Why Ken Miller isn’t in “Expelled”–An Inconvenient Truth
Why aren’t Christians who believe in evolution, like Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins, in the film?
It’s simple.
That would have undercut the false dichotomy the film sets up–that only two views are acceptable. One must either entertain the idea of Intelligent Design or one must be an atheist who affirms evolution.
The associate producer of “Expelled” basically even said it himself. Go read the excellent synopsis from Higgaion. Go read it! Now!
When your whole schtick is to pit religious “design proponents” open to the supernatural against atheistic, philosophically materialist “Darwinists,” all those pesky scientists who simultaneously affirm evolutionary biology and a robust Christian faith become very, very inconvenient.
Like this post? Email it to a friend.
Blog of the Airtightnoodle 
April 12, 2008 at 6:43 am
I think an analogous documentary film should also be made out of the DINOGLYFS or dinolits:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/dinosaur.htm
It seems that the ancient man not only saw but also documented the last megafauna (gigafauna, I should say, really!)
pauli.ojala@gmail.com
Biochemist, Finland
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Expelled-the-Movie-Evolution-Intelligent-Design-ID.htm
April 12, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Reply: Why Ken Miller isn’t in “Expelled”–An Inconvenient Truth
Since I haven’t seen the movie yet, I will wait to pass final judgement. However, it is my understanding that it isn’t so much whether one professes to be a Christian or not, but whether one is willing to bow to the altar of evolution, that determines whether or not one is personna non grata in the “scientific community”. In short, a theroy that rest on a history of fakes, frauds and hype has become the litmus test for whether one is a “credible” scientist or “crackpot”. Evolutionist can not agree among themselves as to when, where and how life started, but we are still supposed to take their word that it was all by accident. And don’t try to tell me the origin of life has no bearing on the issue when it clearly does. That is why that genius Carl Sagan suggested life was imported to earth by aliens. But of course the origin of life is not the only disagreement among evolutionist. They tell us birds sprang from dinosaurs, but don’t know whether flight originated from the ground up or the trees down. We don’t see evolution because it happens so slow as to be imperceptible, either that, or it happened relatively quickly in small populations cut off from others of their species. If they had any real proof, they would at least agree among themselves, even if they couldn’t convince those whacky creationist or second-rate scientist that think they see signs of intelligence in living organisms. Of course thinking they see design puts them in “good” company. Even Richard Dawkins referred to the apperance of design in living creatures. Of course, as an enlightened evolutionist, he knew it was only the apparance of design, even though he had and still has no proof that is the case.
April 13, 2008 at 1:09 pm
DCave–
Evolution doesn’t rest on fakes and frauds. Please do your research.
The reason evolutionists don’t seem to agree on when, how, and where life started is because (while very interesting) that is a topic that does not even fall under the realm of evolution. No offense, but you unveil your lack of understanding of what evolution is by saying this. Regardless, even though there are several ideas about abiogenesis floating around out there, scientists do NOT have to agree on that issue to agree on the bulk of evolutionary theory.
“They tell us birds sprang from dinosaurs, but don’t know whether flight originated from the ground up or the trees down.”
Explain.
“We don’t see evolution because it happens so slow as to be imperceptible, either that, or it happened relatively quickly in small populations cut off from others of their species.”
No, we don’t “see” evolution, just like we don’t “see” gravity. We also don’t “see” God, yet because I can see the effects of all of these things, I, for one, can accept them.
“If they had any real proof, they would at least agree among themselves, even if they couldn’t convince those whacky creationist or second-rate scientist that think they see signs of intelligence in living organisms. ”
There is a TON of “real proof”, as you say. Again, you really need to do your research. In any case, scientists DO agree on the vast majority of topics in evolutionary biology. Do they agree on everything? No. Do all physicists agree on string theory? Absolutely not. You clearly have little understanding of the scientific method. It’s OK for scientists to disagree. It’s through trying to settle the disagreements that we come to new findings and understandings of the world around us. When something is shown to be true time and time again though, like evolution, or gravity, or any other widely accepted theory in science, then scientists come to a consensus and accept the theory as true.
That does NOT mean the theory cannot change in some ways. Changing a theory doesn’t make it untrue or totally incorrect.
Recommendations for you:
Read the following–
“Finding Darwin’s God” by Kenneth Miller
“The Language of God” by Francis Collins
“Evolution” by Douglas Futuyma
A basic biology text that includes information on the scientific method
Visit http://www.talkorigins.org
April 14, 2008 at 4:23 am
In response to airtight noodle
Evolutionist call variation within kinds microevolution, so they can somewhat truthfully say evolution has been observed. But there is absolutely no proof that one kind of animal ever evolved into another kind. If there was proof, the debate would be over. Yes theories can change, but if you have to keep changing your theory because the evidence doesn’t fit, it is at least an indication that something might be wrong with your theory. As for fakes and frauds, there are plenty of them if anyone is willing to do the research. Piltdown, Java and Nebraska Man, as well as Lucy just to name a few. I’m not going to take the time to look it up, but there was also the fake dinosaur/bird link out of China just a few years ago for which National Geographic had to print a retraction. Of course the retraction didn’t get the prominence that the original article touting this latest proof of evolution did.
