Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Washed-Up Actor Leads Cause to Distribute Christianized Version of Darwin's Evolution Theory

By Randy Olson, Island Press. Posted October 29, 2009.


Attempting to subvert the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's groundbreaking 'Origin of the Species,' 50,000 copies will be handed out.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Last year comic actor Ben Stein bamboozled evolutionists with his anti-evolution movie "Expelled!". He hoodwinked evolutionists, even Richard Dawkins, into appearing in a movie that attacked them.

Now Kirk Cameron -- Mike Seaver in the 80s sitcom Growing Pains -- is lending some star power to the vocally anti-evolution ranks with a plan to distribute 50,000 copies [on Nov. 22] of Charles Darwin's "Origin of Species" modified to fit his Christian beliefs and subvert the 150th anniversary of its publication.

Both Stein and Cameron invoke the dishonest and inaccurate suggestion that Darwin inspired Hitler. Both are celebrities playing the lead role for the anti-evolution forces. And both will elicit the same response from the world of science: thousands of furious, hateful comments on the science blogs crying foul -- and in both cases, all that ranting and rage won’t compete with the anti-evolution messaging.

There are only three options for the science world in dealing with this new phenomenon of the very vocal and savvy anti-science movement: repression, cooperation or competition.

Repression is out, though some scientists don't seem to realize it. We live in an open society. Other nations have tried to shut down debate and some even created gulags to deal with those who speak out against the orthodoxy. We don't want that, and it's simply not going to happen.

Cooperation is ultimately distasteful and futile. Most creationists are nice folks, at least at first. But after a while they are criticizing things they don't know about with an irrational passion. I don't know that joining them in a search for a common ground is possible. There is no compromise position on science. Facts are facts. And as Lewis Black said long ago on behalf of evolutionists, "We have the fossils, we win!"

In the end, there is only one option: the anti-evolutionists need to be out-competed in the open arena of mass communication. How to do this? It starts by coming out of the ivory tower and understanding that broad communication to the general public is not the same as college lectures. There are some basic rules that matter, starting with popularity -- a concept that is anathema to scientists.

Carl Sagan, the last great mass communicator of science in America, knew this. He appreciated the need to sit on Johnny Carson's couch and make light banter, the need to restrain the hyper-critical instinct that made him a great scientist and present a persona that was "likable," to tell great stories (he wrote a bestselling novel!), and even bring in celebrities as a means of capturing the attention of the broader, less innately science-interested public.

If watching Kirk Cameron expound on the “crockoduck” made you angry or laugh out loud, Kirk is not talking to you. He’s got another audience in mind, and we ought to have that audience in mind, too, because it’s most of America.

Dealing with communication challenges, such as celebrity spokespersons, is not an impossible task for the science world. The National Academy of Science is working with Hollywood through their new Science and Entertainment Exchange.

And I am up to my neck in working with Hollywood to communicate cutting edge science -- this week we are releasing a public service announcement with Pierce Brosnan, John C. McGinley and other celebrities supporting the new science of Marine Protected Areas for the oceans (www.mpaswork.org).

These changes are happening, and the science world does not have to sit by idly being out-communicated by Kirk Cameron, Ben Stein or anyone else trying to drag us backwards. It simply needs to follow a phenomenon scientists have documented so well -- it needs to evolve.
 


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: evolution, creationism, ben stein, kirk cameron

Randy Olson is the author of "Don't Be Such a Scientist."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Tools: [Post a new comment] [Login] [Signup] View:
come on!!
Posted by: azononi on Oct 29, 2009 10:21 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do you really think that Mike Seaver and the Ferris Bueller guy can really challenge a persons belief in evolution? I do not think that their push for a god infused theory of evolution is going to make more than a puff of air when it is released. Although it is only a theory it is strongly supported and the general belief of the masses so I don't think our 80's heroes are going to succeed. Let the fools persist in their folly and don't bring attention to them, they need it.
-A

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: come on!! Posted by: desertlakes
» RE: come on!! Posted by: Spiritgirl
» RE: come on!! Posted by: pdxlinuxchix
» RE: come on!! Posted by: Bibsisis
SOS
Posted by: willymack on Oct 29, 2009 11:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Move on, folks. Nothing to see here.
At least, nothing NEW, just the same ol' story, same ol' song.
Whether it's a new, "improved" fiction of Darwin's observations and sumnations-you know,the thing called SCIENCE- or the world according to Woody Woodpecker, the same nitwits who'd rather believe in a fantasmigorical bullshit tale, rather than tax their miniscule brains on Nature as revealed by Scientific Method strive for a place in the sun by way of a comic book.
Carl Sagan wrote about this in a couple of really good books, one entitled "Brocas' Brain", and the other "No Dragons in Eden".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: SOS Posted by: shd1230
"washed up actor"?
Posted by: wwittman on Oct 30, 2009 6:58 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
TEMPTING as that easy target may be, it's besides the point.

