Posted on 09/25/2001 4:46:13 AM PDT by Aquinasfan
There is no religious bias in the PBS Evolution Project because Ken Miller says there isn’t.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Josh Gilder
A first-hand report on the PBS Press Conference for the Evolution Project, held July 26, 2001 at the Ritz-Carlton Huntington Hotel in Pasadena, California
I just returned from the PBS Pasadena press tour, which opened with a press conference on their up-coming 8 hour, 7 part Evolution series, to be broadcast Sept 24-27. Others will no doubt be offering critiques of the series itself. I’ve not viewed the entire series, but from what I have seen I can say that it’s not what you’d expect. It’s worse.
Jane Goodall was there via satellite, along with series producer Richard Hutton, Ken Miller, Eugenie Scott and Jim Morris, all in person. It was a lavish affair, put on with the aid of the some $14 to $25 million dollars donated to the project by Microsoft gazillioniare Paul Allen. Along with a nice press kit, we all had copies of Darwin’s Origin of the Species waiting for us on our chairs and an evolution card game (“Test your evolutionary knowledge”). Advocating Darwinism to the press is clearly preaching to the choir. Even so, the speakers took great pains to impress on us all that there is no (real) conflict between evolution and religion (Miller of course took the lead here) and any perceived conflict was simply a matter of ignorance (on the part of the public, of course). The over-riding purpose of the series, in fact, was to help people overcome their unreasonable and irrational fear that Darwinian theory somehow threatens religious belief. This naturally went unchallenged by the press core, until fellow IDer, John Reynolds, managed to waylay a live mike and ask: if so, why is the series so patently and gratuitously offensive to the religious sensibilities of the majority of the American people? Which it certainly is.
Miller jumped in to express wonderment that anyone could even think such a thing, saying he “wouldn’t have been associated [with the project] if he thought there was any bias whatsoever.” He repeated this to me even more emphatically later on. (It was a little like the joke about the guy whose wife catches him in bed with another woman, but the guy adamantly denies he’s having an affair, saying he’s never been in bed with another woman in his life. His wife points to the rather obvious evidence lying beside him. He simply repeats his denial and adds, “That’s my story and I’m sticking to it!”) Miller’s role as religious mascot was clearly central to this whole enterprise. His first words were something to the effect of “I’m a believing Catholic and a believing evolutionist,” and after that, all religious issues were reconciled, as it were, in his person. He saw no bias. Therefore there could be no bias.
Just before they switched off the microphones, I was able to get in a question about the 14 to 25 million dollars donated by Paul Allen. Mr. Allen’s production company, Clear Blue Sky, not only produced the eight-hour series, but is behind a much larger project that includes an interactive website, on-line courses for teachers, a written teachers’ guide, special videos with ready-made answers to students and parents who might raise inconvenient questions about evolution, and the training of special evo-cadres (the “Lead Teacher Initiative”) to go out into the public school system and instruct other teachers exactly how to teach evolution.
I asked Richard Hutton, the producer, if it was in accordance with PBS guidelines to allow donors to produce their own series for airing on the public stations – thereby granting them effective editorial control. Hutton denied that there was anything untoward, as Clear Blue Sky was an independent production company, but when I asked if it was wholly owned by Mr. Allen he admitted it was. Hutton refused to say how much Mr. Allen had given, but said that the production of the series was in line with the costs of other series. This would leave anywhere upwards of $10 to $20 million left over, which Hutton seemed to admit was being used in preparing the educational materials and training the evo-cadres to blitz our public school systems this fall.
It was hard to follow up further as they kept turning off the mike. I did have a back and forth with Ken Miller afterwards, trying to get a little further into the bias issue. I asked why, despite liberal use in the series of evo-“experts” such as Dennett, Gould and others, no mention was made of their philosophical agenda (atheism) -- something Miller discusses at great length in his book, by the way --and that it was only critics of evolution who were portrayed as having an alternate agenda (creationism). I pointed out that Miller himself acknowledged in his book that Berlinski, for instance, was not a believer, and that Michael Behe was not a “typical” creationist. He ignored the question and launched into an attack on Behe, assuring the now large audience assembled around us that there was absolutely nothing to any of these so-called scientific critiques of Darwinism. He was so emphatic on this point that it became impossible even to respond. I was effectively shouted down and left the field.
