Teach the Controversy is still busy hawking its new line of intelligently designed t-shirts. I decided to buy the shirt with a triceratops pulling a plow.
Here is a 3-minute comparison. On the one hand, we have natural selection. On the other hand, we have creationism/intelligent design. Brought to you by comedian Robin Ince.
Kenneth Miller is a professor of biology at Brown University. He is also a widely published author (co-author of high school and college biology textbooks used by millions of students). He is also a practicing Roman Catholic who has served as an expert in several court cases concerning creationist school boards that have tried to muzzle classroom science. In his most recent book, Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul, Miller makes an unrelentingly strong case against creationists of all stripes, including those who advocate “intelligent design.”
I did not realize the strength of the scientific case based upon the analysis of the genomes of human beings and other animals. How strong is it? It is at least as strong as the fossil record, arguably much stronger. I already knew a few things about the arguments based on genome analyses. For instance, I had often read that the genomes of chimpanzees and humans were 99% the same (or, at least, 96% the same). I also knew that all animals possessed Hox genes, essentially “toolkits for generating body form.” Miller reminds us that “it is the same kit whether that animal is a honey bee, a fish or an elephant.” The Hox genes prove “deep connections between animal groups.” Miller points out that these similarities are even much more striking than Haeckel’s (admittedly exaggerated) embryonic drawings. In fact, Haeckel “actually understated the evolutionary case each of these embryos possesses the same developmental toolkit, revealing both are common ancestry and the similarity of form and function produced by the workings of the evolutionary process.”
These profound Evo-Devo findings (the combination of development and the study of evolution) show that we “no longer need to make a distinction between the two types of change known as macro evolution and micro evolution. We don’t need to attribute special mechanisms for large-scale changes. Evo-devo “reveals that macro evolution is the product of microevolution writ large.” According to Miller, these should be “chilling words” to the ID crowd.
Teach the controversy? Yes, while wearing these witty and “intelligently designed” shirts.
And how! Observe:
The more you know about evolution, or simple logic, the more you are likely to be appalled by the film. No one with an ability for critical thinking could watch more than three minutes without becoming aware of its tactics. It isn’t even subtle.
Mmm, that’s good Ebert [source].
Less than 1% of the 464 biology and biological anthropology faculty members who responded to a recent survey approved of the following proposition:
“Modern evolutionary biology is mostly wrong. Life arose through multiple creation events by an intelligent designer, although evolution by natural selection played a limited role.”
The biologists included those affiliated with [...]
Steve Fuller, who supported the wrong side at the 2005 evolution trial in Dover, Pennsylvania, has now written a book making the entirely discredited argument that intelligent design is “science.”
Fuller’s book (”Dissent over Descent”) has been reviewed (actually, savaged) by philosopher Michael Ruse, whose review “A Challenge Standing On Shaky Clay,” appears in the October [...]
Discussions in the comment sections of many posts on this site chaotically tend toward the strange attractor of one generally off-topic issue: Why does Creation/Evolution seem correct to you? It is usually a discussion between Creationists who believe that the scientific conclusions are based on faith, and Naturalists who believe that the Scientific Method is [...]
Duped from Ethics Gradient.
They’ve started advertising the DVD version of that infernal, mendacious, highly offensive, wilfully ignorant and misleading waste of megabytes known as Expelled. Bay of Fundie has scratched the surface of their advertising and revealed some new information.
Now, given that this is the DVD release of Expelled, it makes me wonder what kind [...]
In brief, Stephen Jay Gould proposed the idea that evolution is truly stochastic (a particular technical kind of random), that if we started evolution over as of a million years ago, we probably wouldn’t be here in our current form. That is, any evolutionary step is contingent on the history of steps that went before, [...]
You read that right! No reader of Dangerous Intersection, radical materialist or hard-bitten skeptic believes in science. To say otherwise is to give a false impression of what science actually is. Science is not something in which a person believes or does not believe. Science is not a belief system; it has no holy screeds [...]
I started thinking about the the “reductionist attitude” in presenting science when I read Erich’s Post To deal with “arrogant” scientists we need to move beyond reductionism and break the “Galilean Spell” (from May 7, 2008). Curricula seem to begin with biology, work through chemistry, and finally introduce physics. If English were taught categorically as [...]
Apparently the Pacific Justice Institute is suing a couple of Berkeley professors for putting up a website that explains evolution. The PJI apparently sues anyone who might constrain Christian evangelism in America, including in public schools. I read about this current suit here, on CitizenLink.org.
CitizenLink is a newsletter for Focus on the Family, a non-profit [...]