If Mel Gibson said it would it be any less ridiculous?
If mega successful John Travolta or Tom Cruise promote THEIR zany 'religious' beliefs, are they more believable?


What they are selling here is indefensible and stupid enough. Name calling doesn't add anything.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Wrong Posted by: frantaylor
» he's not washed up, either... Posted by: undrgrndgirl
» RE: "washed up actor"? Posted by: prtsimmons
Better Off
Posted by: Jo1028 on Nov 1, 2009 9:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think we would be better off if the counter-attacks came in the form of helping people differentiate fact from fiction. We would be better off if schools recognized that literacy now applies beyond the written word to media as well. We would be better off if people were helped to recognize that language that pushes the emotional buttons, the scare tactics, the straw man, the guilt by association appeals are all propaganda techniques that should trigger skepticism and disbelief.

In this 'information' age, the 23% of people that are still gullible sheep, and the rest of us need to be sharpening our tools for analyzing all the info noise that gets thrown out every day.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Better Off Posted by: Bibsisis
» RE: Better Off Posted by: billslm
Kirk Cameron is reading/speaking what others have written.....
Posted by: MotherLodeBeth on Nov 3, 2009 2:05 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kirk Cameron is reading and speaking other peoples words. I doubt he even understands basic science. Have him debate someone like Richard Dawkins and lets see how he does.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Totally Nuts
Posted by: john2007 on Nov 3, 2009 3:15 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's totally nuts that the opinions of intellectual slugs, like Stein and Cameron, are given more credence than the opinions of scientists, but that seems to be the way of it in the benighted world of FOX News and George Bush. Carl Sagan was marvelous, but as you suggest there aren't many others who can speak science to the common man. And maybe we better not expect scientists as a group to come galloping to the rescue, remember the Manhattan Project? My experience with academics and scientists is that they are just as timid as the next person; soap boxes are not their bag.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is the American Way of marketing products
Posted by: Changling on Nov 3, 2009 8:10 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One thing Christianity has been very good at is taking over and reworking things to fit their parameters of operation. Evolution is no different. Too many people don't accept the scientific secular view of evolution---14% do. While the rest accept it but that God made it and that is that.

Yes even though a mere 14% are in the scientific evolutionary camp the Fundamentalist Christians want to rule it all. Like in Iran only from their Calvanist point of view as Law of our Land.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

America must get over itself
Posted by: goodsensecynic on Nov 5, 2009 3:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Changling" tells us that 14% of the American people subscribe to the scientific conclusion that evolution is an accurate description and explanation of the origin and development of biological species (including our own), and "Jo1028" informs us that 23% of the population witlessly endorses some sort of supernatural account, most likely rooted in a literalist interpretation of the Book of Genesis. By my reckoning, this leaves a hefty 63% flailing about in confusion. So, perhaps there is hope.

What to do? What to do?

Perhaps the first strategy would be to stand back, draw a deep breath and understand that, no matter what the real "truth" may be (at least according to the latest public opinion poll), the fact is that the people of the United States are - as their ideologies, whether "liberal" or "conservative," assure them - truly exceptional.

Nowhere else in the allegedly civilized world are popular attitudes and ideas so profoundly out-of-step with contemporary social and scientific thought.

Only in America is the teaching of evolution remotely controversial. Only in America is abortion such a "hot-button" issue. Only in America are close to 3% of the population in the "criminal justice" system. Only in America is universal health insurance feared as "socialism." Only in America do the people clamor for the death penalty. Only in America ... do people so often say, "only in America."

