review of "Iron Man"), and have been hooked ever since. Politically, I lean to the conservative side. Religiously, I'm a cradle catholic, but I actually live out my faith and study it. That means I often disagree with what you have to say, but you obviously put a lot of time and thought into your statements and beliefs, which makes me think about my own very seriously. Your entries are always very interesting and challenging, and anyone who interests and challenges me is a valued companion, regardless of the differences in our beliefs and values.

I'm glad that, in this entry and others, you go to great lengths to show that there is no conflict between God and evolution, though it's sad that you have to go to those lengths in the first place. My high school Biology teacher, Mr. Phillips (one of the best teachers I ever had), was a firebreathing Southern Baptist, yet he had absolutely no problem teaching us Darwin's Theory of Evolution. (This was back at the turn of the millennium, before the ID controversy really began to flare up.) The catholic church has a long, proud intellectual history, and although catholics should know that there is no conflict between faith and evolution anyway, John Paul II was kind enough to state that for everyone.

Of course, what the pope says or what the catholic church teaches has no effect on fundamentalists, who are the ones driving the ID bandwagon. I've always assumed that the reason for the assumed conflict, especially the "Genesis happened 6,000 years ago" belief, is essentially doctrinal. Many fundamentalists, by necessity, hold to the doctrine of sola scriptura, only scripture. The catholic church has three legs of teaching: scripture, oral tradition, and the church itself. For catholics, the Bible does not necessarily contain all the truth. If something isn't explicitly stated in the Bible, it's no big deal to us. But for many fundamentalists, the Bible is all they've got. It's the theological corner they backed themselves into. Many of them, obviously, interpret it literally, apparently not having realized the perils of literal interpretation of documents written in very different languages and cultures.

Other comments have raised the point that "day" does not have to mean 24 earth hours. (In fact, if I remember correctly, the original word there literally means "period of time".) You raised the point of ID seeming to be a uniquely American notion; having lived in Japan for the last four years and having made friends from all over the world, I can back that up. I would also say that ID reflects a notion of uniquely American arrogance. The Bible was not written in modern American English, and to claim that evolution is false on the basis of interpreting literally something that cannot and should not be interpreted literally, disregarding history and science and culture and linguistics, is sickeningly arrogant.

However, I do have one bone to pick with you. Forgive me if I'm twisting your words, but you seem to be of the opinion that conviction (at least conviction in Christ) is a bad thing. Why profess a belief if you don't truly believe it? I'm not giving a free pass to the "true believers" on either side; you can be resolute in your belief and still be polite, tolerant and understanding of others' beliefs. There is a middle ground. Just like with God and evolution.

Many thanks for your wonderful writing. Keep up the good work!

Ebert: I wasn't saying conviction is a bad thing. I was pointing out that some Christians, anyway, believe that anyone who doesn't accept Jesus cannot be saved. The Church has a theory of "no salvation outside the church," but specifically exempts those who have not had the opportunity of baptism. In recent decades, I believe, the Church has been rethinking that.

I'm not sure what category I belong in. I tend to wonder why people even have to entertain the thought of a 'god'. I hear the argument that a belief in a god gives people comfort, whereas to my mind it does the opposite, as people defend their beliefs viciously, sometimes to the death.

Me, I've got better things to do, like reading huge volumes of blog comments!

I'm not all "Peace-n-love, man!", but for heaven's sake (ha!),people need to sit back and watch a movie, and enjoy their lives - no need to worry what the imaginary man in the clouds might be thinking about you. Have a cookie, make love, watch The Simpsons, listen to a Zappa album, but don't be judging other people based on your lack of intellect or imagination. And yet here I am, judging all of them. I just can't win.

Evolution simply makes sense, to anyone with an open mind. The concept of god....? ehhhhh, not so much.

I refuse to capitalize the word 'god', btw...so does that make me a non-Capitalist?

Hello Roger,

Happy Darwin day! Allow me to use this space to answer some comments sent your way:

To answer the poster mentioning the second law of thermodynamics: Does he know what it says? Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics. Invoking this against evolution is like saying that refrigerators cannot exist, because the second law of thermodynamics says you cannot create cold from heat. Refrigerators exist, so God runs all the refrigerators? What a boring job! Fortunately, God is not required: to remove some energy from a refrigerator, you use more energy to do the work and then reject all the combined energy outside the fridge. Here is the math: 1 unit of energy removed + 1 unit of energy = 2 units of energy rejected (and a cold bowl of ice cream, yum!).

In the case of evolution: "The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet is so vast that in one year it is about twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of the Earth's non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium combined". (Wikipedia). A tiny, tiny, tiny, (add a lot of tinys) part of this energy is used to drive evolution. The heat of this work is then added to the rest of the heat that is not conserved in the earth’s atmosphere and radiated out into space. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power#Energy_from_the_Sun.
By the way this also answers the fears of the ones who worry that we will run out of energy: The sun, some corn, a still, a boiler and an electric generator... all set for a few billion years of watching "My Fair Lady".

Regarding the “you cannot evolve complex forms from simpler forms without intelligent intervention” argument: Is the “Theory of stellar nuclear reactions” a hotly debated and controversial theory? (Gosh and golly gee, hope not, I mean, there are about 100 nuclear reactors in the United States alone, if they are all run according to the “Intelligent design of nuclear reactions theory”, another boring job for God, and worry for me). An essential part of this theory is the idea that all complex elements in the universe, gold, iron, uranium, nitrogen were created in supernovas from simple elements like hydrogen and helium. A process that wastes a cosmic amount of energy, but that has created the materials required for us to exist. Take a deep breath, more math: simple atoms + lots of energy and time = complex atoms. The evolution analogy: Simple life + energy and time = complex life.

Makes sense to me.

And now, in the spirit of the anniversary, here is a link to the book itself: On the Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/2009. Download it, read it, it’s free!!

As always that you Roger for your patience in running this blog and thank you for the opportunity to THINK!

Regards

Michel Lamontagne

Roger,

I must say, I was looking forward to this post this week. And no, I have no crystal ball. But after following your blog for about a year now, I was most definitely expecting it due to Darwin's birthday.

I watched Nova's "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" and was floored by the testimony of the I.D. proponents. When the expert for ID testified that (I'm paraphrasing) the reasoning of I.D. would also qualify ASTROLOGY as an acceptable scientific theory - I was floored! That in itself told me just how much the believers of I.D. have fooled themselves. The show was thoughtful and intelligent and very good at showing just how eloquent Darwin's theory is.

Roger, you made an excellent point when stating what many people believe regarding the word theory. A theory is not 'just' a theory. If only we were more educatated on the scientific facts that now back-up Darwin's theory.... and just how many of those facts there are. It's not just DNA. It's not just the evolution of dinosaurs to birds. It's SO many things.

Great post as always. And thanks for summing up the responses. I would never have the patience to read all those words as you have! Plus, it's quite interesting!

Take care to you, and all the posters here.

kj

Ebert: Has there ever been a movie about whites-only churches?

I'm not really sure one or another, but if there was one and you gave it a thumb's up, then chances are I would watch it. = )

Not to be too direct, but, Roger, could you please clarify for us now what exactly your religious beliefs are?

A professed atheist myself, I've been trying to figure it out for years to no avail... Care to end the mystery?

Ebert: I would rather my opinions were taken on their own and without a label.

Ebert: Most Catholics and most priests get along just fine. It's the bishops who seem more like Sister Mary Frowning.

This is true. Bishops, cardinals, popes -- all are illustrations of the St. Peter Principle at work.

Let me add to the dictionary definition of "theory" this entry from Merriam-Webster's (emphasis mine):

The analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another.

I find this definition to be very important because it underscores the difference between a theory, and the observed facts upon which it is built.

That evolution occurs is an observed fact. How it occurs is what the Theory of Evolution proposes. It proposes it so well that for 150 years, thousands of studies have been published in peer-reviewed, scientific journals, demonstrating the concordance of findings across the paleontological, geological, physiological, genetic, biological, microbiological, zoological, botanical, molecular chemical, and countless other scientific disciplines. In other words, it does not appear merely that evolution may have occurred as the theory proposes it, but it appears so precisely that evolution is one of the most observed facts, that one after another, independent findings from every angle of observation all point to the same conclusion: Descent with modification from a common ancestor through the mechanisms of natural selection, genetic drift and mutation.

Furthermore, to propose any alternative, such as Intelligent Design, requires not only putting forth your own explanation for how life is, which ID completely fails to do as all it proposes is merely that the other is untrue, but also to explain the occurrence of the observed facts. In other words, when Newton's Laws replaced Kepler's, they had to explain both his observations as well as those of Kepler's which could still be observed and were not merely a fluke, and Einstein's Theory of General Relativity had to explain Kepler's and Newton's observations in addition to his own... and so on.

Evolutionary theory is indeed the best theory in science, with more research supporting it than any other, including gravity about which far less is really known or understood (rather interesting that churches aren't lobbying school boards to replace gravity with Intelligent Falling). It is so enormously supported by fact it took the entire career of Stephen Jay Gould to prepare him for the ten years of writing which became his 1600+ page magnum opus, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. The unfortunate reality is that to understand science of that level there can be no shortcuts, and consequently even my father, an environmental scientist, finds it difficult to digest without some kind of primer on the life sciences outside his field of expertise.

This is integrity... scientists of integrity generally refuse to comment or profess knowledge of other subsciences outside their field work.

Yet let's look at the obverse. One of the leading forces in the battle against knowledge and common sense, the Institute for Creation Research, was founded by Henry Morris. Morris is indeed a scientist... he's a hydrogeologist. Let me repeat that in layman's terms: Academically he studied hydrogeology. In the field, for 30 years, he was a hydraulic engineer. Neither the late Dr. Morris nor most of his Institution's faculty, stick to commenting on areas within their own academic or practical fields of research. I have in fact read a paper on the effects of gravity on the magnetosphere put forth by Frank Sherwin, an ICR scientist. Care to take a guess what Mr. Sherwin's expertise is in? Mr. Sherwin has an M.A. in parasitology. So it goes that they continue to proffer the appearance of credentials to people less scrutinizing than themselves. Anyone wiser would notice the chicanery at work... or so you would think. Alas, even Arthur Conan Doyle was taken by the Cottingley Fairies hoax. But it should be noted that Doyle was an author, not a biologist.

Curious, I wrote the ICR some time ago, asking them for an example of even just one hypothesis concerning creationism/intelligent design put forth and published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It took their PR director a year before he replied to me, noting that they have no such examples. Why? Because ICR does not, as he put it, conduct ANY primary research of their own. What they do is "analyze" the research findings of others. This is why creationism and intelligent design are not a science... because no science is conducted. Book reports, especially poorly substantiated ones, are not science.

In other words, ICR admitted to me that they more or less are claiming a scientist conspiracy against something that doesn't exist... They do not get published because they do not submit any creationist papers for publication. In fact, one study conducted over three years, surveying 68 editors of science journals found that of the 135,000 papers submitted for publication, 18 dealt with scientific creationism, 12 went to one journal alone, and none were published due to poor scholarship, with editors noting that the articles appeared to be the work of laymen and not scientists. (Source: Scott, Eugenie C. and Henry P. Cole, "The Elusive Scientific Basis of Creation "Science." Quarterly Review of Biology. Vol. 60, No. 1. March 1985)

Do I win Ben Stein's money for pointing this out?

Ebert: A shiny new dime at the very least, I should think.

Oups,

All my fault,sorry, amateur poster at work, here they are again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/lookup?num=2009

Michel Lamontagne

i wrote this on/in my blog in november of '07 and have re-written it here:

i can end the centuries of debate about creationism (which has recently been semi-renamed "intelligent design") versus evolution. these two questions will help you find your answer.

point 1. according to one of the two creation explanations in the book of genesis, god created man first. then he attempted to create another living thing that would make a good partner for man. god started with the lowest form of one-celled creatures and worked his way up the ladder of intricate animals until finally he came upon the one creature that would suffice to keep man company - woman.

however, if god were really able to do that, and if god is so all-knowing and powerful, then why did he waste his time creating so many other animal "failures" that were just not good enough to keep man company? if god were really so perfect, why didn't he know exactly what to make from the beginning instead of practicing in his workshop with insects, reptiles, and rodents until finally getting it right?

point B. catholics insist that god only wants us to have sex in order to create children. he doesn't want us wearing condoms or using birth control because we're only supposed to be doing that when it's time to make a baby.

if that were true, then why did god make a reproductive process that is soooo much fun? if god didn't want us bopping around with each other, then why didn't he create a process that was more like trying to clean scrambled eggs from a cast-iron skillet?

i case my rest.

science equally as religion is capable as serving as the opium of the masses-----by over-emphasising the importance of the outer as against the inner universe-----a balance is needed

In response to Joe on February 12, 2009 3:22 PM
One interesting point that he makes in the movie, which I have come across in some of my history classes, is that the template for the Jesus Christ story was used in ancient societies way before the advent of Christ.

There's a book called "The Jesus Mysteries", which examines the earlier mystery cults of Osiris, Adonis, Mithra, etc., and points out the similarities to the recorded pronouncements of Christ. The authors' theory is that Christianity was originally an allegorical mystery cult for Jews, which spread to other groups, split into a literalist group and an allegorical group (the Gnostics), who proceeded to fight for control of the church. The literalists won.

But the one aspect of the book I found fascinating was that in the 4th century, the existence of the earlier mystery cults was well known, as was the similarities I mentioned above. And Christian theologians explained this away by stating that Satan knew God's plan, and introduced these cults to confuse humanity and lure them away from the true faith.

If god is a lawyer, the officials of his/her/its church have certainly learned well.

Roger, do you and Jim Emerson ever confer on the subjects you're writing about for your blogs?

Ebert: Nope. These are our blogs!

I would find evolutionary gradualism a viable historical/biological paradigm if it had ever been observed that genetic aberrations add novel genetic information and/or increased structural complexity in an organism's DNA.

It hasn't been observed, not once. Not even in millions of fruit fly generations whose mutations have been artificially accelerated by the observing scientists.

Who would believe in an explanatory paradigm that claims to be based on empirical evidence but can't claim a single empirical example of one of its basic tenets?

Ebert: As I understand it, all DNA strands replicate their double helix. When a molecule replicates, two DNA molecules are formed that are identical to each other and to the parent molecule. "Additional" structural information would not be relevant. What matters is the activation and sequencing of the on-off switches. The whole mechanism of DNA depends on digital consistency. If it were analog, it would develop Alzheimers. What mutation does is (rarely) randomly affect the DNA with changes that are either beneficial, detrimental, or neither. 70% of a fruit fly's genes are also found in humans. Fact.

Call me misguided, but I have read these blog entries on Darwinism differently than most. Yes, Roger, you have a deep rooted interest in Darwin and Evolution that makes you a very well spoken advocate. But am I wrong in assuming that the true theme of your blog entries is: why are we so insistent on making OUR beliefs YOUR beliefs? Why is RIGHTNESS the overriding principle of believers of any stripe?

Ebert: Has to do with the confusion of belief and science in tax-supported schools.

It always bugs me when I walk into a 7-11 and see that the packaging on a product has changed. Does changing the font of the logo on a bag of Doritos make them taste any different? Perhaps the company thinks that by "modernizing" the packaging, people will somehow buy into thinking that the contents in the bag have transformed into something entirely different than what was there before.

In the same respect, when the name "Creationism" is changed to "Intelligent Design"....aren't we really still eating the same old Doritos? Same chips, different bag? Maybe using the word "intelligent" in Intelligent Design is just a way to convince people that instead of believing that God created the universe in 6 days, we are now to believe, not only that God intelligently designed the universe in 6 days, but that there actually is a difference.

By the way, I have come to the conclusion that the world we experience after we die will feel exactly the same as it did before we were born.

Ebert: Consider also the stem cell question. Research has been delayed for years because of Bush's inability to offend his "base."

Consider also that Bush did not ban stem cell research, not even federal allocations of money for stem cell research. He prohibited the acquisition of new embryos for federally-funded research, and that's about it.

Consider also that adult stem cell treatments are already more effective than embryonic stem cell treatments. Adult stem cell treatments have already advanced to clinical testing on humans, whereas embryonic stem cell treatments are still unstable.

Consider also that new techniques have allowed scientists to synthesize embryonic stem cells from adult stem cells, giving hope that in the future, no ethical quandary may be involved in the use of embryonic stem cells.

But hey, I'm just "Bush's 'base,'" so whatever scientific facts I know must not matter.

Roger,

I was wondering if you had seen this poll:

http://www.economist.com/daily/chartgallery/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13062613&source=most_commented

What I don't get is how people make Evolution to be some big complex thing. Very little is actually required for evolution to occur.

All you need is three things:

• Reproduction
• Variation
• Selection

We see this in computer simulations, in genetic algorithms, and in physical systems, as well in biological systems.

What's so hard to understand about that?

Another way to look at the word 'theory'.

Let us suppose that three homicide investigators are called to what appears to be a crime scene. There they find a person who has obviously been shot in the back of the head. There is no gun at the scene.

Subsequent analysis reveals no gunshot residue on the victim's hands. Ballistic analysis reveals that the fatal shot was fired from more than a few feet away.

All three investigators agree that it was not a suicide.

Each one may develop a theory of what happened. None of them doubt that the victim is dead, and none of them doubt that the wound was not self-inflicted.

That the victim is dead is a fact. That the victim did not shot himself is a fact. "Theory" comes into play when we try to understand, in as much detail as possible, just what happened.

Evolutionary biologists and other interested scientists may differ on some details, as in Stephen Jay Gould's support for puncuated equilibrium.

None doubt the biological fact - and it is a fact - of evolution.

This is why there is still room to argue about details of gravitational theory or electromagnetic theory, though we do not doubt the existence of gravity or electricity.

"Only a theory" is only a crock.

I would like to clarify a point made by Mr. Safaya regarding Dr. Morris's scientific background, that he is a hydrogeologist and as such is not really qualified to disparage evolution. He is actually an engineer specializing in hydraulics and not a hydrogeologist. I point this out because I am a hydrogeologist, which is a specialty of geology. And as any geology student, I had to suffer through paleontology and its endless descriptions of fossil taxonomy (isn't this biology?) starting from the most simple to the most complex. And that required an understanding of the theory of evolution, since the fossil record substantiates the basic tenets of that theory. So please don't throw Dr. Morris in my rock pile. And I leave you with one of the most important things I learned in geology, which I hope is appropriate: you can't take schist for granite.

PS. I am also a PK (preacher's kid), and unlike Mr. Spock, have never had any problems with my human half not getting along with my vulcan half.

The logic of my grandparent (who is not, in fact, an ape), when asked whether she "trusted" modern scientific research and theories:

"When I was pregnant with your aunt, I was depressed. I don't know why. So I went to a doctor and he prescribed me some amphetamines. I felt great... too great. Last I heard those pill were illegal to prescribe to pregnant women. I can't trust science after that."

An intelligent woman my grandmother is, yet she formulated such a strong opinion based on the constant change and refinement of Science. Maybe the "bad science" (of the story) is actually the so-called "theory" of intelligent design, and the new ban on taking amphetamines while pregnant is the Theory of Evolution. Isn't refining our knowledge something that is good, and should happen? Isn't there always going to be some new discovery that we all will inevitably have to accept as true, even if that new thing disproves something we had always accepted as fact? If everyone always stuck with what was taught to them in elementary school, wouldn't we live in a world exactly like that of millions of years ago? What if the man who created the wheel showed it to his friends, and his friends said, "I don't know, man. What's wrong with walking?"

This link is obviously worth your time...
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/evolutionists_flock_to_darwin

I think I'll invite a new species for myself:

"The Futilist" - That's a word I made up and will take credit for if it catches on. It's a futile debate, because no one on either side will convert anyone on the other. The overwhelming mass of responsible scientists support evolution, and some people just won't listen to it. Ever. Some people answer science with faith, as if learning too much about the world God created would somehow rob them of their ability to believe it without evidence.

Oh forget it. Now I'm arguing. I'm going to stop that now. Religion can be a beautiful thing, but it frustrates me when a few among the religious try to wrestle reason away from the world in the name of faith.

I think it's time to put this debate to bed. Science is not something you can agree or disagree about, but it seems disagreeing has resulted in spending a lot of words that could better be used talking about, say, "A Tale of Two Cities." I haven't read it. In the time it would take me to read 1000 blog comments, I probably could.

Dear Mr. Ebert,

First and foremost I am very glad to see that you are getting better and still writing for all of us. I hope your recovery continues. You still have much to say to us.

The second things is I can finally answer the Evolution vs. Creationism Debate with the definitive answer.

"I don't Know."

People of faith are often blasted because they made choices based on ideological leaps. They believe in a God, as do I, that can do anything. Did God create the world in less than a week? A real seven day week?