John Reynolds, however, did get in some good points with Eugenie Scott, which I’ll let him elaborate on in his report. Interestingly, a reporter from the Washington Post came by to get John and my names. I think the funding issue may have hit a nerve.
© 2001 Josh Gilder. All rights reserved. International copyright secured. File Date: 9.19.01
But the problem is, whose interpretation is the last word?
And with that, let us return to bashing Darwin's theory...
Evolution of the Eye:
When evolution skeptics want to attack Darwin's theory, they often point to the human eye. How could something so complex, they argue, have developed through random mutations and natural selection, even over millions of years?
Good question
If evolution occurs through gradations, the critics say, how could it have created the separate parts of the eye -- the lens, the retina, the pupil, and so forth -- since none of these structures by themselves would make vision possible? In other words, what good is five percent of an eye?
In other words, it's the classic example of irreducible complexity, since the entire mechanism fails if one component is missing.
Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible.
Well, it's not impossible to make up a story anyway...
Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure, a light-sensitive pigmented spot on the skin, could have gone through changes and complexities to form the human eye, with its many parts and astounding abilities.
I'm all ears...
Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints.
Hmmm... What standpoint would that be?
Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision.
It is? I don't know anyone who has lost vision from proliferating or leaking blood vessels. And what would happen if the blood vessels ran beneath the surface of the retina? What's the design trade-off?
So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.
That's it? The staggeringly complex human eye is a "botched design" because blood vessels don't run under the retina?
Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The existence of a range of less complex light sensitive structures in existing living species are what biologists use to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through.
Sounds simplistic already...
The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.
This is simply a story. No possible cause or mechanism is given. "Random changes" simply create vision improvements.
Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.
Same objection as above
In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species.
In organisms that are fully integrated and functional. Show me a half-formed human with a light-sensitive spot and I'll be impressed.
The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures reinforces scientists' theories about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.
Uh-huh
1) That's because THERE IS NO CAUSE OR MECHANISM other than slight random variations in the dna of individuals.
(I hope you will agree this occurs)
2) They don't create 'improvements'. Just variations. If an individual gains an advantage as a result of a variation, it could be called an improvement.
Believe me, I do understand what evolution is all about. But your statement leads to an ambiguous conclusion. Certainly there is variance in the genes of any species, and the variations do accumulate over time, but there is not one demonstrable, repeatable case of one species, through genetic variation upon genetic variation EVER becoming another distinct species, and it is not something that can be proved by the scientific method. Evolutionists do the very thing they ridicule creationists for: They accept some things on faith. Since faith is involved, the accusation that Evolution is a religion is true, because religion's central tenet is faith.
You lost all credibility when you believe a theologian over God's Word. What does it mean to you to "have faith"? The Word clearly said "Thinking themselves wise, they became fools!" His ways are not our ways. They are without excuse. His thoughts are higher than our thoughts. There are hundreds of examples of God being wiser and different in his reasoning than man. Why do we always think we can figure Him out? Just trust Him! He raised people from the dead, walks with them in fire without burning, keeps the lions mouths closed, and sent His Son to die for sinners. Just ask yourself, what man would do that? I have been brought to my knees many times knowing that I could never give up my daughter's life to save murderers and liars. I serve a mighty and wonderful, and good God, that would never lie to me, if He were willing to die for me, what would He hold back from me? Fall in love with Him all over again! Don't hold back. He didn't hold anything back from you.
Read Genesis 15:6 and see where rightiousness comes from. It comes from our belief. If you don't belive God then you are self rightious and in trouble with The Judge of Man. There is a song I like by Nicole Nordeman called "Let me not forget to tremble". We have become so arrogant about His Mercy and Grace that we forget that He is God!
First, there is no plauslible mechanism. Second, there are zero transitional forms between any creatures in the fossil record. The fossil record shows species appearing fully formed, and then disappearing fully formed.
Yes, there is minor variatio within species. So?
Here is a partial list of all of the fraudulent evidence for evolution that I was taught in high school in the late 70s:
Haeckel's embryo's
Peppered moths as evidence of microevolution
Panspermia
The transitional forms of horses
The transitional forms of humans including:
Pilt Town Man
Java Man
Nebraska Man
Neanderthal Man
Lucy
I highly recommend Philip Johnson's book Darwin on Trial.
I also recommend the following links on irreducible complexity:
http://www.arn.org/behe/mb_ic.htm
http://www.arn.org/mm/mm.htm
http://www.arn.org/docs/pearcey/np_bc1296.htm
small changes + time = big changes
It's that simple.