I have read evolutionist literature and visited talkorigins on a number of occasions. I see a lot of speculation and jumping to conclusions without any evidence to back up those conclusions. As for the origin of life not being germane to the evolution debate, I respectfully disagree. If life on earth could not arise spontaneously, then there are only two options. It is eternal, something most scientist deny, or at some point somewhere it had to be created by an intelligent being. If life was created instead of evolved, then all that apparent design that Richard Dawkins spoke of isn’t apparent after all, its real. The evolutionist claim that there is no way to detect design in living organisms. Okay, fine. But how about the appearance of design? That is easily detectable.
Of course we now know that the DNA of living creatures hold and transmit an incredible amount of information. What is needed for a reptile to turn into a bird is a massive amount of new information. Yet mutations and natural selection result in a loss of information. That is not evolution, that is devolution. And I submit to you, that practically all of the so called evidence for evolution could be used with equal force as “proof” of devolution.
There was a time, 45 years ago when I thought evolution might be true, I found it wanting then, and I have seen nothing in those 45 years to change my mind.
April 14, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Yet mutations and natural selection result in a loss of information.
Not true.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
“As for fakes and frauds, there are plenty of them if anyone is willing to do the research. Piltdown, Java and Nebraska Man, as well as Lucy just to name a few.”
Wow, how about the limestone cowboy, paulaxy valley man tracks and other creationist frauds. Oh by the way there’s no evidence that lucy is a fraud, but creationists still like to claim that!
“But there is absolutely no proof that one kind of animal ever evolved into another kind”
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
“There was a time, 45 years ago when I thought evolution might be true, I found it wanting then, and I have seen nothing in those 45 years to change my mind.”
You find it “wanting ” because you lack the honesty to evaluate the evidence. Your closed mindedness does nothing to make the evidence go away!
April 14, 2008 at 10:57 pm
“But there is absolutely no proof that one kind of animal ever evolved into another kind. If there was proof, the debate would be over.”
There is proof. Lots of it, in fact, not just for microevolution. You should really go research it for yourself.
“Yes theories can change, but if you have to keep changing your theory because the evidence doesn’t fit, it is at least an indication that something might be wrong with your theory.”
This demonstrates, again, that you have little understanding of “theories” or the scientific method in general. I’ll direct you here.
“As for fakes and frauds, there are plenty of them if anyone is willing to do the research. Piltdown, Java and Nebraska Man, as well as Lucy just to name a few. I’m not going to take the time to look it up, but there was also the fake dinosaur/bird link out of China just a few years ago for which National Geographic had to print a retraction. Of course the retraction didn’t get the prominence that the original article touting this latest proof of evolution did.”
Piltdown Man–yes, it was a hoax.
Nebraska Man–this was not a hoax or fake. It was simply something found, identified, and then found through further investigation to NOT be what it had been previously identified as. This was NEVER widely accepted as an ape or something in-between ape and man. However, the TRUE story of Nebraska man actually demonstrates quite well the scientific method–there was a problematical identification of a tooth, scientists investigated further, found data that made the previous ideas false, and then abandoned the first ideas.
Java Man and Lucy though–no, not hoaxes and not fakes.
Even if (and it’s a big if) ALL of these fossils you listed were found to be fakes, they represent just a FEW of the transitional fossils that have been found. So even if they were fake, it would in no way invalidate evolutionary theory.
“I have read evolutionist literature and visited talkorigins on a number of occasions. I see a lot of speculation and jumping to conclusions without any evidence to back up those conclusions.”
Where? I don’t know what pages you’ve visited, but everything I’ve ever seen at Talk Origins is THOROUGHLY referenced.
“What is needed for a reptile to turn into a bird is a massive amount of new information. Yet mutations and natural selection result in a loss of information. That is not evolution, that is devolution. And I submit to you, that practically all of the so called evidence for evolution could be used with equal force as “proof” of devolution.”
This is simply untrue. Some mutations add info to the genome; some subtract.
I’ll leave you with the references I give most people who have little understanding of evolution:
Evolution by Douglas Futuyma
Finding Darwin’s God by Kenneth Miller
The Language of God by Francis Collins
http://www.talkorigins.org
I think you will find the Miller and Collins books particularly interesting. Enjoy.
June 1, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Why Miller and Collins were not part of Expelled is not a relevant question. Expelled was not about going to prove or disprove the theory of evolution. It was about freedom. The little bit of actual science that was brought up in the movie was sufficient to cause an intelligent man to say to himself – there is room for discussion here. Why is it being shut out? What are the motives behind people trying to shut it out?
June 2, 2008 at 11:12 pm
If “Expelled” promotes freedom and allowing multiple views to be heard, why aren’t those people representing ANOTHER view (a view where Christianity and evolution can co-exist) included in the film? That certainly makes it a relevant question, in my opinion.