I don't know.

Was Darwin correct in his theory of evolution? I don't know. I suspect he was pretty close....but I don't know.

I know I have a family that I am responsible for. That I have to take care of. That tends to occupy me. I have to find a way to house, clothe and feed them. That is my priority.

I also wanted to write because a few years ago, Mr. Ebert and his granddaughters sang, "Take me out to the Ball Game" at Wrigley Field. I wrote a review of the event. I praised the two granddaughters for showing some obvious talent. I was a little harsh on Mr. Ebert, though, saying his singing and meter were "Not up to the talents of the younger girls." Obviously, my tongue was firmly in my cheek...but I suspect Mr. Ebert never saw this. Perhaps just as well, but I thought I'd give him the chance.

Thank you for everything you have given us over your career.

Rick

Well, that has nothing to do with this thread. I just thought he might like to know I remember their appearance at Wrigley Field a few years back.

I'm sure this other discussion will get resolved some day. I will not likely be around for it.

Rick

Ebert: Two grandsons, one granddaughter. I was distracted by conducting them.

Brilliant. Those five points need to be carved into bronze and enshrined above the doors of every public school in the country.

The theory of evolution strikes me as an innocent nation that has unfortunately been utilized as a battlefield between two states it's neutral towards. It doesn't have anything to do with theism or atheism, yet it's repeatedly demonized as false by staunch theists and hailed as proof of a godless universe by hardline atheists, when in reality the theory by itself is a study of nature, not the supernatural.

The fact that it's considered controversial in the light of overwhelming evidence in support of it is saddening. Faith and reason need not be enemies.

I think that a good 95% of us are preaching to the choir when it comes to the theory of evolution vs intelligent design. Virtually all of us still here accept the theory of evolution as the most logical explanation for how life on this planet came to be as it is today, and I suppose a majority of people here still believe in their god too and find there's no conflict.

So I want to ramp it up to the next level of debate. Roger I don't know your own feelings on this but I hope you consider it food for a future blog posting.

The debate I'm talking about is the one that is happening in the world outside of America. Is religion necessary for, or even relevent to, ethics and morality? In other words, are the religious more ethical and moral than atheists? Can atheists be truly moral people? Can an atheist society have true moral and ethical principles? Or are all atheist societies destined to collapse into 'evil' without religion to guide them? Theists often hold up Stalin and Mao Ze Dong as atheist rulers destined by definition to immorality, and the atrocious acts they committed as the clear and inevitable result of atheism.

However this debate was started long, long, ago. The earliest record I know of in this debate is one Socrates' dialogues as recorded by Plato. In this dialogue Socrates was debating with a prosecutor about the guilt or innocence of a man who committed a crime 'against the gods', in other words, did something against the gods' will. Socrates turned this into a debate about whether the gods' will was even relevent to questions of right and wrong.

Socrates' argument was thus:
Either:
1) God tells us to do what is right because it is right according to independent principles of morality that even God must obey

or

2) What God tells us to do is right simply because God tells us to do it. If God had told us to do the opposite, that opposite thing would also be right, simply because God told us to do it.

If we agree with number 1), we find that God is somewhat irrelevent to morality. The principles of right and wrong exist outside of him, and he merely reports them to us via his prophets and the bible/koran/talmud or whatever. What we find is not only must we accept that something exists above and beyond God, thus forcing some people to change their definition of God, but that there are thousands of different and often conflicting views on what God actually tells us to do. Therefore it makes a lot more sense to skip the whole 'God' stage, and try to reason for ourselves what really makes a given ethical choice right or wrong. Relying on God or his millions of conflicting prophets seems to be an entirely unnecessary and fruitless step.

If we agree with number 2) we are in essence saying that there is no right or wrong at all. Number 2 truly leads to ethical nihilism. If God has no reason outside of himself to give us his ethical commands, he might just as easily have ordered all mothers to eat their third-born children, and we would have to accept that as right and good merely because it came from God. Theists who respond 'But God would never say that!' are missing the point: WHY would God never say that? If God would 'never' do something, it must be because a reason outside of himself exists, thus referring us back to number 1).

So you can see my position on this debate. I think Socrates basically solved it, 2400 years ago. What about Stalin and Mao? They were paranoid tyrants who killed tens of millions in the name of preserving their own power, yes, undoutedly evil men. But Kruschev, Deng Xiao Ping, and all the leaders of China and Russia since then were just as atheist, and are just as moral as any world leader. Hu Jin Tao and Wen Jia Bao in particular deserve all kinds of credit, in my opinion, for their humane and socially just policies. Considering the challenges they face with China, they have done a truly extraordinary job of improving the quality of life of enormous numbers of people, and of resisting the hardliners of their party that would love nothing more than to crush the peasants and use the military to assert ultimate control while manipulating the economy to enrich themselves and assure their ultimate power.

On the other hand we can see how religion has been used to justify war throughout all of human history. Instead of 'bible study', what people really need is humanist philosophy classes that encourage people to think deeply about right and wrong, about what makes one choice ethically 'good' or 'bad'. People have literally no education in this area and it cripples their moral sense, and that is why they turn to religion, which is a clearly imperfect and flawed way of getting to the bottom of questions of right and wrong. The fact that people can quote bible passages, but couldn't explain the difference between act and rule utilitarianism, for example, is in my view a major failing of education. Relying on parents to teach right and wrong is no better than relying on them to teach engineering or physics; if the parents themselves have no proper education in this area, how are they supposed to be able to teach it? When it comes to morality and ethics, for 99% of people, it's the blind leading the blind. How I wish proper philosophy classes were taught in school. If parents disagree, fine, they have every right to disagree, just as they have every right to disagree that 2+3=5, but for 99% of parents they are disagreeing from a place of total ignorance, and I see no reason to allow their ignorant dissent prevent their children from recieving a proper education on everything that they will find important in their adult lives.

Roger,

You are a trouble maker and should be sent to see the headmaster immediately!

Seriously though. Anyone reading these threads should check out the recent BBC documentary by the divine Sir David Attenborough celebrating the bicentennial. He reads from the bible and his own personal 6th edition copy of "The origin of Species" and then takes us on a world wide trip that shows why he knows that we are descendants of apes.

He is a respected broadcaster and a huge fan of Darwin and thinks he's one of the most important characters in all of science. If he says so, and with all deference to you Roger. It must be so.

By the way, when we Brits here that in February 2009 every other American believes in creationism, we truly do not envy the task ahead for our global leader, Mr.Obama!

Rob

This cultural war is a sad sign of the intellectual poverty of our country. These are philosophical, theological questions which many great minds have pondered for ages. The level of this debate seems about a hundred years out of date. If we were a more literate society which framed the knowledge we discussed in critical philosophical perspectives, the debate could be moved to a much less ridiculous level of inquiry. Alfred North Whitehead, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, just to name the more Christian thinkers who were inspired by the idea of evolution to create new perspectives for debate. This could be fun and we all could learn so much from each other. Instead we tend to be intellectually lazy, and more interested in stretching our very limited knowledge into domains we don't understand. Let the scientists do science, let the religious continue to tell their children's stories, and for those who really want to join the exciting task of creating and critically assessing our culture, then let us be humble and careful enough to give these issues the deeper thought they deserve. Because when it comes down to it, without any quantum physics it is quite apparent that we are creators, and how we answer these questions will have powerful consequences on how we create our lives and how they will evolve in the future. If we leave scientists to interpret their own findings, then of course they are going to come up with a rather uncreative framing. They can't do everything. Even they are slowly facing the evidence that consciousness is not a passive receiver of an unconscious material reality. This isn't New Age Metaphysics folks. This is three hundred year old philosophy. And the debate has gotten even more interesting. Richard Dawkins and his cronies are lightweight analytical dogmatists, equally as limited as the people they attack. Even science is moving on. Consciousness affects reality, reality evolves, Creation is now, evolution is now and we are a part of it. Now where do we want to go? To a sterilized rationalized meaningless society, where this instrumentalized Reason is appropriated by capitalism and people starved for meaning embrace a childish and dangerous fundamentalism? Im sure we can create a more tasteful society. Bring back an emphasis in the arts and literature in schools and maybe we can stop the next outbreak of cultural war.

I'm a big fan, so I'm going to have to disagree respectfully with some of these points.

2. Science has no opinion on religion. It cannot. Science deals with that which can be studied or inferred by observation, measurement, and experiment.

You're seriously saying that even if, say, DNA evidence that Jesus had no biological father was found, that this would have absolutely no bearing on Christianity?

What about if, when the human genome was sequenced, it had been found that all species were completely unrelated? That they were unchanging products of acts of special creation as described in Genesis? What about if the full text of The Bible, or the Qur'an was written in their genes? What if Christians could drink any amount of any poison without getting hurt in any way, as they are told they should be able to?

What about if double-blind intercessary prayer studies showed that, say, Baptist prayer cured all illnesses but the prayers of no other religious group had any effect? Are you seriously saying that the Baptists wouldn't comment on this discovery? Baptists would ignore it completely, because "science has no opinion on religion"?

What if Catholics, but ONLY Catholics, could re-grow severed limbs through prayer? Would the Catholics dismiss it as science, and therefore irrelevant to their faith? None of these possibilities would be in any way out of place among the mystical healing stories you find in the holy books of various religions.

What about if archaeologists in Medina found the skeleton of a flying horse with the face of a woman, do you think that wouldn't have any bearing at all on Islam?

What if one of the many available holy books contained detailed scientific knowledge that the people who wrote it couldn't possibly have known? Knowledge that was revealed to them and which they repeated diligently without comprehension, but which ties in clearly and unambiguously with recent discoveries? Knowledge that ONLY a god could have had at the time the books were written. Would science be irrelevant to religion then?

I could go on, but I don't think I have to. There is no such thing as a diffuse "religion" that science cannot touch. Nobody vaguely follows "a faith" in "some sort of higher power". Nobody believes in merely "something greater than themselves". These phrases are all just comfortable noises that are made whenever dogmas come under unwanted scrutiny. Every specific religion describes a specific god and is composed of specific doctrines and makes specific claims about the nature of reality, claims that can be tested scientifically. Claims that could be CONFIRMED scientifically.

Given the particular dogmas of individual religions, it is trivially easy to come up with discoveries that would confirm the truth of their doctrines and the existence of their god (and, of course, the consequent nonexistence of all the other gods), and these would be amenable to "observation, measurement, and experiment". That's the whole point of the Templeton Foundation, after all.

Experiment after experiment has been carried out, and the result is always the same: If the tests are conducted honestly the religious claims fail, for example the
STEP intercessary prayer study.

Science is relevant to religion, precisely because it is so easy to come up with discoveries that would confirm the truth of a specific religion (and the consequent falsity of all the others) based on its claims and doctrines.

These discoveries have not been made, and the claims of religions are always falsified when they are amenable to testing, which is often. Victor Stenger's excellent book "God: The Failed Hypothesis" explores this in detail.

In science, if every truth claim made in support of an idea is falsified, if every investigation gives the answer you'd expect if the idea wasn't true and if the entire sum of our knowledge leaves no room for an idea and no reason to propose it then we can consider this idea falsified. This is true of every theistic (read: personal and interventionist) god that has ever been put forward. This is also why religious scientists have to retreat back to vague deism or godishness, ideas of "quantum inteterminacy" or "the ground of all being" or "the precondition that life can exist at all" when attempting to justify their beliefs; because they know more than anyone that science leaves no room for any traditional god that's actually worth worshiping.

3. The Theory of Evolution does not require that you abandon your religion, or vice versa. This despite the assertion of a Darwinian like Richard Dawkins that, logically, it does.

Again, if investigations subsequent to Darwin had found that species weren't all related and were in fact discrete products of special creation, this would support a religious explanation. Religious believers wouldn't call science irrelevant to their religion then. In fact, even now religious believers are quite happy to enlist science if they think it can be used to support their beliefs.

Evolution may not require you to "abandon your religion" but it removes the single strongest argument for a god, the argument from design. This is the argument you hear 99% of the time in defense of a god from the religious, so OF COURSE a discovery that renders it worthless will be relevant to religion.

The fact is that all the evidence strongly supports the claim that all life evolved by a process of natural selection. This is a process of continual evolution by bloodsport, involving advancement by regularly outbreeding other, less well-adapted animals until they become extinct and which is helped along by occasional mass-extinctions. It is a process of relentless, endless starvation, privation and death that takes place over hundreds of millions of years. It is a process that produces bodged-together adequacy, not perfect adaptation. Humans have been produced by this process and our existence is utterly contingent, our emergence was in no way guaranteed and there is no guarantee that we will survive.

This view of reality, that is supported by overwhelming evidence from a wide range of independent scientific disciplines, directly contradicts the view that we are the intentional creation of a loving, compassionate and PERFECT god who loves us and values us above all things. Christianity and other providentialist religions need this central belief or they become vacuous and pointless. Evolution makes this belief untenable, and the best proof of this is the truly horrendous arguments made by religious scientists such as Francis Collins and Ken Miller when they attempt to reconcile the two perspectives.

This view of reality is not problematic if it is simply the end result of non-teleological natural laws. We would have no reason to expect anything else from the universe. However, if we are to think that a loving, omnipotent god which sees us as its children set things up so evolution would happen, and then watched it over millions of years, only intervening by coming down on a largely self-defeating suicide mission or making his final revelation to an illiterate merchant barely an eyeblink ago, it's not exactly a heartwarming picture of the god.

It would be like if I had a baby, and I put the baby into a meat grinder, ignoring every one of its screams, then I set up some method of going through the grindings and sorting out the best bits from the less good bits that works without my direct intervention but that I can oversee in intricate detail. Then the bloody, mangled shreds of flesh that had been picked as the best ones would be told to worship me as a loving father.

Evolution produces marvelous beauty and complexity, but the process itself is bloody and hideous. It cannot be reconciled with the idea of a controlling intelligence that is in any way benevolent, that cares at all about the individual well-being of its creations. This is why evolution is problematic for religious faith.

I think the question that really needs to be asked here, is why does this debate rage on almost ONLY in the USA?

Remember the UFO culture? And all the near-death experiences?

What exactly is it about America?

Anyway, this is a good article. But I have some reservations regarding point three. You wrote: The Theory of Evolution does not require that you abandon your religion, or vice versa. This despite the assertion of a Darwinian like Richard Dawkins that, logically, it does. That's his opinion. A great many scientists subscribe to religion, and a great many religious people subscribe to the Theory. No insomnia has been reported, and they all seem content with their conclusions.

On your earlier entry on evolution, I had commented:
“I think the Theory of Evolution does have an opinion on God. Let us be clear what we mean by evolution. Evolution is the painfully gradual process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage by wholly accidental events or circumstance. Now, we cannot have this if we have an almighty being pulling the strings according to his fancy. The results wouldn’t then be ‘accidental’ or even the finite number of possibilities a specific environment can produce.
For those who would argue that God made the universe, but then let it go (thereby ‘creating’ evolution), what meaning do you have to a God who can have no influence anymore? That strikes to me nothing more than a clever yet cowardly juggling of words.”

Hence, to form an objective opinion, I would think that simultaneously accepting the theory of evolution and not abandoning your religion is impossible. As much as I hate to say it, something has to be chosen. Because ‘all opinions are not equal.’

It doesn’t matter that a great many scientists subscribe to religion, including Einstein. If you scratch over the surface, that subscription is more for the human condition. Because as human beings they realized that ‘being objective’ is not, ironically, how the human brain evolved. Because being objective on the savannah did not always bode well for survival.

I don’t remember who said it, but ‘God is an unnecessary hypothesis.’

Since we can not yet (or may never)resolve the argument as to what brought us into existence, why not focus most of our creativity and energy on how to best continue our existence? Let us keep pursuing wisdom and goodness and justice and hope that God (if such a being exists) is interested in pursuing the same thing. If this was God's first venture at creating a universe, chances are that things turned out a little harsh around the edges. In a perfect world, my wife says, cats would have no desire to terrify cute little mice.

It's difficult to go against beliefs taught to one as a child. I have attended and graduated from high school and college in Texas, and can vividly remember a science teacher drawing a long, vertical line in chalk upon the chalkboard. On one side was creation and the other evolution. He wrote both arguments, not because he supported them, but because he felt he had to. Even as immature and distracted as I was at the time (I was probably wearing a KISS concert t-shirt), I thought it odd to include both beliefs when it was clear Darwin's Theory was truly science while the other supernatural. The reality of science does not disprove the supernatural, for supernatural by nature cannot be disproved. But what is the supernatural? During traumatic instances in life when overwhelmed by hopelessness, I pray to God and ask for strength, forgiveness and assurance. I often consider this reaction. My parents, school teachers on the lower income side of Dallas, did not raise my sister and I with religious beliefs. In fact, the only time I ever attended church was weekends when I would stay with my grandmother. She lived in a trailer in a farming community 30 miles outside of Dallas, and on weekends we would dress in formal clothes and attend a small Baptist church with a gravel parking lot. There, holding her hand, I was introduced to her friends, mostly elderly women smelling of lotion and perfume and powder. My grandmother's face was bright and social and everyone was pleasant. These days were almost always sunny, and after wards we would go to the cafe on the square for lunch, seated with this mannered, aged clique as they laughed and gossiped, some talking of days as recently as 1940 when they rode to town on mule-drawn wagons. Everyone was polite and there was a comforting decency to the day. It was a different world. When my grandmother died, she was bedridden for the final months, her eyes brightening whenever I entered the room. There was a small tape player on a bedside table and she would play religious songs by The Statler Brothers and other bands I had never heard of. The window shade was open and the room was drenched in afternoon sun. She left this world thoroughly convinced God was waiting for her. And so, do I pray to the God that made this extraordinarily kind woman hopeful? Do I pray to my grandmother? If I deny the existence of God, am I denying the very existence of my grandmother, her parents and her great grandparents? Am I searching for hope from a period of childhood that was absolutely pure? To argue vehemently for the existence of God is to argue vehemently for the existence of ones own childhood. Towards the end, most of us ironically return to such purity, akin to the salmon completing their life-cycle when they return home to spawn. Denying the existence of science is denying a cold reality. For some, to deny Creation is to deny their roots, which in many instances is a force so strong as to be supernatural. While I would never wish my child to be taught Intelligent Design in a science classroom, I am not surprised by the need to put forth such ideas. When hope is lost, sometimes madness can only be held back by a line of chalk.

Oh, you Americans!

WARNING - The following opinion does not originate in the United States. And while not blind to the various forces which work themselves upon those who call it home - or Canada’s penchant for producing smug bastards, for the sake of sparing others the effort of pointing that out to me, I thought I’d do it for you while covering my ass at the same time.

For I know I can’t engage you as a fellow American but rather, only as a neighbor looking over a shared fence, trying to manage their salmon barbecue while blocking-out the sound of your dog - which is always barking.

I mean, what is it with you guys and Religion? Jeesh, I swear, there are days when I could mistake America for parts of the Middle East, your endless battles over religion and seemingly without an end, striking me as more akin to Palestine vs Israel than the alleged “land of the free”.

Note: I should declare for the record that I don’t believe in Creationism or Intelligent Design for seeing nothing intelligent about it, nor having any issue whatsoever with the thought that I rose genetically from the primordial oooze. While at the same time believing in a God, just not one defined by any particular religion. Unless there’s one out there that worships a 4-shot cappuccino.

I know proponents of Intelligent Design/Creationism are pushing for it to be taught in schools and that’s part of the problem and why the issue keeps popping up. What I don’t understand is why.

What’s so bad about living in a democracy founded upon a Constitution guaranteeing equal treatment under the law along with civil rights, that anyone would feel it necessary to blur the lines between church and state? What’s so bad about living in the United States that you can’t be content with it? Sure, it’s not perfect, but where is? Canada’s got issues, England’s got issues, we’ve all got something me could groan about – but as far as I know, only you guys (ie: a western nation) have folks wanting to go back to the good old days when the sun revolved around the earth.

I feel sorry for people who are threatened by science, and repulsed by the thought of being genetically linked to an animal at some point, that they refuse to even consider it. How sad to think they need to believe in something that asserts their “spiritual superiority” over what amounts to just another life – and made by the same God who made you. I quite like the idea, myself! It means science has finally caught up to me now and what I’ve long suspected…

It’s all connected. And isn’t that wonderful! To be related to drunken jokes like the platypus – as gosh, what a clever God to have designed a form of life capable of making so many other shapes with just a handful of genes, so to speak. You’d think people would happy to know we’re all related and officially part of the bigger picture.

Is it because religion doesn’t support the view that animals have souls and without one, you won’t get into heaven? Ergo, eeew, I don’t want to be seen on any level as an animal? Is it because mankind was supposed to have been placed here on earth where animals were meant to serve us? Is it an “ego” thing? Needing to feel extra-special? Is it because calling another person an “animal” has long been used as a form of insult?