Most of the rest of what you typed is just plain wrong and I have grown weary of the discussion.
I loved the quote in explaining evolution: "At some finite time in the past, life began somehow. (How it began is beyond the scope of the theory, but the observational evidence strongly suggests that only one such beginning on Earth has left descendants to the present day.)" Contrast that with "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". The difference I see is that the Evolution statement has a certain amount of ambiguity in it, while the Creation statement is very definite. For my money, I'll stick to God's explanation. It's a lot easier to believe, and it doesn't insult me with inferrences that at some point in the distant past, my ancestors were apes, primates, rodents, and ultimately plants and amoebas. If you want to claim a Venus Flytrap, or a Marigold as part of your family tree, be my guest!
So what do you call these?
Here is a partial list of all of the fraudulent evidence for evolution that I was taught in high school in the late 70s:
Haeckel's embryo's
Not fraudulent:
On a fundamental level, Haeckel was correct: All vertebrates develop a similar body plan (consisting of notochord, body segments, pharyngeal pouches, and so forth). This shared developmental program reflects shared evolutionary history... Haeckel's inaccuracies damage credibility, but they do not invalidate the mass of published evidence for Darwinian evolution. (Richardson et al. 1998, Science, 280 p. 983-984)
Peppered moths as evidence of microevolution
Also not fraudulent in the way you think. Certainly Kettlewell's pictures are fraudulent, but some of the basic questions he sought to answer were answered, and supported evolution. Same as above.
Panspermia
The transitional forms of horses
Do you have any scientific theories refuting these two points? Or are you just articulating an opinion here?
The transitional forms of humans including:
Pilt Town Man
Java Man
Nebraska Man
Neanderthal Man
Lucy
I doubt that Piltdown Man, Java Man, and Nebraska Man were ever taught to you in high school as fact, unless you are very old, and even then, I still call you on it. This entire list here puts your entire post in a false light. If ID has any scientific merit, let it stand on that, don't try to misrepresent evolution to prop it up. The YEC's do it all of the time, and they look foolish in their attempts to do so.
small changes + time = big changes
small changes + time = stasis
Assume that both premises are true. How is this logic valid?
Cordially,
Well, if these criteria validate a theory then... g'night all y'all.
Certainly, if you don't like to think for yourself, and exhibit lemming-like behaviour, then God's Creation Statement is right up your alley. If you exhibit a scientific, creative mind where exploring new ideas and breaking creative ground are in your mindset, then science is right up your alley.
For what it's worth, science will never have all of the answers, statements with qualifiers will always be the rule of the day.
It's a lot easier to believe, and it doesn't insult me with inferrences that at some point in the distant past, my ancestors were apes, primates, rodents, and ultimately plants and amoebas. If you want to claim a Venus Flytrap, or a Marigold as part of your family tree, be my guest!
It is readily apparent that you have not put the time into understanding evolution enough that you misrepresent the argument. I don't think you have every correctly represented evolution's thesis in the half-dozen posts here. A correct understanding will help you to not look like such an idiot.
It's tough to argue with such a thoroughgoing analysis.
That's it. That's all they got. And they stretched it into eight hours.
To be anti-evolution in biology is the equivalent of being a flat-earther in geophysics; it involves deliberately blinding yourself to a vast weight of evidence from fossils and from biochemistry. There are transitional forms, and it's dishonest to deny it - what is Archaeopteryx and the other recently disovered fossil birds? What are the early hominids?
I doubt Thomas Aquinas would think much of modern 'creationism'.
Let them be called: SALAMIS (Islam + pork)
Why is it that when a Creationist is drawn into giving an answer for what and why he believes, he is ridiculed, spat upon, and mocked, but if someone takes an Evolutionist to task, the major appeal is that they shouldn't have to defend their viewpoint, and anyone who challenges it is a superstitious, non-thinking, navel-contemplating moron? That's SOOOOO scientific! Believe it or not, Creationists can and do think, and think well. You will never, ever establish your position by tearing someone else's down through personal attacks, name-calling, and finger-pointing. Until now, I have not engaged in any attacks on any person posting, I have spoken to the arguments of the position, not the person. You attacked me personally, and I have shot back. Leave it there. I'm tired of the discussion, because there is no scholarly attempt to weigh and consider both viewpoints, only blind invective and denigration of the person. This is not an intellectual discussion, it's a bar-room brawl.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.