I’d consider myself most fortunate indeed to be related to a dolphin or an otter - basically anything that likes to play; smile. And if I arrived at “this shape” for something else having crawled out of the mud, cool! It makes me take extra care moreover, whenever I’m hiking in the woods near to where I live, less I hurt some small creature that was once “I” under foot. In fact, I’ve rescued tiny things upon finding them distress, so small and fragile you have to use the edge of a leaf or else you’d most surely crush them. And maybe it stills ends up as something’s lunch, but at least I walk away knowing I wasn’t the cause of his demise.

Feeling connected to the things around you is how to relate to them and not see them as being separate from you. And I think that’s the danger of Intelligent Design and Creationism. It’s not about connecting it’s about separating. It’s about drawing lines and making distinctions between the “higher” forms and the lower ones – and how 19th century BRITISH of you. And smack me Bible-thumper if you want to, but I think that speaks to low spiritual self-esteem. Having to step on something smaller to make yourself feel taller in your own eyes and for thinking that’s how God now will see you too.

Not as a chimp. Something better. Something loved more by God.

Perhaps - as none of us will know for sure until we die. But I’d rather believe in a God I personally don’t think is an asshole.

Ebert: You know, the platypus is superbly well designed. Its beak can scoop into the mud of river and lake beds, and sense both the slightest motions and faint electrical discharges of shrimp, who do not find it a joke.

Ebert: Dear Readers,

Several of you, starting with Ali Arikan in the very first comment, have referred to the Peanut Butter Experiment, which I said I had not heard about. Jim Emerson sent me the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504

Cheers,
R

As a biblical scholar of sorts, the problem as I see it is that people reading Genesis often fail to take into account that it represented a way for the ancient Israelites to place the world around them into context in order to understand it. The story of creation was not an attempt to understand the origins of life, the universe, and everything, but instead to emphasize two key points. Everything originates from God. And the important aspect of creation was the seventh day, Shabbat, the day of rest.
After this we are told that we are to observe the day of rest, which Americans are worse at than just about any other country in the world, and we are to take care of this earth, by which science plays a key part.
Genesis was not meant to be read in such a literal fashion. It was meant to lay the foundation for the book of Exodus, the beginning of the story of Israel becoming a people and a nation.

Ebert: That helps answer my question, why would God need to rest?

Darwin's enemies on the Right and Left:

http://www.isteve.com/Darwin-EnemiesonRight.htm

http://www.isteve.com/Darwin-EnemiesonLeft.htm

http://www.takimag.com/site/article/whats_so_scarry_about_evolution/

Nonetheless, the debate, which is not taken seriously in any other nation on earth

Roger, there is a Creationist movement in Turkey. More Turks than Americans reject evolution.
http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2008/03/turkey_creationism_secularism.php

I can't stand the oft-repeated claim that science and religion are separate and have absolutely no bearing on one another. This might be true if religion is reduced to it's utter, bare essentials; i.e. faith in a sort of undefined, unknowable creator or idea about the universe, with no details given.

But most religions tend to elaborate on that basic premise. A lot. Taking what seems to be the Christian default for these discussions, God isn't just a vague and unknowable entity; he had a son named Jesus who lived in Judea at a certain period during the Roman occupation and who was crucified for our sins. He created the first two human beings, Adam and Eve, from scratch. At some point he flooded the world. It is perfectly possible to verify such things in this world, and if the evidence doesn't fit, then the religion's claims to truth suffer as a result.

Religion is threatened by science, and always will be. The 'God of the Gaps' will find fewer and fewer places to hide himself as we learn more and more about our universe, seem more and more like an absurd relic. The edge of the observable universe is some 46 billion light years away, and the universe itself is filled with some 100 billion galaxies, which each contain millions, billions, or even a trillion stars. When such knowledge starts to become available and verifiable, and it becomes clear how utterly small we are in the grand scheme of things, how is it possible for the omnipotent, omniscient Abrahamic god, with his complete fixation on earth and covenants with small tribes of desert nomads, to not look increasingly silly?

I do not want to offend anyone but religon and the beliefs that come from it are not rational. People are so scared of death and can't accept the fact that this is all there is, and so have to believe in something that in my view makes about as much sense as Santa. But some people do need it in order to live their lives. I just wish some of these folks would learn not to judge those of us who have a differnt view. As George Carlin said, "Keep thy religon to thyself."

Evolution doesn't directly rebut religion, but it's part of a wide range of scientific discoveries that are undermining the religious worldview.

Today, biblical literalism is in decline because science has exposed the bible's man-made origins, and while the religious continue to cling to their archaic beliefs, science will perpetually build upon ideas and scientific discoveries and expand our understanding of the world in ways we can't imagine. So, whatever anyone "believes", I'd like to think that science will continue chipping away at religion (over the coming centuries) until there is nothing left (that the religious have to resort to simpleton arguments like the Peanut Butter Experiment, seems to support this).

p.s. If I sound belligerent, it's because I'm thinking of religion in terms of its influence on the state and civil society. I make a distinction between religion in the personal sphere and in the social/political sphere. I doubt religion will ever be eradicated from the personal sphere (and I don't care if it isn't, people can believe what they want), but I hope we become wise enough to completely eliminate it from the social/political sphere.

And kudos for feeding this debate Roger. We've seen that some people shy away from talking about this and view it as a "fight", but this represents a major clash within modern society and therefore needs to be discussed and explored vigorously by all parties.

Ebert: The Peanut Butter Experiment should not be pinned on ID. I believe it may be an Onion production.

Ezra wrote:

"I would find evolutionary gradualism a viable historical/biological paradigm if it had ever been observed that genetic aberrations add novel genetic information and/or increased structural complexity in an organism's DNA."

1) Define information
2) Define complexity
3) Point to where either an increase in *information* or *complexity* is a necessary component of evolution.
4) Provide citations and show your math. Information theory is a mathematical discipline.

ID'ers like to talk about information theory but really have no idea what it means beyond a few catch phrases and buzzwords they have picked up. A mouse has about the same number of genes as a human being? Which has more information? Is a lion more complex than an eagle? Or an octopus? Or an oak tree?

Evolution is about change that helps a population better adapt to a specific environment in time. If that means an decrease in *complexity* or *information*, it's all the same for the population. If it means an increase provides a reproductive advantage, that will be selected for. IOW, the amount of *information* or *complexity* present is a non starter. It only means something to those who don't understand evolutionary biology.

Roger,

In the beginning there was nothing. As Shakespeare wrote "Nothing will come of nothing". Quite clearly, if there was in fact nothing, there would still be nothing. Therefore there is nothing now, so nothing to worry about.

Larry

Ebert: It got better. Then there was light. But how did it know it was light, when there was nothing to shine on and no one to see it?

Sir-

Modern biology saves lives, but the old biology (Greek) understands those lives better.
Bob

Let me know if I'm being unfair--or simply obtuse.

In his withdrawal from the commerce secretary position, Judd Gregg stated, “It has become apparent during this process that this will not work for me, as I have found that on issues such as the stimulus package and the census, there are irresolvable conflicts for me.”

In an earlier posting you had commented on conservatism's failure to solve our problems. And in the tenor of the creationist/conservative position I heard Gregg's voice, convinced that the conflicts are "irresolvable." So much for intelligent design--at least as far as the conservative brain is concerned.

Maybe it's just me but if I didn't know better I'd swear that Peanut Butter YouTube clip was written by Christopher Guest!

"Ebert: The Peanut Butter Experiment should not be pinned on ID. I believe it may be an Onion production."

Doh! It didn't seem that much more absurd than other ID arguments, like the "the atheist's nightmare", the banana: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

Maybe this is satire too, but they seem sincere.

"Evolution is about change that helps a population better adapt to a specific environment in time."

Yes, but those changes are explained as a mechanism for prokaryotes developing increased structural complexity and eventually becoming every species that has ever existed. Considering Roger's claim that "'Additional' structural information would not be relevant," do you really want to assert that it's irrelevant whether novel sequences of base-pair nucleotides have ever been added to organisms' genomes? Do you want to assert that a bacterium would not require the addition of novel DNA sequences to become multicellular and develop interdependent organ structures?

It amazes me that creationists take so much from science and then claim that science is wrong. How many of them have cell phones, drive automobiles, use vaccines, take antibiotics, have surgeries, browse the Internet, etc, etc, etc? But when science suddenly affects their belief in something, they accuse scientists of the most awful things.

I've personally never understood why believers in God argue so much about evolution. Isn't their faith strong enough that non-believers shouldn't bother them? The same goes for atheists that become outraged by those who have faith in God. I'm a true believer in gravity; if someone came along and told me that gravity wasn't real, I might engage in an intelligent argument with them as to why I thought otherwise, but I wouldn't become outraged. There's nothing anyone could do or say to make me believe gravity isn't real, and my "faith" in gravity is so strong that I don't need to convince others that gravity exists as some sort of means of assuring my belief.

Ebert: Someone posted that the each year's flu vaccine protects against a flu virus that has mutated to survive last year's shots.

Bravo for defining "theory" to the masses.

Roger, every time you put up another post even mentioning Darwin and/or Intelligent Design, I hear the eerie, nails-on-chalkboard music from the zombie movies in my head, the music that always kicks in just before a horde of undead floods into the room and devours half of the main characters.

Though I love the posts, and the discussions are at least a lot of fun, so I'm not complaining.

I started reading a lot about evolution when I was 12, and everything started making a lot more sense. I mean everything, from the fundamentals of sexual attraction to the pecking order hierarchy our pets seemed to follow. You have to understand evolution before understanding anything else. Every train of thought I have, on some level I'm checking it to make sure it makes sense from an evolutionary point of view.

Ebert: It was Darwin Day, after all. I'll lay off for awhile.

When I was getting my Ph.D. in religious studies a professor in one of my seminars said, "Please don't write your dissertations on 'Religion versus Science.'" His implication, of course, was that the topic had been largely exhausted and held little interest or promise for professional philosophers of religion. That was eleven years ago, and apparently the lay people still have not got the memo. I guess as long as factitious quarrels amongst ill-informed people on both sides of the debate can be stirred up, we'll keep talking about it.

In 1996 I took a seminar on "Religion and Science" from Langdon Gilkey, who had testified at the Arkansas trial over teaching Creationism in the public schools. He was a prominent theologian, and he testified on the side of those who wanted to keep Creationism out (that side won, by the way, for all the good it did). He noted to us the rampant hypocrisy of the Creationists, who deprecated the scientific method when it came to things like carbon dating, evolution, and the fossil record, but who would nevertheless go out and get into their cars and airplanes with no qualms, although those things were made possible by the very scientific method they claimed was untrustworthy. Intelligent Design is really just Creationism made to look more scientific by removing the overt references to religion. I wish those who advocate ID would read Hume's "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion," which was generally considered to have marked paid to the argument from design some 250 years ago. If they did they would realize that a design argument certainly does not get them the God they're looking for, and barely--if at all--gets any sort of god.

For the record, I am a Christian (Episcopalian), and I have no difficulty maintaining Christianity and Evolution in the same primate body. After all, Pope John-Paul II said that evolution was "an effectively proven fact," and there is, I think, no need to be more Christian than the Pope. Thanks for being a voice of reason, Roger.

BTW, your "Playing It Safers" are advocating a prudential argument for believing in God, also known as "Pascal's Wager."

Thank You, Jesus! Thank you for touching the mind of Roger with your gentle, guiding hand.

AMEN!

Kurt H.: "What would scientists do if presented with evidence contradicting evolution? Ignore it?"

[COUGH, SPUTTER] No we would not. First, if yet another creationist reiterated yet another oft-refuted fallacy like the thermodynamics bit, I would yawn, say "you haven't done your homework, please go away", shut the door and go back to my breakfast.

But if someone actually showed me solid evidence contradicting evolution, I would say "WHAT? No way! Let me see that!" Then if it stood up under scrutiny I would burn up the phone lines to a few scientist friends of mine. If it stood up to their scrutiny too then we'd write it up and become very famous very fast. It would make the front page of major newspapers around the world: "Evolution Disproved, biologists must tear town Darwin's theory and start over."

That's how science works. It hasn't happened, not because we don't want to see such evidence, but because you haven't presented it. If you still have trouble with this idea, try applying it to the Round Earth Theory.

I have a friend who is a Jesuit brother and an astronomer. When asked about this, he quotes Pope John Paul II. "The truth can not contradict truth." Evolution and religion can co-exist just fine in some versions of Christianity.

I've always found it disturbing and perplexing that this debate even exists. Roger, you've done a fine job asserting what should be universally considered a self-evident truth, but don't you feel that you might have picked too easy of a target?

There's nothing "wrong" with Intelligent Design as a belief, it's just not a scientific theory and shouldn't be taught in science class. If they want to offer it in Sunday school, that's okay.

There actually are versions of Intelligent Design that accomodate natural selection, just like there are versions that accomodate quantum mechanics too.

I think if more people understood quantum mechanics they'd find that more unsettling than evolution....

My own personal belief on evolution is a variation on "The Reasonable".

When the Bible talks about creation, it always says it's in seven days. We've already proven time and again for this to be untrue. The Earth had been around for billions of years. Not to mention this planet continually going to hell and back numerous times with giant shifts of land, deadly volcanoes and destructive ice ages. So our little space in the universe has certainly been around for more than 5,000 years unlike what the good book taught us to believe.

The thought that always crosses my mind however is: Why do we take that statement at face value? Maybe the seven days that is referred to in the Bible is really much longer in God's time. If you really think about it, the scientific evolution of the planet is quite similar to how the seven days of creation are sequenced.

When the universe was formed and our planet began to take shape, water and land was formed like it states on the third day, it just took a while for the planet to heat and cool first. Also, if you remember from studying dinosaurs (even though I don't remember that much), the first dinosaurs were ancestors of birds and fish. Just like it was stated on the fifth day. Soon after, the dinosaurs became land based animals which in turn became the ancestors for all the modern animals we see on earth. Just like the sixth day, with man's ancestors coming shortly after.

So I think the seven days of creation were really just slower than what everyone made them out to be. Nothing was fully formed quickly, but it happened in the order we come to know. In my own conclusion, we're still in the middle of the seventh day and the Earth will keep on changing and evolving without input from God. He already told us to take care of the kingdom, as we are, but in a lot of ways the kingdom is taking care of itself.

Maybe this whole statement is just naive conjecture, but it makes sense to me.

Roger, thanks for your (as always) thoughtful and intelligent comments. I disagree with you about the intersection of science and religion. You say, as many others have said, that religious belief is outside the purview of science. This looks to me like another way of saying that science and religion are, as Stephen Jay Gould famously put it, "non-overlapping magisteria" -- that they cannot overlap because they are concerned with totally different sets of questions. But any time a religious belief has implications for the physical world -- any time it has observable consequences -- that claim cannot help but fall within the purview of science.

In fact, a great many religious people acknowledge this. It's why they don't believe (for instance) that the earth is only about 6000 years old. That believers would concede this point at all shows that science clearly has something to say about the claims of religion. In fact, science has been chipping away at religious dogma for as long as the two have been in contact with one another: think of all the natural phenomena that were once believed to be caused by supernatural beings of various kinds. Clearly, then, the idea of "non-overlapping magisteria" doesn't hold up. If it did, why would any believer feel the need to assert, as so many do today, that "there is no conflict between science and religion"? If the two were really non-overlapping fields, this statement would be as meaningless and unnecessary as saying "there is no conflict between music and dentistry".

It seems to me that believers who maintain there is no conflict between science and religion are comfortable doing so for the simple reason that their brand of religion has already divested itself of any claims that would be disproven by science. Accepting science doesn't cost them anything, theologically speaking. But the age of the earth is hardly a central tenet of Christianity. Would these people be equally willing to accept scientific evidence that cast doubt on their core beliefs?

To take a popular example, suppose archaeologists were to discover, and somehow positively identify, the remains of Jesus. (This is extremely unlikely, but it is conceivable.) Suppose an examination of those remains revealed nothing unusual about Jesus's genetic material -- suppose it revealed that he had a human mother AND father. Of course, one could simply say that God covered his tracks by making it appear that Jesus had a human father. But the same sort of claim could be made (and, in some circles, is made) of the apparent age of the earth. Would those believers who accept scientific evidence for the earth being four and a half billion years old also accept evidence that contradicted the Bible's account of Jesus' parentage and birth? If there is truly no conflict between science and religion, how could they not?

Obviously the Church will almost certainly never face this particular dilemma. But if Jesus really existed, if he really walked the earth, the kind of evidence I'm talking about did at one time exist -- and it still may exist, somewhere, even if there is no longer any way to identify it. And even if the evidence no longer exists, the fact that it did at one time puts this particular question squarely within the purview of science.

Of course, science isn't only called upon to disprove religious claims. As many writers have pointed out, if evidence of the kind I've been imagining were to reveal that Jesus did NOT, in fact, have a human father, the news would be heralded loudly and proudly by Christians throughout the world. Believers do not hesitate to marshal scientific evidence in support of their beliefs. That's precisely what intelligent design is -- or, rather, what it is meant to be. The problem with intelligent design is not that it attempts to apply science to questions that are beyond the reach of science; the problem is that it's poor science.

The scientific method may not be perfect, and it is certainly not always applied perfectly. But it is still, by far, the best tool we have for, as Carl Sagan put it, winnowing deep truths from deep nonsense. Why then should we exempt any claim from scientific examination? Whether a given assertion has its roots in religious belief or not is beside the point. If it has observable consequences -- even if they're only theoretically observable -- it is a scientific proposition, and should be subjected to scientific scrutiny.

Not to quibble or be too technical, it's just that the explanation you gave for the Anthropic Principle is not the Anthropic Principle that I was taught.

Your description implied some kind of causality, while the Anthropic Principle I learned was solely observational: if the Universe had not developed as it did, we would not be here to comment upon it.

Here's a way to remove causality: imagine you are in a dark room, and somewhere someone is rolling some dice. If double sixes are rolled, then the room lights up and you can see. If any of the other 35 possible rolls occur, the room stays dark. It doesn't matter how improbable it is that double sixes get rolled, that's the only roll you'll ever notice.

The way you describe the Anthropic Principle means that someone deliberately turned on the light (okay, so it's not the greatest analogy; most analogies break down sooner or later if you push them too hard, eh?)

Ebert: I was arguing against the use of the Principle as an argument for ID. Some believe God designed the universe to suit us. Talk about overbuilding.

"The Theory of Evolution does not require that you abandon your religion, or vice versa. This despite the assertion of a Darwinian like Richard Dawkins that, logically, it does. That's his opinion."

Dawkins's opinion is more subtle than this. What he says --- at least in the books and interviews of his I am familiar with --- is not that evolutionary theory logically requires renunciation of God, but that it allows one to be what he calls an "intellectually fulfilled" atheist. Before Darwin, according to Dawkins, the biggest stumbling block to atheism was the lack of a plausible natural explanation for the astonishing complexity of life. Darwin provided that explanation. So, while atheism is not essential to Darwinism, Darwinism is essential to atheism, and therein, I think, lies the reason fundamentialists oppose it so vehemently, in a way they do not oppose other branches of science. If they can refute Darwin, God must exist. If they cannot, well, then, He only might.

Thank you, Roger, for making the gross misuse of the term "theory" your number one point. But it needs to go further - a theory is an universally accepted explanation of a phenomena that has been proven by either empiricle or experimental evidence. Evolution has been so proven. Without that proof you are left with only a hypothesis, and those (including ID) are a dime a dozen.

I suggest a fascinating article on how it is very possible that belief in a god and religion itself and may have been the result of evolutionary forces:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/magazine/04evolution.t.html?scp=1&sq=religion%20evolution&st=cse

Thank you for keeping the light of Reason bright.

Roger, I suppose I am a "Reasonable". A rather weary one, as a matter of fact.

An interesting thing I found recently....

My favorite TV show of all time is "Frasier". A group of enterprising and rather obsessed English fans have posted transcripts of every episode at

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Derby/3267/

It's interesting to read, but of special interest is one episode entitled, "Match Game". In this episode, Frasier dates several women and is shown with one in a restaurant chatting about this and that when the subject of evolution comes up, which the woman refers to as "nonsense". The witer of the transcript, being from England, found it necessary to post an aside explaining to the rest of the world's citizens the controversy we have over something that everyone else is evidently comfortable with.

Sometimes I think we Americans go out of our way to not get along with each other.

-Ralphie

Recently, Nova had an excellent program on ID vs. Science.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

It revealed the father of ID as Phillip Johnson. Which probably explains why this is such an American phenomenon. I don't know of any other country with such a strong advocate for these ideas or with such a receptive audience. He actually has an agenda, and is pushing hard to replace the theory of evolution with his own brand of ID. That's all fair and fine. He's free to express his view and the other side is free to explain why it's stupid.

On the Ebert scale, I'm in the "Atheist True Believer" category, and I defend it with a Dawkins argument. Just recently my agnostic cousin said she couldn't understand how someone could be so certain about such a thing, but of course she is just as certain about her atheism towards Zeus, Odin and Ra as I am about a christian god. If there were a hundred gods available, most people would readily admit they're atheist towards 99 of them. The people that actually call themselves atheist have just gone one god further and rejected the deity of their own culture along with all the rest. Of course, any scientifically minded person can't declare anything categorically without proof, and since it's impossible to produce proof of non-existence you often get an AH-HA GOTCHYA reaction from true believers on the other side. This is the last refuge of the christian, but what we're talking about when we say "Atheist True Believer" is someone who recognizes that the chances of the other side being right is vanishingly small. You can apply this approach to anything to make an easy comparison and gain perspective. I believe god is as real as Santa Clause. You can't 'prove' that either DOESN'T exist, but that can't stop me from reaching the obvious conclusion. They don't.

The thing that I love about Darwin's theory is its elegance.
Simple + powerful = Elegant.

Evolution is simple to understand. The natural world changes over time, some changes make it easier to survive, other changes make it harder to survive. Nature favours the good changes through a process known as natural selection.

Evolution is powerful. In itself it is not the answer, that is not the job of a theory. However it is a road which travels through the landscape where the answers can be found. By this road we have been able to explore so many aspects of the natural world and discovered so many truths. Truths that benefit all of us, even the religious who reject them.

Religion and I.D., by contrast, are not elegant. If you praise the designer for the creation of the eye, you must also blame the designer for the blind. If god designed the perfect athlete, than god also designed the child with cancer, or the baby born with it's heart outside the body, or the myriad other illnesses that plague us. I use children in these examples to head off the christian response of "illness is the result of sin". In short, religion is not elegant. It's not built on a base truth like Darwin's theory. Religion must constantly change itself to fit within the zeitgeist. At one point it was reasonable and indeed moral to burn people alive at the stake as a way to 'save their souls'. Every generation of the religious changes the rules of god. It favours the changes that make it easier for religion to survive and discards the ones that make it harder to survive. In other words, the Theory of Evolution is so powerful, not even god can resist.

do you have a position on evolutionary psychology? one school of thought would posit that you are subconsciously making waves in an argument in which there can be no winner in order to assert your alpha male status. not that it doesn't make for excellent reading.

Ebert: Why do we always hear about alpha males, but not so much about alpha females?

You do actually hear a lot about alpha females. In the dog world, every pack needs an alpha dog and an alpha bitch.

In the human world, while reference is made to the alpha male, the phrase alpha bitch has (d)evolved into bitch.

If an alpha male is one who can lead and we acknowledge that Mr. Ebert is leading a lively and intelligent discussion, then he is fulfilling his position as an alpha male. That he allows dissenting opinions seems to indicate that he is one of the better alpha males in cyberspace.

For the record. I'm not Christian. I believe in God. I believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. I believe that dogs are easier to deal with than humans. I believe I am an alpha bitch.

I also believe that intelligent design is a phrase that should describe a hybrid car, an electric car or good software.

Ebert: I wish it described more software.

I was once hit with that old stumper: Do you believe that if a tornado swept through a junkyard enough times, it would eventually assemble a Cadillac at random? My answer: No. A Cadillac is proof of Intelligent Design in the auto industry. Duh.

"do you really want to assert that it's irrelevant whether novel sequences of base-pair nucleotides have ever been added to organisms' genomes? Do you want to assert that a bacterium would not require the addition of novel DNA sequences to become multicellular and develop interdependent organ structures?"

Every individual organism has a *novel base-pair sequence*- no other has the exact same sequence (even clones have a few copy errors). Every mutation makes a novel base-pair sequence. You were talking about adding "information", which you never defined. Now you are talking about *novel base-pair nucleotides*.

New DNA sequences are observed all the time. DNA replication is an imperfect process, and thankfully so. That ID'ers are ignorant of this does not mean scientists are.

Oh, come now. Obviously the new mutations that occur in the flu virus every year are caused by The Devil. Good (for humans) mutations = The Hand Of God. Bad (for humans) mutations = The Work Of The Devil, or possibly God Working In Mysterious Ways. With those two duking it out in our DNA all the time, who needs natural selection?

All I know is that my grandfather wasn't a flu virus.

Roger; (a) you make the same mistake half of the Darwinists do: complete misinformation. (The other half are knowingly playing economically with facts.) The DNA did not support Darwin, it supported the opposing theory of the Austrian monk, Dimitri Mendel. Mendel's theory of genetics was discarded by Darwinism as religious pseudo-science. Darwin was of course Lamarckist, that things metmorphosed to another gradually and that there was no code in creations. Genetics was not considered science well into the 20th century until it was inevitably established. Darwinists just pretended Medel was a fellow and relaunched Neo-Darwinism: a Darwinist theory based on Genetics. In fact, of the two competing theories of 19th century, biology can survive without Darwinism but Mendelian Genetics is essential. Who remembers the winner now? When is Mendel day? The theory he developed as an opposition to Evolutionist Materialism with true scientific basis and empirism is thought to children as Darwin's genious. (b) Turkey is also an OECD and NATO country that Darwin is not comfortable at all.
Hakan -- Istanbul, Turkey

Ebert: You write: "Mendel's theory of genetics was discarded by Darwinism as religious Lamarckist."

Mendel's theory was not rediscovered until circa 1900. There is no evidence that Darwin knew of it. Mendel did not develop his theory in opposition to Evolutionist Materialism because there is no reason to think he knew about evolutionist theory. Darwin was certainly not a Lamarckist--in fact, the opposite. What does it avail you to make such statements?

I’ve been an Ebert review junkie for years, but this blog of yours… Nearly every entry is like an insect you slip into my brain - they're burrowing around in there making my ears ring.

As frustrating as this has been, I hope you understand that I mean this as a most sincere compliment. This is a key reason why I read, and a key reason why I read you in particular. You are either a saint or a hopeless masochist (not mutually exclusive things, to be sure…) in the way you make yourself so available. I hate to inflice the following on you and your unsuspecting readers, but unfortunately now that I have binged, I must purge. As "The Founder of the Feast", I figure you got it coming. Here Goes…

You breakdown of “Darwin Commentators” is genius – I’ve never seen a better taxonomy of this particular ecosystem. Unfortunately, I think it skirts one important aspect of why these types of things continue to rage without any real hope of resolution. It could go by many names, but the one I prefer is Zealotry.

Every niche and issue has its fair share of Zealots on both sides. These are folks who, regardless of their particular passion (religion, science, politics, film, art, sports, model railroads, whatever…) absolutely cannot abide the existence of an unchallenged contrary notion.

From where I sit, it seems that this debate (like so many others of less gravity) has a lot less to do with the actual nature of the universe, and a lot more to do with the desire of zealots on both sides to lay a beatdown on the members of the rival gang. It has been my experience that the entirety of the Zealot's copious conversation (regarless of topic) amounts to little more than a diagnostic and therapeutic regimen designed to treat the only four possible strains of, what is in their view, the most tragic, debilitating, and incomprehensible of all human diseases: “disagreement with me”.

These four causes, and the rational progression of treatment options for them are as follows:

Ignorance –
You are simply uniformed as to The Truth (Big T). This is a condition treated by continuing to berate you with The Truth (Big T) until it sinks in.

Incredulity –
A more serious form of the malady: You are a patsy who has been misinformed, duped, brainwashed, or otherwise hoodwinked into your erroneous understanding of The Truth (Big T). This is a condition treated by first divesting you of your erroneous notions, to be followed by an additional course of berating you with The Truth (Big T) until it sinks in.

Insincerity –
Perhaps the nastiest strain: In your heart of hearts you understand The Truth (Big T) very well, but you insist on misrepresenting your understandings to serve some selfish or nefarious purpose. These cases are particularly heinous – there may be no helping you on this one, but I’m ethically obligated to apply heroic measures in the form of an extensive call to repentance (followed by the usual deprogramming and berating… see above).

Inability –
Sadly, a terminal condition. Despite the best efforts of all the right-thinking people around you, you lack the intelligence and/or sanity required to parse The Truth (Big T). Palliative care and possibly euthanasia are all I can do for you, you poor schlub…

A full rant on the subject of zealots would take me days. I’ll spare you the whole sermon, and just give you a few verses:

1) Zealous behavior follows very predictable patterns regardless of motivational particulars. The jihadist, the football hooligan, the Trekkie fanboy, the bleeding-heart liberal, and the redneck 2nd amendment devotee may use different Bibles, but they beat you with them in strikingly similar ways.

2) No group is made up of entirely zealots. Not evangelicals, not atheists, not even Cubs fans. Attempts at forming such groups always implode because nobody can leave their guns in the holster long enough to form any esprit de corps, or get anything useful accomplished. In the absence of rivals or non-zealous mediators, they'll inevitably turn on each other.

3) No group has a monopoly on zealotry, and no group is immune. Look at any group you’re in (from a political party to a sewing circle) and you’ll be able to spot some zealots. When conducting such a survey, remember that the poker table rule applies: If you’re look around the poker table and are having a hard time identifying the sucker, chances are, the sucker is you.

That number 3 (particularly the poker table rule) is a real killer. Lets be frank: We may like to go on about how much we value diversity, but down deep in our instinctive “gut” reactions we want people to be like us. If we think well of ourselves we have a hard time understanding why everyone wouldn't want to be more like us. If we think poorly of ourselves we crave the comfort of being able to look around and see that we're just like everybody else.

Either way, we're no good at playing "physician, heal thyself" because we're pretty sure we're healthy - we don’t suffer from those four awful maladies. We think what we think because we honestly believe it’s TRUE. We like what we like because we honestly believe it’s BEST. We desperately want to believe we are RIGHT, so when we encounter anyone whose worldview diverges from ours something in our binary selves tells us that the flip side of the coin is obvious – they must be WRONG. Clearly they must be suffering from some combination of the “four causes”: ignorace, gullibility, treachery, or insanity. As healthy, magnanimous members of the human race we’re obligated to help them if we can, avoid (or destroy) them if we cannot.

I know this sounds harsh, and it is. We're not just talking Creation/Evolution, or Abortion, or Tastes Great/Less Filling, here. We're talking Selma, and Gaza, and Belfast, and Tienammen, and Rawanda, and Auschwitz. The dirty little secret of the Holocaust was not that so many Germans failed to act according to their consciences. It’s that these more visceral impulses – the desire to be RIGHT, and to triumph over the unfamiliar WRONG – are opponents against which conscience is frequently and horribly outmatched. Indeed conscience itself gets regularly subsumed in their service, telling us we have to do the lesser evil to serve the greater good.

This seems to tie in powerfully with your previous post about "The Reader" and the issue of "what we don't say, and why" (possibly because that's been the incessant buzzing in my head for the past week - thanks a lot...). In that post you seemed to be sturggling with the conflict between the importance of civil interpersonal behavior and the obligation to stand on principle: At what point does being a decent person and good neighbor become collaboration with evil? At what point does speaking up for what you believe become the zealot's attack on those who may believe differently?

These are very heavy questions. Both your blog and "The Reader" deal with them in a powerful way. For me, the most poignant and universally applicable attribute of the "The Reader" is the precise nature of the woman’s secret. Many movies revolve around a secret a character knows, which then becomes the MacGuffin driving the plot – what do they know, what would happen if they revealed it, what will happen if they don’t. “The Reader” is different, because the character is not trying to conceal something she knows, but rather she is trying to conceal something she doesn’t know.

This seems to hit very near the center of the issue in the case of this particular debate. As you said above, The Truth (Big T) is a slippery thing upon which none of us (no matter how smart or pious we fancy ourselves to be) really has all that firm a grip. Sometimes the tighter we squeeze the more it seems to slide through our hands, and it's quite possible that it may ultimately elude us altogether (at least in this lifetime). Ironically enough, whether we’re zealous blowhards or quietly declining to speak, we’re often doing so based on the same underlying motivation as the woman in “The Reader”: we want to avoid that most painful and embarrassing of admissions – “I Don’t Know”.

Those three simple little words - "I Don't Know" - may be the scariest in any language. They strip away the thin gauze of control and comprehension we’re all trying to wrap ourselves in to keep out the cold and make it through the day. It’s little wonder we go to such passionate extremes to avoid having to cop to them.

So what do we do?

I appreciated very much your previous discussion of the Vertical vs. the Horizontal. I’m old enough to remember the ancient times when televisions still had knobs. There was always one knob Vertical Hold, and one for Horizontal. Twist one all the way over and you could compress the entire picture into a tiny Vertical line. Twist the other all the way over and you could do the same thing Horizontally. Twist them both over at once, and the entire picture compressed into a tiny dot in the middle of the screen. (Or you could just watch "The Outer Limits", and they'd do this for you...)

If you actually wanted to watch the program, you had to twiddle your knobs to that happy place in the middle where the where the image filled the whole screen and didn’t look like a fun house mirror (I’m old enough to remember those, too).

Maybe there’s a lesson there for all of us, eh?

Ebert: Meanwhile, you were fiddling with the rabbit ears and ignoring the family screaming at you to stop standing in front of the screen.

Roger,

In a sort of sober frankness I admit that the way I view this topic is painted with a great degree of emotion and partiality, perhaps even 'fear and trembling'. A sickness leading to death. I respect so very highly your arguments and intellectual commitments. I guess when it comes down to it though, it's a deeply existential question. What are the repercussions of the correct answer. Sure, evolution and God aren't mutually exclusive and science is not ultimately concerned with religious questions. But the answer is not so easy as holding God and evolution up at the same time. The question of finding a correct balance (and i'm not getting into that evolution with a big or little 'e' thing either) is perhaps even a more profound question when you go down that road. And science and religion do overlap as soon as we get into that strange realm of the 'nature of reality'... At the end of the day I desire to, and feel it is my duty as a subject before God, have a degree of intellectual honesty and open eyed view of the world. So I don't know all I need to know, but admit that there are competent and honest scientists who have offered convincing arguments for a view of the world that doesn't need God. My heart is genuinely troubled and the issue that emerges is of what this informs me of my faith. It resists compartmentalization. But, I agree with Kierkegaard and am willing to take a 'leap of faith' and believe by virtue of the absurd. I don't believe because it's absurd, but I do believe even though it is may seem absurd.

I would like to thank you, Roger, for placing love making in the same list as cat petting. Seriously; it's under-rated.

Ebert: I have just done a triple-take on your comment.

So as to scientific laws vs scientific theories -

Laws pertain to the empirically observable. They describe that something happens.

Theories attempt to explain why and how that thing happens.

Evolution attempts to explain why and how life and the speciation came about.

Not complaining at all, the ID comments are half the fun. I don't remember where the quote comes from, but it's something like "There's nothing worse than hearing a bad argument in favor of something I hold dear", and the opposite holds true, as well.

I love all the ID comments simply because it is so difficult, perhaps impossible, to form a strong argument in favor of it. Not that I needed the reassurance, but there's nothing like hundreds of terrible arguments for something I think is stupid to assure me that it's stupid.

I was going to let this one pass - Faith Vs. Reason is a little high and outside for me - but if I may be permitted a bit of license, here's a part of the equation that I haven't seen considered yet. /*/*/ Let's say we're conducting a survey on religious attitudes. We pose this simple, unadorned question to the first five people we meet: "Do you believe in God?" In order, we recieve the following responses (again, I apologize for still not being able to make paragraphs or line up lists on this fershlugginer device; I swear I never had this problem with a typewriter.): (1) "I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ with my whole heart and soul." (2) "Yeah, I guess so." (3) "I have been an elder in the First Church of Second Street for the past twenty-two years." (4) "None of your Goddam business." (5) "Tell you the truth, I just don't think about it that much." So how do you report the result? If you're just doing numbers, the first four answers count as 'yes' (of course (4) is a 'yes'; he invoked the deity, didn't he?) and the last one is 'undecided'; therefore, four out of five people are believers in God, so there. /*/*/ Any time somebody throws a survey or a poll at me, I want to know two things: (1) Who took the survey; (2) What was the exact wording of the question. As someone once said: "Nine out of ten surveys show whatever the surveyor wants them to show." Putting it another way, I've vever seen a report of survey findings that began with the surveyor saying, "Frankly, I didn't expect these results at all." This doesn't mean that they're trying to be dishonest; merely that when they are after a certain result, the phrasing of the question can help determine the answer they'll get. In a court of law, this would be called 'leading and suggestive', but the rules of evidence don't count for much away from the courthouse. When you've got an axe to grind - political, religious, academic - any argument can be validated if the survey sample is worked the right way. /*/*/ Meanwhile, in the immortal words of Lt. Columbo, just one more thing: if they don't believe in evolution in Turkey, than why is it Istanbul and not Constantinople? Or is that nobody's business but the Turks?

Happy Darwin Day Roger! One of the most entertaining stories commemorating this celebration was on Rachel Maddow's show. (Oy, I can hear Stein getting his knickers in a knot, screaming "Liberal!") Have you heard of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? This is for all you Creationists & ID-ers out there. Enjoy!

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
http://www.venganza.org/

I submit the theory that God created the heavens and the earth through the process of evolution.

Roger,

As a God fearing, video game playing, right wing youth who still has not realized their own mortality: Your blogs are really depressing me lately.

Ebert: Just wait till you realize your mortality.

Dear Roger,

Thank you for bringing up this discussion (as all your entries have turned out) - I thought it ended with the "Ethereal Void" 12/08/08 entry. It reminds me of how I used to get in trouble for asking the "wrong questions" in the Catholic Girls' School I attended from Pre-school and all thru High School. It's a shame to deprive children of the education that that they are entitled to. Is it all in the name of religion? Why can't we be just taught the TRUTH? I wouldn't feel as betrayed as an adult if at least one of my questions about evolution was entertained, even if it DID get me in trouble.
If the late George Carlin were around (RIP)... just a fantasy of him of never having to leave us and instead join us in the comments section... golden.

Thanks again for picking our brains, I always welcome you in mine.

Ebert: So many people mention George Carlin.

Roger,

Darwin did in fact accept what has come to be known as *Lamarckism*: the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Most biologists at the time did in one form or another. As the years went on he relied more heavily on this idea because he needed to find a way to counter what seemed to him to be some very damning arguments against his theory. At the time heredity was very poorly understood and it was common for people to accept what was called *blended inheritance*. This was the idea that the hereditary material was blended physically at fertilization. If this were true, it would be very difficult to see how a new trait could survive in a population without being diluted to the point of impotence.

Darwin thought this was a very serious problem for his theory. He actually came up with a hypothesis called pangenesis where hereditary particles from all over the body were directed to the reproductive organs, thereby providing a physical explanation for how acquired traits could be inherited. I don't believe anybody accepted it, and it was considered one of his greatest scientific mistakes. He died never really understanding how much time he wasted fighting what we can see now as an erroneous argument.

For *blended inheritance* is, of course, wrong. Mendel showed - and his followers elaborated - how traits could be inherited as discrete units and how these units could survive from generation to generation unchanged (except for the rare mutation, which Mendel didn't discuss). The entire argument that Darwin thought was potentially fatal to his theory of evolution was a complete non-issue after 1900.

What most creationists don't seem to understand is that all evolution requires is for there to be variation among the individuals of a population, and for this variation to be in part heritable. Mendelelian genetics, far from being damning for evolution, was a great support for it.

Ebert: I live and learn. I'm sure you saw the National Geographic article "What Darwin Didn't Know."

You have an awesome website.

Very well put Mr. Ebert. I like the fact you show that there are many people, including scientists, who know evolution to be true and still believe in God. I actually just read an interesting book entitled "God After Darwin: A Theology of Evolution" by John F. Haught. Haught is a Catholic theologian who teaches at Georgetown. He writes about how science and faith challenge and benefit each other. The book is very good, I recommend it to anyone interested in the subject.
I also heard a film entitled "Creation" is coming out later this year starring Paul Bettany as Charles Darwin and Jennifer Connelly as Emma Darwin. I hope it is good.

One quibble: Christianity is not the only religion involved among the "true believers". One of the most infamous creationists is Harhun Yahya, a hardline Muslim fundamentalist who has been at the forefront of trying to force creationism into Europe (Yahya is a native of Turkey whose anti-evolution campaign began there, but have reached greater popularity among Muslim populations in Western Europe. Eastern Europe, meanwhile, has its own homegrown creationists to deal with, particularly in Poland and Romania).

A suggestion: to celebrate both Darwin and Lincoln's birthdays, watch Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World. Paul Bettanny's doctor is based on Darwin, and the movie does a brilliant job of depicting the process of scientific discovery. And incidentally, Bettanny's next role will be as Darwin himself in a film penned by M&C screenwriter John Collee.

One quibble: Christianity is not the only religion involved among the "true believers". One of the most infamous creationists is Harhun Yahya, a hardline Muslim fundamentalist who has been at the forefront of trying to force creationism into Europe (Yahya is a native of Turkey whose anti-evolution campaign began there, but have reached greater popularity among Muslim populations in Western Europe. Eastern Europe, meanwhile, has its own homegrown creationists to deal with, particularly in Poland and Romania).

A suggestion: to celebrate both Darwin and Lincoln's birthdays, watch Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World. Paul Bettanny's doctor is based on Darwin, and the movie does a brilliant job of depicting the process of scientific discovery. And incidentally, Bettanny's next role will be as Darwin himself in a film penned by M&C screenwriter John Collee.

I've so enjoyed coming back to this string to read the comments! Roger - thank you so much for putting up the link to the 'peanut butter test'! Oh what fun! Proof by banana AND peanut butter! Elvis would be proud!

It's been good fun to read and see the satire and humor. It's wonderful that we can always find humor in these things. It's one of the greatest of human qualities.

I wonder if the presenter of the 'banana proof' read Darwin's theory? Sure did remind me of the moth and orchid. Banana/hand:Moth/orchid. Hmmm....?!

I think I've become a 'Hard-noser'! I'm definitely tired of the shilly-shallying. But, I've never been one to try and make someone believe as I do. So... there ya go.

Looking forward to checking back in a few days!

kj

Fellow poster Neil Griffin brought up the flu shot, and you mentioned the polio vaccine. I would just like to take a few seconds to point out that flu vaccines still contain thimerosal.

Since 1988, children under the age of 2 are receiving triple the amount of vaccines than they used to. There's no reason for this. Waiting until later assures normal development of the neural pathways critical at this point of their lives.

In 1999, the cumulative amount of thimerosal that 18-month-old children were receiving through 30+ vaccines was finally measured. The FDA discovered mercury levels at more than 100 times the EPA's safe limit.

Public health officials from the CDC and FDA knew about the increased mercury and associated risks. One memo that surfaced in a lawsuit against Merck proves the company knew infants were being injected with unsafe amounts of thimerosal back in 1991. The memo stated that a 6-month-old baby receiving shots on schedule would receive mercury 87 times higher than established safety guidelines.

At the very least, the CDC is guilty of research manipulation and cover-ups of vaccine maker culpability. They also continually state there is no evidence to support a connection between autism and thimerosal, which they say is no longer used in most pediatric vaccines, yet it's still given to children in flu shots.

Regarding the infamous "Peanut Butter Experiment", and others like it including the truly awesome "Bananas are proof of God" video, I hereby invoke both Poe's Law, which states that without a winking smiley or any other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing. Of course the converse also applies, which is that real fundamentalism is so often so far over-the-top that it appears to be parody.

My own guess is that these videos are genuine. They are actually somewhat creative ways of vocalizing some of the more common Creationist talking points: the peanut butter argument is the standard abiogenesis argument from incredulity, i.e. "I don't believe life could have come from non-life without divine intervention, therefore it didn't"; the banana as proof of God is just a restatement of the idea that God exists because humans are so well-suited to living on earth. The unfortunate (for the creationists) side-effect is that when presented this way, to anyone with the slightest hint of a rational mind, they come off as ridiculous and inane as they actually are. I've certainly heard much dumber statements from the mouths of actual, confirmed Creationists, and these specific arguments are just offshoots of general arguments that Creationists have been making for decades.

Ebert: Good gravy! Poe's Law has claimed another victim. It never for a second crossed my mind that the Experiment could possibly be serious!

"The Theory of Evolution does not require that you abandon your religion, or vice versa. This despite the assertion of a Darwinian like Richard Dawkins that, logically, it does. That's his opinion. A great many scientists subscribe to religion, and a great many religious people subscribe to the Theory."

It may not require you to abandon your religion, but to believe in both at the same time it does require you to give up your literal reading of Genesis, which to a great many evangelical fundamentalists would be akin to giving up their religion. I think that was Dawkins' point, that if you're not reading it literally, you're not taking your religion seriously in the first place.

Most people in the US do manage to rationalize and reconcile their beliefs with modern science. (For those that don't bother, I would say that a great many people don't have too much trouble with cognitive dissonance, either.) Personally, I don't think it's fair for me to judge what parts of the Bible are metaphorical and which are meant to be literal. Who am I? I decided some time ago that I'd better either take it seriously or reject it as a mythology. I made what seemed to me the obvious choice to go with common sense and modern science over the supernatural.

Ebert: "I was once hit with that old stumper: Do you believe that if a tornado swept through a junkyard enough times, it would eventually assemble a Cadillac at random? My answer: No. A Cadillac is proof of Intelligent Design in the auto industry. Duh."

My answer: Yes.

If the creationist then asked me the same question again with a sneer, I'd say goodbye, close the door and go back to my breakfast.

Ebert: Are such questions: (1) Uneducated, (2) Brain-washed in, or (3) Just actually stupid?
Depending on my mood, I might follow up my answer with one of the following:
"...but would have to be many times, more than could have happened since junkyards were invented. Do you know Avogadro's Number?"
"...but since I know that people make things out of metal, if I found a Cadillac I'd guess that it was probably made by people, even if I'd never seen a car before."
"Do you think the wind could have assembled that heap of dead leaves in exactly that configuration? Do you know what the odds of that are???"
"Now do you want to talk about evolution or abiogenesis?"
"Do you believe that the grand canyon was dug by gnomes?"
"Did you invent that question yourself, or did somebody teach you to ask it?"

I think it is a combination of getting the Puritans instead of the convicts and the fact that we have freedom of speech here. Duane Gish and Michael Behe are given the same soapbox as Michael Shermer and Massimo Pigliucci.

Before I started reading your blog, I didn't know that you were a devotee of Darwin and I only suspected you were a progressive. I don't know that I have read specifics about your faith, but I can glean enough to guess that you are an agnostic who likes the liturgy of the Catholic Church and the message (if not divinity) of Jesus.

I love talking about evolution. Its where we came from. Did anyone watch NOVA last night about the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board case? I think the most important moment came when Michael Behe admitted that ID has as much scientific merit (under his definition) as astrology. It wasn't a lawyer's trick that made him admit this at all. Its because both astrology and ID have the same amount of evidence to support their conclusion(s).

Unlike poltics, there aren't two equally sound sides to this "great" debate. There isn't any debate. Evolution happens and continues to happen. It why Dobhansky's "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" is embossed in floors and carved into banners of science halls.

Here's the easiest two statements for a creationist to falsify:

All evidence points to evolution.
No evidence points to special creation.

Now here are a few observations, some of which might have been made already:
1. Who the is Dimitri Mendel? Does Hakan mean Gregor Mendel and Dimitri Mendeleev?
2. "As it stands, the Theory of Evolution flies in the face of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium." No, it doesn't. The second law only applies to closed ("isolated") systems, those without a constant source of energy. We have had a constant source of energy for billions of years now, though our source will eventually burn out, in adherance to Newton's law. The very law itself explains it when it uses the word "isolated."
3. Want to know a real easy way to deflate the design argument? Life on earth isn't designed very well at all. The evolutionary tree is fraught with stops and starts, mass extinctions, and disasters that extinguished all life at that time. Over 99% of everything that ever lived on earth is now extinct. Were the history of life on earth condensed into one 24 hr. day, only the last 1/2 hour would represent when humans started writing things down on cave walls. See what I mean?

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." Albert Einstein

The strength of the scientific method is that every molecule of a scientific theory must pass through the sieve of thoughtful inspection, criticism, and experiment. Scientific theories either die or converge slowly towards the truth.

Somewhere out there is a Christian who is certain that he can find the hole where a lynchpin should be and all of Evolution will come crumbling down and THE TRUTH will once again reign. My own opinion is that that he is an idiot and I pray to God that he find something better to do with his time.

Dear Roger (and I mean that salutation in its most literal sense):

Thank you so much for your continuing gift of words on-line, which, as was your show with Gene, remains a constant source of joy and intellectual stimulation.

Please know I say this as a former journalist -- which is shorthand for saying that, after a short 35 years in the business I recently took a buy-out from the New Hampshire Union Leader -- and also as a guy who loves your ability to use both the needle and the harpoon, as necessary, to puncture pomposity.

One of the great moments in my otherwise insignificant career was when, in the process of reshaping the Thursday arts page, an editor at the paper thought one of my weekly feature pieces should run next to yours for reasons he couldn't quite put his finger on.

At a stunningly conservative paper like the UL -- and I'm proud to say I'm a very liberal Manchester, NH native -- it was akin to serving as Adlai Stevenson's running mate.

I'm sure you're familiar with one of Sen. Stevenson's best lines. After delivering a rousing speech during one of his tilts against Ike's windmill, he was told, "Senator, that was a brilliant speech. You'll have the support of every thinking American," whereupon, Adlai said, "Not enough. I'm going to need a majority."

I hope I'm in the majority when I join you in celebrating Barack Obama's election, in wishing him every success and, in turn, wishing you every moment of good health.

All the best,

John Clayton

Ebert: An immortal comment, but it probably didn't get him many votes.

"Every individual organism has a *novel base-pair sequence*- no other has the exact same sequence (even clones have a few copy errors). Every mutation makes a novel base-pair sequence. You were talking about adding "information", which you never defined. Now you are talking about *novel base-pair nucleotides*.

New DNA sequences are observed all the time. DNA replication is an imperfect process, and thankfully so. That ID'ers are ignorant of this does not mean scientists are."

Okay, let's define information. I'm talking some novel sequence of DNA that adds a novel phenotypic trait to the organism-- some new tissue, gland, or itty-bitty evolutionary step toward such attributes. I'm talking some DNA sequence previously unseen in the organism that adds greater structural complexity (more parts, more interconnectedness) than was displayed in the previous generation's physical body. Has such a change over several generations ever been observed? No.

The problem with Intelligent Design is that it should be called "not quite intelligent enough design," believing as it does in a system that has to be continually tweaked to come out as intended.

While I'm willing to entertain the possibility of a creator, I'm not willing to believe in a rigged demo.

I believe what Matthew D. has proposed is the ultimate ontological paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_paradox

That the universe created itself is the coolest sci-fi idea I`ve seen in a good while. I just want to know how the rules got written down...

A conversation online between me and a passionate ID advocate...

ID GUY
The belief in evolution involves circular reasoning. The date one object by another object, then they do the reverse.

ME
No.... You're actually wrong.

ID GUY
There is absolutely no proof that evolution (bettering of mankind) is or ever has taken place.

ME
You are, again, 100% wrong. The fact that you have even made that assertion with that level of confidence shows that you know nothing about evolution.

ID GUY
Prove that man is getting better. IF man is getting better.. then why are there more wars, murders, poverty etc. than ever. Mankind's nature isn't to help but to tear down. 30 years ago what did you hear on the news, it sure wasn't about the Natalie Holloways, Callee Anthonys, OJ Simpsons of the world. The progression of the deteriorating moral values of mankind is self evident.

ME
Ok, look. Charles Darwin explicitly states that evolution is purposeless. There is no "progress" in evolution, just a natural changing that works via natural selection. Evolution is NOT the "bettering" of mankind. Evolution is the changing of all living things in response to their ecosystem, because many die while some live. Those that live pass on their genes, which then do the same. The result is change over many millions of years. It has been proven, and it has been observed, and I can give you examples if you really want.

But you have at least one really bad misconception about evolution; you think that it is some sort of "progress." It is not. It is just change in response to environment.

ID GUY
Simple question...What stopped (or, if you prefer stops) the process of evolution? Life is not without purpose (that is what the natural flow of your logic would purport)

ME
The process of evolution is ongoing and will continue as long as life itself. It is a fundamental aspect of the natural world.

Also, I never said life is without purpose and the "natural flow" of my logic indicates no such idea. Evolution has nothing to say about morality, values, God, or anything of that sort. Evolution is simply a fact of the natural world that has revolutionized biology and given it coherence.

Also, this is unrelated to our discussion of evolution, but in your last post you asked me to tell you what was on the news 30 years ago... I believe some interesting highlights were Jeffrey Dahmer, Charles Manson, hippie drug culture, and the Vietnam War.

ID GUY
(no response)

I really liked that cartoon you put at the end of your article about Ben Stein's movie, the one that illustrates why they should NOT teach both Intelligent Design and Evolution. Why not teach alchemy as well as chemistry? Why not teach astrology as well as astronomy, etc? There were people in the middle ages who genuinely believed that they could chemically produce gold. It was a failure. People to this day read their horoscopes, thinking that it will predict the future. That's all fine and dandy, but a teacher cannot tell their students that it's PROVEN that the zodiac signs can tell the future. And this is the problem with so called intelligent design. It states that something or someone pre ordained everything. I don't know why or exactly how the universe was created. Was it created by a God? I don't think so. Most people do. Can they prove that the universe was created by God? I don't see how they could. A question I have pondered since I was a kid was, how was God created? Some people have said to me that God always was. How do you prove that?

At any rate, I have never understood why evolution contradicts religion. Evolution is not in the Bible. Gravity is not mentioned in the Bible. DNA is not mentioned in the Bible. AMERICA is not mentioned in the Bible. How did Noah's family populate the new world? I don't know how defenders of ID will answer these questions, but I have an answer. The Bible was written over several hundred years, by different people, long before any of the above was figured out by human beings. It isn't that Moses, Matthew, Mark, and whoever else were stupid, quite the contrary. They just did not have the same scientific information that we have, just as we today cannot fathom the scientific discoveries that will be made in the next century.

"I have tried to be calm, reasoned and factual in my responses".....Ebert

Among the categories into which you have divided the commentators in this forum we could add one more specially for Mr. Ebert... "calm reasoned and factual"...

I'm sure you realise that categorising, labelling, pigeonholing people is derogatory.....everyboby is unique, everybody is unbounded, everybody is respectable, everybody needs to have his name which he she or it loves....

Reply to: Very well put Mr. Ebert. I like the fact you show that there are many people, including scientists, who know evolution to be true and till believe in God. "God After Darwin: A Theology of Evolution" by John F. Haught. Haught is a Catholic theologian who teaches at Georgetown. He writes about how science and faith challenge and benefit each other. The book is very good, I recommend it to anyone interested in the subject.

Why do you CARE whether other people think there's a God?

That's why we have a war between religion and science. All the Christians who start with the attitude that they WANT their silly belief to spread.

Christians talk about our universe appearing from nothing. That's not the real situation. It's one possibility, but so it the possibility that our universe is one of hundreds or thousands of universes, and the energy in our universe came from a different universe outside of our own. A pinhole in a bubble, exploding and expanding...

There is no evidence of a God.

Atheists are good people. Atheists look at the evidence and come to the Correct Answer.

God does NOT exist.

Theology is nonsense. I could write a book about the monster who lives under my bed, and create a set of rules for the monster, such as how many times he's been seen. But that doesn't change the fact that there is NO monster living under my bed.

There's no God. Theology is a total waste of time. Our lives are so short, it's a shame to waste a moment. Catholic Theologians like Haught just prolong the waste.

"Leave the theologians. Bring the canoli."

People are people, not species....

Ebert: Humans are a species. A person is a member of that species.

I'm infuriated that Americans actually call this a debate. That is to give modern conversation on the subject far too much credit. Even a debate has rules. Or had, anyway, before debate dissolved into petulance as a result of the deregulation of the broadcasts and the prominence of jabbering nincompoops. There is no way to defute evolution, but I do not believe in "survival of the fittest." There are too many slobbering idiots on the loose in the new millenium. Surely, some of the fittest lost out to this ilk.

There can be no real argument unless all sides have validity.

“You know, the platypus is superbly well designed. Its beak can scoop into the mud of river and lake beds, and sense both the slightest motions and faint electrical discharges of shrimp, who do not find it a joke.” – Roger Ebert

Oh to be sure - the meal rarely if ever laughs at the fork; smile.

And in all fairness to the platypus (should there be one reading Roger’s blog) if I’ve amused myself at your expense dear distant cousin, forgive me; what can I say? It’s a Canadian thing.

However hopefully, so too is the willingness to concede a “possible error” in judgement in having failed to sing the praises of your design – which I never took aesthetic issue with, despite looking like something God threw together after knocking-back a few pints. For in point of fact you are truly extraordinary Mr. Platypus and that shouldn’t be diminished. No sir!

Note: when the British Museum received its first specimen back in 1798, a zoologist named George Shaw was so dubious that he tried to cut the pelt with scissors to make sure the bill had not been stitched on by a taxidermist.

Scientists believe we actually shared an evolutionary path until about 165 million years ago, when the platypus branched off for reasons of his own; I hope it wasn’t anything we said? It’s all rather complicated so here’s a picture - what 100 scientists in 8 different countries finally figured out:

http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00026/platypus_26995a.jpg

And in having mapped your genes now, discovered all sorts of additional wonders; like it’s possible you can even smell underwater! Gosh, you’re quite the amalgam and which I understand has the potential to help fill in the gaps still remaining in the evolution of mammals. And gee, I can’t do that! You’re lucky if I can give you the right directions to a bus stop. So clearly, I’m in no position to mock a platypus from afar. Heck you’re so well designed, I wouldn’t be surprised if God did made it possible for you to get the Internet “via wireless” through that nose of yours - which is a splendid thing indeed and no less worthy of admiration than Cyrano de Bergerac!

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/ffximage/2008/05/08/470platypus,0.jpg

And have ever you seen anything so cute?? He’s smiling and everything! And to think, there are people who don’t want to be related to him; bunch of snobs! Well, it’s their loss - for you could do far worse than to associate genetically with the likes of so fine a creature; even if he is just a wee bit odd.

But then so am I, which makes us even. Not that we never were for again… the God that made my genes also made his and I wouldn’t have it any other way; just the thought makes the universe feel lonelier.

So Happy Valentine’s Day to you Mr. Platypus, wherever you are.

Ebert:

A platypus known as Octavious
Had a diet devoutly carnivorous.
With an electronic bill
For shrimps would he drill
Whose end seemed to them quite spontaneous.

Does god know that he exits?

Opening my copy of "Origin of Species" I am pleased to learn that in New Zealand of Darwin's day there was a bird called the "Apteryx", which makes sense of the Archaeopteryx, but perhaps not the Psychaeopteryx, a mythical creature which I invented to take precedence in hierachy in power and terror over Psychologists and Psychiatrists.

Roger, your writing in this manner reinforces my theory - nay, strike that - belief that you are channeling Mark Twain. Keep it up. With Mr. Vonnegut gone to wherever (I refuse to take a position on that one), we need that sensibility.

Roger, you do yourself and other atheists a disservice by putting us at the opposite end of the spectrum from the fundamentalists and calling us "true believers." I can see how you could do that, seeing as we really, really don't believe in God; but you realize there is a major difference in the ways of our beliefs that makes your statement unfair. If all the evidence in the world indicated that God did not exist, your religious "true believer" would, if he were acting consistently with his faith, not surrender his convictions. If an atheist—hell, if Richard Dawkins himself—came to believe that the evidence pointed towards the existence of God, he would admit it.

Ebert: I don't believe I have ever identified myself as an atheist.

Here's why I would classify Dawkins as a True Believer. He considers the non-existence of God as a Fact. As Truth. He doesn't believe the Theory of Evolution is a Fact, a Truth or a Law. To be sure, it's close enough as makes no difference. But as a scientist he is open to improvements, modifications, corrections. Not so, I think, with "The God Delusion."

My notion is that a First Cause (or Causer) would be outside human conception, and therefore neither knowable nor deniable. It's a matter on which we can hold no opinion provable as valid.

Hey Roger,

Your previous post got me thinking deeply about Shakespeare again for the first time since i was 13 (I am now 19), if I ever thought about him all that deeply in the first place. Upon my renewed research into the man, or myth as it is perhaps more appropriately put, I came across again the debate over Shakespeare Authorship.

It seems, to me at least, to be fueled more so by the disbelief that a man could complete a body of literature that is viewed as so complete and so perfect than by compelling evidence opposing the accepted Stratfordian view. It is more convenient to discredit the notion of Shakespeare than to accept it; people don't like bathing brilliance in praise anymore (hence Scorsese only having won a single Oscar).

If another equal to the great bards skill were to pass by today would Society recognise him with the reverence of Shakespeare? Or does a postmodern world not allow such perfection? The notion of Shakespeare in general almost blows my mind, he is almost a superior being. Ironically, or perhaps tellingly, I fail in relaying my astonishment at his writing in words.

You no doubt have put countless more hours of thought (if scales of time can be applied to our mind in any case) into the subject than I. Any insight into Shakespeare? A dedicated journal entry would be interesting :)... but perhaps wishful thinking.

Ebert: I love the man. Have read him and about him since I first read Julius Caesar at about 12. Seen most of the movies and taught a class about them. Subscribe to Chicago Shakespeare Theater. Have seven or eight editions of his works, including a replica of the First Folio, but read only one, my worn-out college textbook. I've read a few of the books claiming someone else wrote the plays. One defender of Shakespeare observed that we know more about him than almost any other commoner of his time. Even Samuel Pepys, writing his diary in a secret code, privy to the secrets of the crown, attending the actual performances, seems to believe that there was a man named Shakespeare and he wrote the plays. My theory: Someone wrote them, it was certainly the same man, and I am happy to call that man Shakespeare. Any more time spent on the question is time taken away from the works.

I've come to believe that science deals with what is knowable and what is true, while religion deals with the construction of narrative that assigns meaning.

In other words, religion deals with what is true because we believe in it, and science deals with what is true whether we believe in it or not.

Ebert:

"Here's why I would classify Dawkins as a True Believer. He considers the non-existence of God as a Fact. As Truth. He doesn't believe the Theory of Evolution is a Fact, a Truth or a Law. To be sure, it's close enough as makes no difference. But as a scientist he is open to improvements, modifications, corrections. Not so, I think, with "The God Delusion."

My notion is that a First Cause (or Causer) would be outside human conception, and therefore neither knowable nor deniable. It's a matter on which we can hold no opinion provable as valid."

To be fair to Mr Dawkins, the reason that he believes it is a fact that God does not exist, while still saying that Theory of Evolution is not a Fact, Truth, or Law, has to do with the difference between a priori and a posteriori propositions. For Dawkins, the fact that God does not exist is a priori, whereas the distinction between evolution being theory or law is a posteriori. What that means, as clearly as I can explain without using too many words, is that god does not exist by definition. A priori truths are those things which are true by the logical consequences of their definitions. For example: 1+1=2. On the other hand, a posteriori truths are those truths which are contingent upon observation of the natural world, under which the theory of evolution would fall. Dawkins, and most scientists of course, are of the opinion that while a posteriori truths certainly DO exist, because they rely on our admittedly imperfect ability to observe the world, they may never truly be provable. To actually prove the theory of evolution to the point that it would become equivalent in knowability to an a priori truth would of course require time travel and a stream of consciousness millions of years long devoted to nothing but observing evolution in progress.

On the other hand, to Dawkins god does not exist based upon a priori problems with the definition of god. The most important of which being that Christians and similar theists postulate the existence of both an all powerful, all knowing, and supremely benevolent god that created everything in the universe, and evil, which are two irreconcilable definitions in Dawkins' book. Either evil does not exist, or god as he is defined does not; the two are mutually exclusive and he systematically destroys all attempts to reconcile the two put forward by Christian philosophers. I'm not going to bother to repeat how he has done so; it's all over the interwebs already and beyond the purview of this post.

But anyways, THAT is why Dawkins believes that he KNOWS that God does not exist even though he doesn't claim that the theory of evolution is a Law, Fact, or Truth. Because god's existence is knowable a priori, whereas scientific theories are only knowable a posteriori.

As for YOUR notion, that God is by definition unknowable and therefore all statements regarding him are unprovable--this in many ways is truly skeptical sentiment. What you seem to be saying is that we cannot even prove that 1+1=2. You believe that even if we accept that 1+1=2, IF true, would be a priori, not even a priori truths are actually knowable. Why wouldn't it be knowable? For one thing, we have no guarantee that the laws of logic we think we have fabricated are in anyways actually valid with regards to the way the universe actually works. For another thing, it would be possible to imagine some kind of evil demon (like those postulated by Descartes for example) is deceiving us into believing false statements. Even something as basic and fundamental as 1+1=2 could be nothing more than a trick played on our minds by beings with fantastical magical powers we cannot even hope to comprehend.

However, when you take skepticism THAT far; saying that we cannot prove that god exists or does not exist because we cannot even prove that 1+1=2 when subjected to the most rigourous standards of falsifiability, what you find is that we really know nothing at all except Descartes' cogito: I think, therefore I am. And that simply reduces to meaninglessness the definition of the term 'knowledge', and really serves no practical or pragmatic use in daily life. As a philosophical skeptic myself, I actually believe that we really don't actually 'know' anything except the cogito, but I also freely use the word 'knowledge' to describe a great many a priori and even a posteriori beliefs that I have. It's a sliding scale in which knowledge for me simply represents things that I am willing to base my existence upon for the purposes of pragmatism. For example I 'know' that the sun will rise tomorrow not because it can be proven 100% true, but because living my life as if the sun will in fact rise tomorrow gives me the best chance of experiencing satisfying emotions and sensations which, by virtue of the cogito, I DO know in fact exist.

That got quite rambling but hopefully somebody out there can appreciate it....

Ebert: I am persuaded on Dawkins. But will you grant me the possibility that a First Cause would be unknowable because we would have to somehow stand outside of the Cause, which, if we have been Caused, would be a priori impossible? ?

In an effort to placate religious "moderates" there seems to be a tendency among the "reasonables" in the evolution/creation debate to send atheists to the back of the bus.

The conciliation between science and religion always seems to end up lumping fundamentalism and atheism in the same fringe, leaving the middle ground to ... who?

Okay, I don't believe there is an invisible talking sky man. So before you direct me aft, I should warn you that I might go all Rosa Parks on you.

Ebert give it up(rolls eyes); in case you haven't noticed by now the internet is filled with people living in their own reality some of whom I imagine are just taunting you.

Still trying to come up with an adequate response. Your posts of late - and the general responses to such - are so awesome that I can only sit back and soak it all up, almost too intimidating to contribute, but more so simply too tired of late to work up the mental energy. (This explains why I haven't reviewed many movies as well; there are simply more important things at the moment.) The only thing I can say, is: GET OUT OF MY HEAD! (And I mean that in the best possible way.)

A poster above (a right wing, God fearing videogamer) noted that he hadn't yet realized his own mortality. I mean not to belittle, but isn't it something of a contradiction to be aware of something enough to say that you haven't realized it? No matter. Four and a half years ago, I was involved in a horrific auto accident; driving on the Pennsylvania turnpike with traffic during a light drizzle, the car hydroplaned, swerving across both lanes of traffic before flying in the grass separating both sides of the highway, rolling on its side into oncoming traffic. We struck only a guardrail, and ended up facing the opposite direction on the other side. It was the greatest thing that ever happened to me; there isn't a thing I don't appreciate more since.

Well, I may not pick things off my fellow humans back, nor would I want too. But my grandpa does sort of look a monkey, is he? Or are we just human? I think the reality is that fear from 'some' religious practices will almost always attempt to place their power of authority, even upon children in public schools. But just like evolution, it will take time to sort those ID believers out of the picture, by teaching evolution in school as a law, rather then a theory. This way our monkeys ancestors won't have to look so inferior.

Ebert: Monkeys are much better at being monkeys than we would be.

Only Ben Stein would think the "peanut butter" experiment could be scientifically valid...

I occasionally like to enter some of those online messageboard debates about serious subjects, one of which has been evolution. I always try to explain why I am "iffy" about certain parts of evolutionary theory, and I never, ever bring up or so much as allude to religion while I do so. Indeed, I wouldn't dream of it. Instead I point out my qualms: While I easily understand how variations within species can and do occur, can this adequately account for the change from one distinct species to the next? What about the observation that if organisms evolved by gradual means, this could not explain the complexity of certain systems, which could never have come together slowly since if one component or chemical was missing, as the organism would not function or survive? I try to be reasonable and open-minded. However, at some point the evolution enthusiast always and without variation either remarked upon such ideas being fostered by religious people that are hostile towards science, or insinuated that I was a Creationist (which I am not) unwilling to look at the "facts." I have never been in a debate with a person who whole-heartedly supported evolutionary theory who did NOT bring religion into the debate, even if he was a professed atheist. I have never been the one to bring religion into it myself. Do you see the problem here?

I am a Catholic and as such have grown up with the idea of God creating the universe. This serves as part of why I'm inclined towards Intelligent Design but it is not the entire reason. Some people might be flummoxed by the idea that many I.D. proponents are drawn to the theory NOT because they view it as a prop for their religious beliefs but because it seems to have a legitimate basis in biological/biochemical fact; however, I assure them that for many people this is the case.

"The Theory of Evolution does not require that you abandon your religion, or vice versa. This despite the assertion of a Darwinian like Richard Dawkins that, logically, it does."

But you see, the problem is that Dawkin is right. We must think very practically and critically here. If you believe in a God who created the universe then you believe that this superior Being guided it into being. Evolution by definition is the belief that the universe came together as a result of an unguided, haphazard process. The two ideas are not compatible. If you are going to at least insist that God set the wheels turning for evolution to begin, then at best this is deism--the idea that God does not play an active part in the world. I am not nor will ever be a deist, and certainly most religious people are not either, so logically we can not support the former idea. Interestingly, if belief in a Creator who had a hand in all creation where to be more compatible with evolution, scientists would have to face the fact that evolutionary theory would have to be tweaked to be more like--gasp!--I.D.

I’ve wondered just why the “Darwinists” seem so intent on equating I.D. supporters with Creationists (which they are most definitely not). And why they seem so eager to disregard any idea that might somehow lead to the supernatural. Aren’t they supposed to follow the evidence wherever it leads? What does the materialist view hold for them that makes them so eager to defend it?

I’m going to send an idea out there. It seems to me that scientists are blinding themselves to astonishing possibilities by their very insistence of retaining a materialist worldview in the realm of science. The question of whether or not there is a God (despite the fact that mankind has always had some form of religion for the whole of his existence, which you think would account for something), has always intrigued people. What if scientists can prove the existence of God through the use of science? Wouldn’t that be regarded as the most definitive discovery of all time? And if I.D. is the theory that seems to be leading to this conclusion (although the designer in the theory is so far undefined), why not examine it? We all know that a theory is something that can be subjected to the scientific method of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and conclusion. The notion of irreducible complexity, which is an important part of the I. D. theory, can be tested as biochemists can test biological systems to see if they need all of their components to function. The evidence is leading somewhere—scientists, why not follow it, just for the heck of it?

There is the idea that this cannot be done because I. D. is somehow irrevocably intertwined with religion and is thus on par with a bunch of “magical” hooey would have been hard for me to debate at one time (not that it wouldn’t have offended me at any time, however). However, scientists themselves believe things purely on faith. For instance, one scientist has proposed an “other universes” hypothesis, the idea that our universe might actually have formed out of the wreckage of a previous universe, which formed from an even earlier universe, and so on. There is no way for such a thing to be tested; it is pure speculation. Yet it is an idea that has been taken seriously by other scientists, not ridiculed like irreducible complexity, which can actually be tested.

Ebert: No claim of irreducible complexity has no far gone unrefuted. No evidence points to the supernatural. No scientist suggests teaching the hypothesis of alternate universes, except as a problem in theoretical physics.

Hi Roger -

This is probably the most inappropriate place to write a comment so unrelated to Darwinism, but I have a question about your recent review of Friday the 13th. On reading it, I was reminded of your glowing, or at the very least excusatory reviews of adventure films like Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls, Tomb Raider, and Journey to the Center of the Earth. I was disappointed by all three, yet (as you've admitted, I think) that you have a soft spot (if not an outright love) for that genre. When problems in logic come along, you often write something to the effect of "We're not here for story, we're here for the action."

Anyway, taking this into consideration, the Friday review comes off as particularly smarmy when you write the following:

""Friday the 13th" is about the best "Friday the 13th" movie you could hope for. Its technical credits are excellent. It has a lot of scary and gruesome killings. Not a whole lot of acting is required. If that's what you want to find out, you can stop reading.
OK, now it's just us in the room. You're not planning to see "Friday the 13th," and you wonder why anyone else is."

In the same way your adventure/"King Solomon's Mines"-style film reviews are laced with your (totally understandable) love for the genre, your reviews for horror flicks are often filled with disdain and condescension, save for those of the Silence of the Lambs calibre. I'm certainly not arguing that Friday (which I haven't seen yet), or any horror film in recent memory is anything worthy of a glowing review. But quite a lot of your arguments put forth in favor of adventure films (excusing most short-comings for conventions of the genre, for example) could easily be applied to your horror reviews - if you were the type of person that had an affinity for such films (I think it's pretty clear you're not!).

I get excited when I hear about a film following the adventures of a treasure-hunter heading off to adventures in distant lands, and I get excited when I hear about a film about a killer in the woods at a lake-side camp. As I'm sure you'll admit, 99% of this affection stems from childhood nostalgia. However, if I go see the adventure film and the final answer is "The treasure is knowledge! Knowledge is the treasure!" I'm going to be let down, despite my predilections. If I go see the horror flick and the kids are cookie-cutter dislikable teens begging for their own cookie-cutter deaths with no imagination, I'm also going to be disappointed. But I might just enjoy the ride.

You've always been an advocate for judging a film on its own terms i.e. not comparing Raiders of the Lost Ark to Citizen Kane, but do you think that sometimes your own biases get in the way? It'd be helpful if you'd at least acknowledge this before writing something like "You're not planning to see "Friday the 13th," and you wonder why anyone else is." Couldn't you have just as easily said "Listen, this just isn't my thing. If this is to you what Tomb Raider is to me, you'll have a great time."

Ebert: I believe you when you say you haven't seen the movie. Get back to me.

If you don't mind adding one more species to your list, I'm someone who finds that evolution, as well as modern cosmology, strengthens my belief in God.

From what I understand of Hebrew -- though I am not fluent in it -- the word translated as "formed" in 2:7 has its roots in the word for making pottery. The act of making pottery is not one of instant creation, but of starting with formlessness and reshaping though intermediate forms, until the final form. That would not be a bad way to describe evolution to people of 3,500 years ago.

There's also a few interesting bits and pieces. Woman is often seen as the civilizing force for man. The Bible states Eve was made out of Adam's rib. When the human race evolved from our ape-like predecessor, we lost a rib. Civilization, both metaphorically in the Bible and directly, per evolution, came at the cost of a rib.

Although I recognize the flaws and contradictions in the Bible, the more I, as a non-scientist, learn about science, the more I find that parts of the Bible have references that are either extremely fortuitous or else come from someone remarkably advanced in knowledge presenting science to people of low technology. In short, I find science -- even science as presented by active atheists like Dawkins -- to strengthen my religious belief.

Ebert:

"I am persuaded on Dawkins. But will you grant me the possibility that a First Cause would be unknowable because we would have to somehow stand outside of the Cause, which, if we have been Caused, would be a priori impossible?"

Well that's really hitting the nail on the head, if I read you right. A cyclical model of the universe (which has by definition no 'First' cause) is equally possible, as far physicists and philosophers can make out, and that debate right there may very well be the next major battleground theists tackle science on. If I'm not mistaken I believe that some 'creation science' astrophysicists are coming up with biblical interpretations, explanations, etc and whathaveyou to do with these kinds of questions. As to the answer, I believe you are right, and that there is no way to know whether or not our universe is linear or cyclical unless we the observer could somehow step right outside of time and the universe and witness it happen.

But in any case Dawkins, as far as I know, and myself personally, make no claims about the knowability of a 'First' cause or it's possible nature. Rather I, and I believe he, merely reject even the possibility of the existence of a god as he is specifically defined and described by any holy book. We may not know for sure, or ever be able to know, what or when the First cause was or if there even was a first cause, but we do know some of the things that it WASN'T. An all-powerful, all-knowing, perfectly good, interventionalist God that created everything is one of the possibilities we can rule out with certainty.

Ebert: I'm going to play the Fool here, and ask, what is the theory about why a cyclical universe exists? Was it always here? Did it begin?

Enjoyable posts, Roger. I am impressed that you have carved out time for something like this, and with your thoughtfulness in general. Regarding evolution, it happens every day, visibly. Darwin's selection is natural, via random mutations occurring over time. Probably 99.999 percent of these mutations are not helpful at all, and many are fatal. But sometimes something useful occurs. A butterfly is colored in such a way that it is less likely to be eaten by a certain bird. It survives, and produces another generation like itself, and so on. Visible evolution occurs every day in laboratories, if you look at life forms that exist for short spans. For instance, scientists can see successive generations of corn changing via man-made stimulus. Same process, but man made. They see it in wheat. They see it in flowers. The multi-colored roses people buy on Valentine's Day were created via selection in a botanist's lab. Same process as evolution, but the stimulus is from man rather than chance. Humans can get away with not believing in evolution for one reason—in order to see it work in humans, you'd have to live for a lifespan that encompasses many generations. But that isn't possible, so people can doubt it and even claim there is no evidence it exists. I think this is a poignant encapsulation of humanity's most destructive shortcoming—if it doesn't occur in a time frame we can observe personally it either doesn't exist, or doesn't matter. But for an example of everyday evolution look no further than your basic household dog. Every breed you see on the planet, from Chihuahuas to Great Danes, were deliberately bred from four or five species of wild dog, beginning maybe twenty-thousand years ago. Some of the present-day variations could never survive in the wild, but do well at specialized tasks. They exist because of man-made selection for certain desirable traits. So if you look with unbiased eyes, the process of evolution is all around, and trying to claim it doesn't exist is, I'm sorry to say, laughable. Man mastered the process of evolution long before he knew what to call it, and long before Christianity or other monotheistic religions were around to tell us it is the domain of God. Man has been the master of evolution, but he calls it breeding. Now, if you agree evolution exists but it was directed by God, well okay. I don't think so, but I won't argue that point. I just wanted to address those who don't seem to think the process is a real force. Sorry, but it is. Just open your eyes, or, maybe read a book.

As a big admirer of Lincoln, I was particularly annoyed by Jeff Frederick's speech Thursday where he ridiculously made insinuations that Lincoln would have disapproved of Darwin's Theory of Evolution because Lincoln's last act as President was to put "in god we trust" on US currency. Youtube it if you haven't already seen it.

First of all, since I know Lincoln was extremely devoted to using precise and careful LOGIC, he would have had a very difficult time reconciling what one thing had to do with the other.

Secondly, since I tend to think Lincoln and I share similiar views on religion, it bothers me that Frederick takes this tiny fact about Lincoln and tries to extrapolate it out and make it account for Lincoln's whole opinion, when anyone who has read anything about Lincoln knows that his opinions on God and religion were complex and constantly EVOLVING to the day he died.

And lastly, look at the words "In God We Trust". It is not "In God We Believe". The word "Trust", at least to me anyway, intimates "Faith". In God we have Faith. And that about sums up my position. I have faith that there is a God, but when I wake up tomorrow and turn on my car, i don't think it starts by God's hand, it started because of science and the ingenuity of human beings which has constantly evolved over centuries. Perhaps starting hundreds of thousands of years ago when an ape first learned how to start a fire!

Ebert: Lincoln was never affiliated with an organized religion. He often said he was more shaped by the Declaration of Independence than by the Bible.

So I haven't read all the posts but I guess you could call me a 'True Believer" as I am A Christian and do not believe in evolution on the large scale that Darwin professes. I believe in micro evolution and that is fairly evident in something like bacteria or micro organisms. From my glance of all the posts I see really only a few sides to this argument one being that God created everything and it happened less then 10k years ago, another that there is no God at all and the third that God used evolution to create everything.

Let's look at it from a different point of view. What I am considered in Christian Circles is a "Gap Theorist" or a “Ruin-recreation Theorist” I believe there is a Gap in the beginning of Genesis. ( You can find a lot about this theory at http://www.kjvbible.org/) True that there are a relative few people who ascribe to this theory to me it makes the most sense and explains why we would find the things we do and why the Earth is as old as it is. Not Sure Roger if you have heard of this theory before but it’s an interesting one to me and always has been. I do agree with you Roger on one thing and that is God is far beyond our conception, meaning to me trying to put our Logic to God makes no sense at all. I do believe the bible, but have always felt that it is NOT nor was it ever supposed to be a science book on how God created the universe. What it is supposed to be is in part a history book explaining important things in not just Jewish History but in Christian history as well. But more so a guide book, a guide on how to live your life and be able to draw near to God. I personally believe God left all the details out on purpose. We really don’t need them to have a relationship with him and I think he left them out so that we could use the minds he gave use to ask questions and discover things on our own. What good what it have done us if God gave us everything on a Silver platter. Look at what happens to most Kids when they are spoiled and you can get an Idea of what we all would be like had God just handed us everything.

Anyway my point is this, there are other Theories out there Roger and I personally just don’t believe Evolution and Creationism are hand in hand in this world we live in.

Mr. Ebert, I find your defense of evolution as articulate and trenchant as your finest movie reviews and books. However, I wish you had not used the term "evolutionist". This was a term coined by the religious right to frame those subscribing to the theory of evolution as just another "ism" - a belief system first and science second. If you talk to scientists like myself you won't find us calling ourselves evolutionists any more than we call ourselves Relativityists, Geneists, or Quantumists. The term "Darwinism" and "Darwinist" have been used by scientists but have also been tainted by many ideas and worldviews that Darwin himself never espoused, (e.g., social Darwinism). In short, like most scientists, I reject the labeling of scientific ideas and theories as belief systems on the same par as religion. As you correctly noted they are different regimes and should not be deliberately blurred by those with ulterior motives. It is unfortunate that fundamentalist Christian groups fighting evolution have been so successful in promulgating such language that even you have seen fit to adopt it. Nonetheless, I applaud your efforts.

Ebert: I'll try to reform. I must have been infected by a...meme...

Ebert: I don't believe I have ever identified myself as an atheist.

Here's why I would classify Dawkins as a True Believer. He considers the non-existence of God as a Fact. As Truth. He doesn't believe the Theory of Evolution is a Fact, a Truth or a Law. To be sure, it's close enough as makes no difference. But as a scientist he is open to improvements, modifications, corrections. Not so, I think, with "The God Delusion."

My notion is that a First Cause (or Causer) would be outside human conception, and therefore neither knowable nor deniable. It's a matter on which we can hold no opinion provable as valid.

-----------------------------------------------------

My apologies for referring to you as an atheist. I think I read a few comments down and forgot that it was no longer your blog entry. To be honest, I remember being surprised that you would say that in the first place; my surprise should have led to suspicion, and my suspicion should have led me to re-read a little bit and find my error.

Still, though, you are misrepresenting Dawkins' opinion. He believes strongly that God does not exist - yes; however, he would not dismiss valid arguments in favor of God. He simply hasn't encountered any - nor have I.

"... as a scientist he is open to improvements, modifications, corrections [on evolution]. Not so, I think, with 'The God Delusion.'"

Here, you are just wrong. He writes about this in the section of "The God Delusion" on shades of probability, as well as in the preface to the paperback edition. He would, in fact, change his opinion on God were there sufficient evidence to demand that of him.

Ebert: If he found reason to do that, and I believe he's more than willing enough to do so, I think he would be most intrigued.

The most interesting theory I've heard recently regarding 'first cause' and the creation of the universe is that the 'big bang' was the result of another universe's explosion (implosion)?

The resulting impact was so immense that our present universe was created as a result of another universe's untimely demise.

Of course, this isn't a 'true' first cause, since it explains our own creation as the by-product of the destruction of something else, but it does add an interesting slant to the whole 'what-was-before-the-big-bang' argument.

Oddly comforting, too. To think that, perhaps, quite possibly, in some arcane way, all of what we know as 'life' came as the result of the 'death' of something else.

That universe died so that we may all be here, at this moment, commenting on your blog.

Absurd, of course, but I still wonder: If true, what was that universe like? More advanced than ours? Less advanced? And, most intriguingly: Did they engage in the same debate we're presently having? Or were they content with life itself? Does this discussion about the origins of life prove that we as humans are too far advanced for our own good -- or not advanced enough to recognize that the fact that we are here and alive is answer enough?

Ebert: It's a worry to me that if the theory of an indefinitely expanding universe is true, that means we're the end of the line.

There's no reason to think another universe had to die in order to make ours.

Reply to: Ebert: It's a worry to me that if the theory of an indefinitely expanding universe is true, that means we're the end of the line.

A line would be too simple.

think of a tree. One branch might end, but there are thousands of other branches. How many?

Reply to: Ebert: I'm going to play the Fool here, and ask, what is the theory about why a cyclical universe exists? Was it always here? Did it begin?

Stephen Hawking used to say that time itself began, and thus, the question doesn't have an answer. I think he's changed his mind.

http://www.relativitycalculator.com/articles/max_tegmark/parallel_universes_max_tegmark.html

: Is there a way that the existence of multiple universes as described by you in Sci Am, can be experimentally verified or falsified?

A: Absolutely! The theory of eternal inflation, where our Hubble volume constitutes only an infinitesimal fraction of all space, makes the firm prediction that Omega = 1 to an accuracy of order 10^{-5}. This model (and all those level I parallel universes with it) would have been ruled out if we had measured say Omega=0.70+0.02. Instead, our latest constraints in astro-ph/0310723 are Omega=1.01+-0.02.

http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profile/Are-there-Multiple-Universes-Linde-/48

http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/2005/09/multiple-universes.html

Think of Swiss cheese. Each hole represents a bubble universe; the cheese represents the space between the bubbles and is expanding faster than the speed of light. Not only do the bubbles get farther and farther apart, new bubbles keep forming within the cheese - the result of new Big Bangs popping off in a never-ending chain reaction. Eternal inflation doesn't just produce an oversized hunk of cheese; it produces a multiverse (end)

I think the phrase "never-ending chain reaction" gives you one answer.

There was no beginning. The total energy was always there, it just changes in form.

Reply to: your reviews for horror flicks are often filled with disdain and condescension, save for those of the Silence of the Lambs calibre. I'm certainly not arguing that Friday (which I haven't seen yet), or any horror film in recent memory is worthy of a glowing review.

I might watch "Friday the 13th"... no, wait. That's not going to happen.

People are scared when something happens on the screen that we don't want to happen. If we go to the movie to see the gore... if the gore is the purpose of the film... if the gore exceeds the boundary between "scary" and "disgusting"... as so many of them do. Why? They incorrectly think it's the only way to get kids to buy a ticket.

What I want is a vacation film. Let me use "Pirates of the Caribbean" as an example. In the first movie, heroine Elizabeth sailed to the Caribbean, where her father had been appointed Governor by the Queen. (No, not Elton John, one of the earlier Queens of England.) The movie took us on a vacation...

Then, in POTC 3, the screenwriters got the bright idea of "the pirate ship sails into the Antarctic" past all the ice, where the crew almost freezes to death. Did the screenwritiers forget that the title "Pirates of the Caribbean" contained the implied promise of a vacation in the Caribbean? Or that the relationship we cared the most about was between Ms. Swann and Captain Jack Sparrow?

Like POTC 3, recent horror movies have been written by people who missed the boat.

CJ, if you're going to start translating Hebrew to support your theories, you need to do a bit more research.

For example, there are many different almost-synonyms for "formed" used in the creation story. Adam was, roughly, "made", while Eve was "fashioned" - the first implying crude production while the second implies artistry and engineering. This is taken by those who still use the original text as evidence that women are innately superior to men.

While we're at it, that which King James' minions translated as "rib" is also the word for "side." If you accept the second translation, the story suddenly becomes one of Adam, complaining of loneliness, being split in half. As such, "he" (also the neuter form in Hebrew, which has no word for "it"), formerly made in the image of god, then becomes "he" and "she" - neither alone being in the image of god, but both together able to create life.

Hmm.

Roger:

See this weeks Nova on PBS regarding the trial in PA a few years back. Interesting viewing.

Ah, but if the universe weren't expanding, we'd already be toast - the sky would be full of radiation from infinite stars. (Olber's paradox - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox)

Interestingly, my mother told him, as a child, she was taught that the Bible was "metaphorical". And she grew up in 1940s South Carolina...

Is Intelligent Design not antithetical to the Scientific Method? Why is this even an issue? A great passage from "The Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams*:

***
Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that anything
so mindbogglingly useful [the Babel fish] could have evolved by
chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.

The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED"

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
***

*I know you didn't like the movie; the books are *infinitely* better, I promise. Well, except for the last one, "Mostly Harmless". Even Mr. Adams didn't like that one.

I'm only here to voice my opinion against the term "New Agers." Makes me think of tarot cards and Miss Cleo.

If you'll excuse me, there is quite a bella luna tonight. I must go lay under it.

Re. Hunter on February 12, 2009 3:10 PM

I doubt the teapot, but I see no reason in denying the minuscule possibility of the teapot.

Ebert: I'm going to play the Fool here, and ask, what is the theory about why a cyclical universe exists? Was it always here? Did it begin?

Well it's been about 10 years since I last looked at these kinds of questions in my metaphysics courses in university, but I'll try to sum up a few theories as best I can.

The theory accepted by theists because the ontological argument rests on it is that the universe, meaning all space, time, and matter, is a linear construct. In other words, it had a beginning, when God created it, and it will have an end too.

However, that theory is vulnerable to the salient third grader's question: who created God? The answer of course is that God is outside of the universe and has always existed and will always exist.

However, if we accept that it's possible that God can have always existed without having to be created, we should also accept that it's possible that the universe has always existed without having to be created. Rather than having the shape of a line, this universe might be thought of has having more the shape of a circle--not literally, but conceptually, as in having no beginning or end point. Visualizing an infinitely long line would be just as useful if you can wrap your mind around it.

Another possibility is the model infinite nested universes. In other words, our universe was created by an event that happened outside of our universe (God, or some kind of inter-dimensional big bang or something like that), and that event, in turn, was caused by another event outside of and beyond it, and so on, into infinite. Why infinite you might ask? Well why 2? Why 3? Why 1,893,590? If universes are nested even once, postulating any finite number of universes is completely arbitrary, so logic tells us we might as well postulate infinite universes. Just as we postulate that although our current universe probably has a limit to the amount of matter/energy in it, it probably has no limit to the amount of space in it. If we could travel in a spaceship in 1 direction forever, we wouldn't eventually strike a wall that represents the 'edge' of the universe.

What, I believe, physicists and philosophers guide themselves by, when making these theories, is certain observable phenomenom we have used to accurately describe our universe so far. Things like inertia, which states that something in a given state will remain continuosly in that state forever until acted upon by some outside force, or things like the law of conservation of energy/matter. Of course, on the quantum level, we're finding those kinds of rules no longer really hold up, so my education in this area is most likely dated already. I'm going to echo Bill Hays' sentiment that Stephen Hawking is probably the best fellow to read on these sorts of questions. All I can give from memory is the most basic of overviews, and a lot of exciting discoveries have been made in the meantime that have perhaps modified at least some of the theories I studied way back when.

Ebert: I can understand that the one-way forever trip would never run out of universe, but when Hubble thinks it sees the moment of birth at the edge, what is that? What would it mean if Hubble could see beyond it? Teach me, Professor.

“A platypus known as Octavious
Had a diet devoutly carnivorous.
With an electronic bill
For shrimps would he drill
Whose end seemed to them quite spontaneous.” – Roger Ebert

I’ve inspired you to write poetry! I’m sure Mr. Platypus read it too, and liked it very much. Chuckle; I remember Gérard Depardieu as “Cyrano de Bergerac” and while the death scene was somewhat over-the-top, nevertheless regard it with genuine affection for all he sought to reach for and thus express with his “panache”.

Note: Cryrano is also on my “Beauty and the Beast” list, so to speak, for belonging to that genre of likeminded films seeking to voice the universal lament of beauty trapped behind a misleading façade and ironically owing to genetics – or curses, depending upon the fairytale.

On a different note now but one no less worthy of mentioning as it involves a writer, I see one of my local stations plans to air the documentary “Dreams with Sharp Teeth” about Harlan Ellison; considered one of the greatest unknown writers of our time. Here’s the trailer for the film:

http://www.creatvdiff.com/harlan_ellison.php

It looks wonderful and I can’t wait to watch it! I love how he expresses himself and what he to say for it being so socially relevant, along with amusing. And I found it for watching The Knowledge Network – and who are they, you may ask?

“Knowledge is the destination for high quality, commercial-free documentaries and arts & culture programs from Canada and around the world. Knowledge is a not-for-profit organization funded through a provincial grant from the Ministry of Advanced Education and Labour Market Development combined with self-generated revenues and viewer donations”.

Ie: a tiny version of PBS!

I also see they’re planning to air “Riviera Cocktail” which profiles celebrity photographer Edward Quinn's work during the 1950s, when he navigated the social scene to capture some of the most iconic photos of the 20th century's great stars… check out the trailer!

http://nzzfilm.ch/en/rivieracocktail/

This is what you lose, when proponents of Intelligent Design and Creationism make inroads in a society. These are the kinds of stories they don’t want people to see – for them asking you to see the world as something bigger now than the one “they” want you to live in. Your PBS is a wonderful station in the and hope it never falls victim to all that would silence it.

And on that note, I’ll leave with you Chris Smither performing a song from his album "Leave the Light On" – Origin of Species:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpNoQaB2LT0&feature=email

See what your curiosity can find when you go looking? Smile.

In an earlier post I suggested two books by Susan Jacoby that pertain to this debate. I would like to add a new book to the list; Doubt, by Jennifer Michael Hecht.
I'm currently in the middle of it and the idea of her book is a history of doubters. starting back from the Greeks and working her way through various times and cultures she shows how secular doubt has always been around and how religion has constantly been reshaping itself to answer the questions that doubters and skeptics have raised.
Another thoughtful book I hope everyone enjoys.

Michael M: Everybody who votes in this country is a policy maker.

As to the international poster who wrote that it infuriates him that this is a debated here:

Quit whining.

Try doing for a living. I have had a student yell "Baloney!" in class when I introduced natural selection. I have had kids bring in cartoon tracts by some idiot named Jack Chick that equates evolution with abortion and racism. Parents have sent me copies of "Of Pandas and People." I have been given video tapes of Duane Gish denying the existence of transitional forms in front of pictures of Archaeopteryx. Just last week I read a report from a student that informed me Christopher Columbus used the Bible to prove the earth was round.

A brief defense of irrationality:

Humans are capable of holding contradictory thoughts simultaneously in the mind, which gets in the way of the core of all logic: the syllogism, since this human capability allows for differing major premises to be accepted. In other words, at the foundation of thought is variance, so that logic/rationality becomes only a part of what the human brain can accomplish; the other, equally "natural" and useful part, is imagination.

This ability, "simultaneous contradiction," is not a problem; in fact, for a social species with not only opposable thumbs but enormously complex brains, such simultaneity is quite helpful--just ask any mathematician or physicist, let alone parent, lover, teacher, politician, etc. And the goal is not to employ rationality to separate wheat from chaff and get to the "correct" answer, but to allow the contrarities to coexist in the most useful interrelationships possible.

So. To reject either science or religion asserts a false hierarchy in which one is "higher" than the other--not an evolutionarily stable strategy, since one, the other--or, of course, sometimes both at the same time--are very handy for solving survival problems. To be fully human is to employ both rationality and imagination so that one can actively participate in the creation of productive systems of simultaneous contradiction--you know, finding out things, doing good, being happy.

A quick illustration from science--and I want to thank Prof. Mark Shroyer for his exuberant explanation, which I pass along:

The more physicists looked at the universe moving around, the less sense it made--if all we had to hold everything together--the planets in their solar systems, the solar systems in their galaxies, etc.--was gravity. The Dark Matter folks came in handy here. While we couldn't see this theoretical/"imaginary" (my term, not Prof. Shroyer's) stuff, we could hypothesize/"pretend" (again, me) what would happen if it didn't exist. That was scary: With just gravity, everything would have fallen apart, outer rims of everything flying off, the whole shebang dissipating.

They had to ask themselves if they'd misunderstood gravity all along--another scary idea. Fortunately, they didn't; and so Dark Matter is accepted--and, in my view, not simply because it "makes sense"--which it does, but this sensible conclusion could not have been reached without the employment of the imagination.

Sherlock Holmes is famous for eliminating the impossible to accept whatever remains as a potential truth--but he certainly wouldn't have figured out all those Hounds and Speckled Bands if it weren't for self-contradictory (in other words, continually shifting, expanding, re-imagined) definitions of what constitutes "the impossible."

Sorry; I'd promised a "brief" defense--which, knowing me, was an irrational thing to promise.

my 10-year old daughter recently said, "i don't think the story of noah's ark can be true. if he really had two of everything, then he would have had two termites. wouldn't they have eaten the boat?"

i'm as guilty as anyone else, but it's a shame that we spend sooo much time arguing about the beginning and worrying about the end when we should just enjoy living in the middle.

Ebert: I can understand that the one-way forever trip would never run out of universe, but when Hubble thinks it sees the moment of birth at the edge, what is that? What would it mean if Hubble could see beyond it? Teach me, Professor.

I'd love to but I'm afraid I'm getting way out of my depth here and I probably look like an idiot to people who have actually devoted their careers to these kinds of questions. I'm just an English teacher with a base in philosophy. Most of the time I deal with questions of word choice, grammar, etc. I do really enjoy this conversation though and thank you very much for your excellent questions, which have already prompted me to dig up some old textbooks and do a lot of fresh thinking on the topic. With so many brilliant posters here though hopefully there's somebody with a good answer to this question.

My own best answer is that the universe doesn't have an edge to its space, only to its matter, and so Hubble can't see beyond that. The moment of birth at its edge, I believe, refers to the fact that way back when the universe was tiny, before the big bang, all of the matter at this edge, was mashed up against itself, and was the outer, exposed, layer, of whatever the universe was before it exploded and expanded outwards. So in that respect, it tells us a lot about what the universe was like before the big bang. Providing, of course, that our theories and models are actually accurate.

But that answer just seems so much less poetic than the question seems to demand =[

Ebert: Since we're both dreaming up theories:

They say the universe will eventually expand so much that all stars will be so far apart as to be invisible to each other. Since Hubble now thinks it is looking at light from virtually as far back as the Big Bang, maybe any light beyond that is already out of our view, and if we could stand out there the sky would still be filled with stars, now visible?

Ebert: I can understand that the one-way forever trip would never run out of universe, but when Hubble thinks it sees the moment of birth at the edge, what is that? What would it mean if Hubble could see beyond it? Teach me, Professor.

I'd love to but I'm afraid I'm getting way out of my depth here and I probably look like an idiot to people who have actually devoted their careers to these kinds of questions. I'm just an English teacher with a base in philosophy. Most of the time I deal with questions of word choice, grammar, etc. I do really enjoy this conversation though and thank you very much for your excellent questions, which have already prompted me to dig up some old textbooks and do a lot of fresh thinking on the topic. With so many brilliant posters here though hopefully there's somebody with a good answer to this question.

My own best answer is that the universe doesn't have an edge to its space, only to its matter, and so Hubble can't see beyond that. The moment of birth at its edge, I believe, refers to the fact that way back when the universe was tiny, before the big bang, all of the matter at this edge, was mashed up against itself, and was the outer, exposed, layer, of whatever the universe was before it exploded and expanded outwards. So in that respect, it tells us a lot about what the universe was like before the big bang. Providing, of course, that our theories and models are actually accurate.

But that answer just seems so much less poetic than the question seems to demand =[

Ebert: Hays posted that the universe was opaque at the beginning, so beyond a certain point we can never see. Anyway, wouldn't we be looking at the outer shell of the smallest point in the universe?

As a middle school science teacher, I have seen middle school students intuitively grasp the concepts of natural selection when we do hands-on simulations in the classroom. When we put green and brown "toothpick worms" against a grassy background, students acting as birds always "hunt" the easily visible brown worms fist. After several generations, the brown worms become extinct, and the green worms dominate the population. Brown worms may arise again through mutation and may become the more prevalent type of worm when the grass dries out.

Students can also begin to understand the true length of the history of the earth when we create 90 centimeter long timetables that show that all of our hominid ancestors cover less than one millimeter of the time table. My students examine fossils and simulate DNA mutation rates to see how small changes over long periods of time lead to large changes in morphology

Such concepts that reinforce true understanding of evolution through natural selection must be reinforced and deepened throughout high school as well. I encourage my students read Darwin, Dawkins, Wilson, Gould, Diamond and we discuss their ideas in class. I have had friends who are university biology professors tell me that my 12 and 13 year old students understand more about evolution than their college freshman.

Finally, student must understand why teaching evolution in the United States is controversial, but not elsewhere. We define fundamentalism and how it differs from evangelicalism. We define what theory mean in science as opposed to its general usage. Students come to understand that for those whose holy text is the first and last word, they will never accept evolution. We discuss how evolution is not something you "believe in" just as gravity is not something you "believe in." When you treat 12 and 13 year old students with respect and let them know they are capable of understanding complex ideas, they rise to your expectations.

Roger, you are correct that education is the key. Our science teachers must be well versed not only in Darwin's ideas, but the mountains of evidence from genetics, anthropology, biochemistry and developmental embryology so that our students understand that evolution is fundamental in explaining how life on earth works.

Thank you always for your thoughtful writings and analysis!

As a middle school science teacher, I have seen middle school students intuitively grasp the concepts of natural selection when we do hands-on simulations in the classroom. When we put green and brown "toothpick worms" against a grassy background, students acting as birds always "hunt" the easily visible brown worms first. After several generations, the brown worms become extinct, and the green worms dominate the population. Brown worms may arise again through mutation and may become the more prevalent type of worm when the grass dries out.

Students can also begin to understand the true length of the history of the earth when we create 90 centimeter long timetables that show that all of our hominid ancestors cover less than one millimeter of the time table. My students examine fossils and simulate DNA mutation rates to see how small changes over long periods of time lead to large changes in morphology

Such concepts that reinforce true understanding of evolution through natural selection must be deepened throughout high school as well. I encourage my students read Darwin, Dawkins, Wilson, Gould, Diamond and we discuss their ideas in class. I have had friends who are university biology professors tell me that my 12 and 13 year old students understand more about evolution than their college freshman.

Finally, student must understand why teaching evolution in the United States is controversial, but not elsewhere. We define fundamentalism and how it differs from evangelicalism. We define what theory means in science as opposed to its general usage. Students come to understand that for those whose holy text is the first and last word, they will never accept evolution. We discuss how evolution is not something you "believe in" just as gravity is not something you "believe in." When you treat 12 and 13 year old students with respect and let them know they are capable of understanding complex ideas, they rise to your expectations.

Roger, you are correct that education is the key. Our science teachers must be well versed not only in Darwin's ideas, but the mountains of evidence from genetics, anthropology, biochemistry and developmental embryology so that our students understand that evolution is fundamental in explaining how life on earth works.

Thank you always for your thoughtful writings and analysis!

Reply to: Ebert: ...when Hubble thinks it sees the moment of birth at the edge, what is that? What would it mean if Hubble could see beyond it? Teach me, Professor.

I think I understand your question... but first, let's start with something else.

Staring into the crowded, dusty core of two merging galaxies, NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has uncovered a region where star formation has gone wild. The interacting galaxies appear as a single, odd-looking galaxy called Arp 220. The galaxy is a nearby example of the aftermath of two colliding galaxies.
In fact, Arp 220 is the brightest of the three galactic mergers closest to Earth. This latest view of the galaxy is yielding new insights into the early universe, when galactic wrecks were more common.

Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys has unveiled more than 200 mammoth star clusters, far outnumbering the six spied by Hubble in a 1992 observation of Arp 220 taken by the Wide Field Planetary Camera, which did not have the sharpness of the Advanced Camera.
(end)

Recent images from the depths of cosmos show more than 500 galaxies in the early universe, scientists reported today.

The galaxies-viewed with the Hubble Space Telescope-existed less than a billion years after the Big Bang, the purported birth of our universe, and flourished when the cosmos was less than 7 percent of its current age. (end)

My point is, we're not talking guesswork or speculation. OK, I'm going to change topics now. I'm no longer talking about the birth of galaxies, or galactic clusters.

The universe's theoretical birth generated lots of hot hydrogen and helium ions that quickly expanded. But the expansion of space soon cooled the matter. The ultraviolet radiation from the galaxies, however, turned the cold, dark hydrogen to hot and transparent plasma over a few hundred million years.

70,000 years AFTER the Big Bang

The densities of non-relativistic matter (atomic nuclei) and relativistic radiation (photons) are equal.

Recombination: 240,000–310,000 years after the Big Bang

Hydrogen and helium atoms begin to form and the density of the universe falls. Hydrogen and helium are at the beginning ionized, i.e. no electrons are bounded to the nuclei. As the universe cools down, the electrons get captured by the ions making them neutral. At the end of recombination, photons can now travel freely:

the universe has become transparent.

Dark ages

Before decoupling occurs most of the photons in the universe are interacting with electrons and protons in the photon-baryon fluid.

The universe is opaque or "foggy" as a result.

There is light but not light we could observe through telescopes.

At this point the only radiation emitted is the 21 cm spin line of neutral hydrogen. There is currently an observational effort underway to detect this faint radiation, as it is in principle an even more powerful tool than the cosmic microwave background for studying the early universe .(end)

So, to give an answer (which may or may not be accurate) we can use the Hubble to photograph the earliest formation of galaxies.

If you could increase the resolution, you might be able to see individual stars forming.

But if you're trying to go back to the Big Bang itself, your view is blocked by a period of time when the universe was opaque... and I guess they're talking about the entire universe, including the portion where the earth now resides.

Reply to: I have had kids bring in cartoon tracts by some idiot named Jack Chick that equates evolution with abortion and racism.

When I complained about Bible Study, where Christian kids learn science from comic books, I'm not sure you took me seriously.

Reply to: Ebert: I can understand that the one-way forever trip would never run out of universe, but when Hubble thinks it sees the moment of birth at the edge, what is that? What would it mean if Hubble could see beyond it? Teach me, Professor.

Because of the great distance, we can barely make out objects as large as galaxies.

If we could see more, we might see individual suns forming.

But there was a period about 240,000 years after the Big Bang when the universe was opaque, and so the image would be impossibly blurred. Or dark. No light at all.

When we use the word "science" we mean a generally accepted practice of putting forth theories and letting them be tested. Although there are occasional instances of fraud, the vast majority of scientists design tests and look at the results even-handedly, whether they support the theory or disprove it. This is how human knowledge reliably progresses and the old superstitions and snake-oils are left behind.

We humans have found this methodology very useful, as it has helped us cure diseases and create amazing inventions and machines.

Those who disbelieve evolution discount the scientific method absolutely. To this I say, OK, go ahead and believe what you want. But keep your beliefs out of areas where my taxpayer dollars are at work. And, more to the point, you should be forced to eschew any human progress that came as a result of the scientific method, like your your car, your TV, and eventually your health. Enjoy!

Roger,

The best documentary on evolutionary history I have seen is The Journey of Man

It is here, on YouTube, broken up into many segments

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV6A8oGtPc4&feature=PlayList&p=EE2EBF8303BD5DB4&index=0&playnext=1

After writing an entry for this blog, I had to wait a bit to see it posted. And it appeared with this flood of other comments. I must sincerely apologize, this is an incredible exercize that you undertake here. I am truly humbled to view the effort that you put into this. I had one more comment to make. I've noticed you have a new blog entry on dogs so I don't want to take too much more of your energy with this. In fact you need not post it, since I'm not sure it adds much to all before.

I am a rather simple person. While I have all these great internet resources, I don't have much time with family (& dogs) and work obligations to research things like many of the posters. Some of the latter entries here have visited multiple universes. Conceptually, I have trouble with that. It isn't as though our math homework allows multiple Venn diagrams, each it's own universe. The word descends from 'one' - 'total'. It, by definition, is all. There may be parts to it, but there can't be more than all.

All I know is that there is energy and matter and there is an equation relating energy and matter in space and time. This then involves force and momentum. So the movement of matter/energy over time has resulted in the positioning of everything. There is a process, therefore, for particle #1 to go from A to B. And, incidentally, there is nothing between the energy/matter quanta (the null set or void). This process is the basis of our understanding of the Lord.

It exists for all particles and quanta from the unique through the aggregate, from hydogen to cells. This process, dealing with all photons, molecules and cells, exists across all time at all time. It is every hair on your head, the reflection in the mirror and the birds in the sky. They are certainly numbered.

All life requires previous life. I can't tell you at what part of the process life began. But I know that cells can not spontaneously emerge. If you want to name the first two cells, fine, but I think 'red clay' has been taken. Further, life feasts on other life. It doesn't do well eating inorganic matter. All life of any single organism ends. It is life in total that does not end. Eat the bread, drink the wine, live.

The concepts of good, bad and evil are realized early in life. But they are localized to individual understanding. To some organisms, it is eat, procreate, adapt. More complexity requires more adaption. While in a complex society, evil is abhorrent and is generally considered aberrantly noticeable, bad things do happen. This does not mean that the process is bad. That some are so evil that millions die, does not negate humanity. Instead humanity adapts to exclude the evil. It just takes time. It takes many people to tell the tale and learn the lessons.

So will Shakespeare be read in another 300 years? I don't know that, but I do know that his words have changed humanity. The ripples of his words will continue to spread.
Will Intelligent Design succeed? It can't, because the picture in their book doesn't match the past or the future. It can not change humanity.
Does science negate religion? It only can if religion is frozen in thought. Days change. The world of 2, 5, 10 thousand years ago is vastly different than today. But we as people get to make the same good and bad choices now, that they did then. The choices are ethical, not about whether we communed with dinosaurs. If religion provides the lessons to continue in the path of the Lord, then how would it be negated by the search for the Lord. It is when religion stumbles into dogma that it fails. And then, it doesn't serve the Lord either.

Sorry to blather so long.

Michael M: Everybody who votes in this country is a policy maker.

As to the international poster who wrote that it infuriates him that this is a debated here:

Try doing for a living. I have had a student yell "Baloney!" in class when I introduced natural selection. I have had kids bring in cartoon tracts by some idiot named Jack Chick that equates evolution with abortion, racism and liberalism. (I'm kind of okay with that last one, as I like being on the right side of things.) Parents have sent me copies of "Of Pandas and People." I have been given video tapes of Duane Gish denying the existence of transitional forms in front of pictures of Archaeopteryx. Just last week I read a report from a very bright though ill-informed student that informed me Christopher Columbus used the Bible to prove the earth was round.

I wish Christians wouldn't take the Jewish Torah literally. The 6000 year calender dates from Adam, not from the beginning of creation. God gave us the ability to use logic, reason and science, and we have discovered that the universe was not literally created in 144 hours.

Your categorisation of responses sounds more like entomology than humanism. Perhaps you may have equally shone in that alternate career route. You missed one category, those who swear by "the saddest lines in Shakespeare"

Having waded through another chunk of Benjamin Button reaching the one hour mark, driven by a perverted curiosity, it seems that in cinematic taste ,and anticipating its box office success, it would seem not much difference between those environs and these....it's the state of the species, if you prefer....

As the president of the Philosophy Club at Vancouver Island University in B.C. Canada, I helped organize the school's first annual Darwin Day - complete with Darwin cookies, a natural selection game with prizes (Origin of the Species for first place, The Darwin Awards for second), wearing of varied finch beaks by members, and Darwin Himself making an appearance and singing Darwin Carols! If you'd like to take a look as some of these Carols, composed by my professor Justin Kalef, follow the link! http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/02/darwin_day.html

And here are links to a few pictures of Darwin Day itself!
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g288/yogurted/darwinday3.jpg
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g288/yogurted/darwinday2.jpg
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g288/yogurted/darwinday.jpg

Oh Roger, each review or blog post of yours I read I fall deeper and deeper into intellectual love with you. Words cannot describe how much I admire you, so I won't even try. I have you as one of my interests on my Facebook profile, so maybe that'll give you some idea(of how much I adore you, not how creepy I am. But also that.)!

Ebert: A jolly good time for the old boy!

Try having a Darwin Day in most American high schools.

I grew up and attended school in Northeast Pennsylvania (go NEPA) and received a strong, well-rounded public education of which I've always been proud. In my little bubble of youth, I assumed all children went to good schools under well-educated teachers.



One night, in my adult home state of Colorado, I was talking with a friend about evolution. He disagreed and spoke vehemently of the Creation Story. To support his argument against evolution, he stated that men have one fewer bone in the body than do women. I stared at him incredulously (what alien had just possessed my intelligent, witty friend?) before assuring him that we both had 206, barring any mutation or dismemberment.



He went on to reveal that his public high school BIOLOGY teacher had taught that men had one less rib than women, thus proving Creationism true. My friend attended high school in the early nineties.

Ah, but it's very easy to use the Bible to prove the earth is round.

Step 1: make a large paper boat out of a bible
Step 2: set it afloat on a calm ocean
Step 3: as the boat approaches the horizon, it will disappear from the bottom up. Do the math (or, rather, the geometry)

Voila!

Well I think that Bill Hays provided much more informed answers than I'm capable of, so thanks Mr Hays!

I actually finally just got a copy of Stephen Hawkings book, which is not easy here in China. I had to go all the way to Bei Jing to get one. So I'm looking forward to reading that very eagerly. I only wish I had read it two weeks ago. Then I'd actually have something useful to contribute here besides some basic common sense philosophical theories =[

Ebert: Since we're both dreaming up theories:

They say the universe will eventually expand so much that all stars will be so far apart as to be invisible to each other. Since Hubble now thinks it is looking at light from virtually as far back as the Big Bang, maybe any light beyond that is already out of our view, and if we could stand out there the sky would still be filled with stars, now visible?"

Nic:

If true, that would imply that perhaps in the endless reaches of space, there have been dozens or hundreds or trillions of 'big bangs', each happening totally independent of the others. We assume that all of the matter and energy in the universe came from 'our' big bang, but there's really nothing to say that beyond the reaches of the energy and matter that came from our big bang, there aren't more sets of matter and energy that came from other big bangs. Perhaps there are trillions of big bangs, and perhaps there are big bangs happening at this very minute, totally undetectable to us.

I understand one of the cyclical models of the universe is that eventually gravity overcomes the forces that cause our universe to expand, the momentum reverses, and everything begins to move back together in on itself until it finally collapses into a tiny dot--and then another big bang happens. This perhaps has already happened infinite times, and perhaps will continue to happen infinite times. And perhaps there are infinite other universes also going through this cyclical process in the vast reaches of space.

But I thought I read in a scientific journal somewhere that this model has been discredited because the rate of expansion of the universe does not appear to decelerating. Maybe Bill Hays knows....

Every time I read one of your blogs on this topic, it grieves me. I greatly admire your writing, but I feel that you aren't the kind of person who would be so willing to make the human race such a statistic. I cannot believe that. I love my family too much. Not only that, but I love humanity too much. That is why I love Jesus. Because I am a broken man, with many miles of sorrow behind me, and yet I stand. I am grieved, because I feel that this is what the Devil has wanted from the beginning: to weigh the facts out. I doesn't matter if it is a truth or a lie, good or evil. It keeps us thinking, and not doing. There are millions of people all around the world who need something much stronger than facts, more powerful than medicine, and more reliable than perfection. They need other people. Jesus last commandment in Matthew was for his disciples to go out into the world and make more disciples. And that is still happening to this day all over the world.

Do I discourage facts? Not in the least bit. But you know the phrase better said than done? When you look at facts, that is true, but I think that we put too much emphasis on what is written and not enough on using our senses. Writing and facts are set in stone, and idol chatter is set in the moment, but life is set in motion. Business is based on the facts of life; Greed is based on the facts of money; loyalty is based on the statistically unreasonable love and trust. In that sense, God and science do not go together, because God hates the science of greed.

There are so many things that, factually, do not make sense. You can explain why we go to the movies scientifically (call it Elevation), but I know that I am not watching Indiana Jones because a few tests proved its quality; I am watching it because Indiana Jones is awesome! Why does it matter that Casablanca is considered a "happenstance" masterpiece? It is a great film! What I'm trying to say that any evaluation of something considered great is after the fact, but the real love of film is not in our pens or keyboards, but in the seat that we always look for in the middle of the theater, in the midnight showing lines, and, most importantly, in our hearts and minds, with no words great enough to describe it.

Of course, that is just from watching film, but making it is not too different. There is a process, but most of the time that process is kicked off by a random encounter, an unusual day, or an interesting dream. And where do we get our dreams? For me, as a film maker, it comes from those before us. That is why I believe the words of Jesus, and that is why I believe that God created everything: Jesus spoke to the masses, but he entrusted the advancement of the kingdom of God to only a few disciples, whose duty was to spread the gospel. There are many stories (Both in the books after the gospels and elsewhere) of this happening, and it still happens today (in my life and all around me). I look at my film aspirations compared to my faith, and I know four things: one, any skill or desire I have is cultivated and feed by the works of other film makers before me. Two, everything that is on film will be inspired by real life. Three, for me to understand real life, I can't stand behind a computer all day and write about it, I have to live it. Four, Jesus wants me not just to live but to invest in other people. From that, I see that God really does have the right plan for us, if we will take it.

Now, why do we need a savior then? That is a much tougher question, because it seems that so much of God's commands can just be lived out by anyone. But I really think that so much of life tells us that there are many miracles that need to happen. And as we know, we are incapable of miracles: we are limited to our natural bodies. In that sense, Jesus literally saves us. Not only from hell, but from the fear of death. It makes absolutely no sense to go to an underdeveloped country that is crawling with disease to preach...unless you believe in a God that wants us to be free from death. I do. I hope in the near future to be able to do mission work in countries that need a savior. And if God wills that I come back, I figure that I will have one heck of a movie, too. You have mentored me so much in the love and study of film, and I am grateful for this opportunity to speak my mind on this issue.

By the way, I wonder if you could explain your understanding of how evolution and death go together. I am really curious to know what scientist say about that. God bless.

Ebert: If individuals have genetic traits that cause them to die before the age of reproduction, those traits will disappear through natural selection. Therefore, each and every one of us descended from an unbroken line of successful reproducers.

What a great read.

It is an interesting coincidence that Lincoln and Darwin were born on the same day. Particularly so because creationists from the bible belt often accuse Darwin of racism, although Darwin, in his own words, abominated slavery, and hoped the Union would triumph in its war against slave owners. That's right, war against the slave owners with a supposedly superior sense of morality, whose descendants accuse Darwin of racism.

Oh the irony.

Darwin's quotes on race and slavery can be found here: http://commondescent.net/articles/darwin_on_race.htm

Ebert: The most remarkable evils have been attributed to the poor man.

Not only have humans evolved; since the rise of civilization human evolution has accelerated according to the new book The 10,000 Year Explosion by Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending.

Thanks for the enjoyable catalog of species, and for your five points, very succinct. Certainly, I agree with your refereeing of the match between Darwin and ID. Well, OK, that was my decision, too, shortly after I read a description of ID. But your reasons are stated more clearly than mine were.

I have a question about your direct involvement in biology education. Did you and Gene Siskel make a video to illustrate DNA recombination using the scene from "A Night at the Opera" in which Chico and Harpo insert the score of "Take Me Out to the Ball Game" into the score of "Il Trovatore"? I think I saw this video at a science museum, maybe in Chicago or Toronto, but Google has not helped me locate it. Of course, not everything is on the web ... yet. Did you make this video, or do I have an invented memory of it? If it's a real video, not my faulty memory, do you know if a copy can be obtained? Thanks.

Ebert: I think I'd remember that.

Commenting on your answer to my question:

I'm not talking about reproduction, I'm talking about evolution. How does evolution and death go together? I mean, how does science explain that we grow and change when death is a factor?

Ebert: We personally do not evolve in one lifetime. A species does.

Sigh...you always want to feel your post is the unique one, the one deserving of an extra look. Not this time.

If I'm to fall into one of the Ebertian descriptions, I'm 70/30 True Believer (Atheist flavor)/Hard Noser. I'm the guy who, when forced to obey a cop directing traffic for a church, grumbles at my steering wheel (to be fair...I grumble when that same cop directs traffic for Portillo's, but that's another story). When the line between church and state is supposed to be firm, why are there so many instances of line-waffle? If churches receive public services, why are they not invoiced (they're not taxed)? I guess my irritability is at a remove from the original question, but I feel better now.

My least favorite religious tactic/given is the tenet that morals (substitute 'societal values' if you'd prefer) arise from religious education. What a load of Morrow Plots fertilizer.

Excellent post as always.

Tony
-UIUC '92

I just want to say that I misread your reply to my question. You answered what I wanted to know, aka, what scientists say. I don't agree with it, but hey, that wasn't the point. I just feel that death is a much broader topic that seems to be swept under the carpet in these discussions. I mean, we can't forget that we DIE! That does mean something.

Ebert: It means a whole heckuvalot, but I think my reply explained how death impacts evolution.

I've had this exact dilemma. Back when you were writing your first article on this subject, I was researching to do a paper on how Evolution and Creationism is portrayed in the media and continued to learn everything you've since listed.

It all made the most sense to me when I was interviewing a Biology Professor and he asked me, "Are you still beating your wife?" I'm not married, but the point is that there's no way out of question. He explained that Creationists will ask, "Do you believe in Evolution," and you either say no and your claims are invalidated or you say yes and it becomes a matter of belief, allowing similar matters of belief to waltz right into the classroom.

I'd like to think I'm of "The Reasonables" because I was raised Lutheran and share many of those Christian values, but I have a practical mind and I understand that Science wants nothing to do with Religion. There was no conflict or debate to begin with, but Creationists have since challenged it and created said debate. I furthermore enjoyed your satirical view of each of the other groups, many of whom I can't stand.

I think of your previous entry about "The Reader" and speaking when you're supposed to, and despite how I've tried listing the same five points you make, most people won't even let you get past number one because it insults their beliefs, so much so that I was instructed by my parents to avoid the issue altogether on Christmas Eve.

Ebert: Stuff happens.

Now you've done it, Roger! You've gone and used the Rumsfeldian variant on Mamet's "Things happen" which, in a previous blog entry comment, I'd specifically thanked you for not using! You were just chomping at the bit to use this one, weren't ya?

Ebert: Just testing you. Actually, "stuff" is also an evasion...