Xenophobic, narcissistic, messianic and self-righteous to absurdity, an unhealthy chunk of the American people not only believe in an Abrahamic God, but seem quite convinced that "the Creator" has chosen the USA as His principal instrument of divine will, the sole repository of virtue and the world-historical "greatest nation of Earth," whose mission is to lead the sullen and surly mass of humanity toward the shining city on the hill which, I suppose, is Boise, Idaho or Cheyenne, Wyoming, or Nashville, Tennessee, or maybe Macon, Georgia.

It will take more than the second coming of a charming secularist like the late Mr. Sagan, in amiable repartee with the late Johnny Carson, to awaken these boobs.

But wait! All is not lost. There is another America.

All across the land there are plenty of teachers and thinkers and "fooles" (in the noblest sense of the term). A few of them follow in the grand tradition of Mark Twain, Will Rogers, Lenny Bruce, Lord Buckley, George Carlin and Kurt Vonnegut ... I'm thinking of Lewis Black, Dick Gregory, Jon Stewart & Stephen Colbert and an earlier incarnation of Don Imus. Most do not.

Many can be found in schools and colleges and universities, perhaps not exhibiting the show business savvy of comic celebrities or celebrity scientists, but working quietly and deliberately to educate the younger citizens of this profoundly immature, materially robust and often generous, good-hearted society. It will take some time (the luxury of which, it should be plain, we may not have ... and so there is some urgency about the matter).

Still, as America slowly and painfully grows up, it finest citizens must recognize, encourage and join the small heroes of the land.

America is like an awkward child - possessed of enormous strength, but also self-indulgent, emotionally unstable and given to adolescent vandalism, cheerfully wrecking the environment and roaming about the globe unthinkingly smashing other people's cultures ... starting with those of aboriginal Americans.

What's worse, even thoughtful Americans with a preternatural awareness that something is wrong, are inclined to put their overabundant faith in "star power," thus relieving themselves of their civic (if not quite their civilizational) duty to build civility, respect for knowledge and tolerance of dissent.

To reach its full potential, America must first get over itself!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: America must get over itself Posted by: woodford54
» uh... Posted by: undrgrndgirl
So it goes.
Posted by: javajoe on Nov 5, 2009 4:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Kirk Cameron is "Star Power?"
Posted by: SufiLizard on Nov 5, 2009 4:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seriously?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not Cameron, but potential Sagan clones Posted by: goodsensecynic
Poor Demented Kirk
Posted by: jmmartin on Nov 5, 2009 6:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was a big fan of Cameron when he was in the TV sitcom; he was the only reason I watched. Fame brought dissipation: he told anyone who asked that he simply got tired of sleeping with so many women, using drugs, &c. He found "God." The story is so old and so cornball -- "Saint" Augustine was the original lost sinner type -- it is ridiculous. If one is tired of one's licentiousness, one can simply stop. No need of "God." Everything Cameron has done since has been worthless. He's a useful idiot for the evangelicals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nova
Posted by: jebpgh on Nov 5, 2009 6:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This week the Nova segment on the origin of homo sapiens was outstanding. It also didn't even give a passing glance to the silly science of creation-evolution. It just plowed right ahead - tracking all the work that has been done and is being done to establish the evolutionay trail of evidence to our ancient ancestors over 3 million years ago. Why do we have to be so defensive in the face of actors and non-science silliness? Even the Vatican asserts the science of evolution is sound and beyond re-evaluation. Why do we have to act so confrontational? Let's do what should be done - dismiss this as medieval thinking and move along. You can't win a debate with the members of the Flat Earth Society either.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The real tragedy
Posted by: Illiteratilumen on Nov 5, 2009 6:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is when brilliant minds ar required to devote so much time and energy to refuting the foolish creationist arguments instead of, you know, advancing the body of human knowledge through their scientific work.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

IT SHOULD BE POINTED OUT THAT OLDER WOMEN ARE UNATTRACTIVE
Posted by: leafsong1 on Nov 5, 2009 7:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Men who date older women do it because they are quite obviously and literally motherfuckers. These are men who have been involved in steamy affairs with their own biological mothers for most of their lives. Most of them aren't even heterosexual; they merely sublimate their desire to submit to a powerful man by giving it to a proxy for their mothers. Often, (about 32% of the time according to a recent study) this irreconcilable internal conflict leads them to brutally murder their mothers or any "cougar" whom they manage to dupe into playing the role. It should be noted that many others engage in infantilism with their mommy-stand-ins, dressing up in diapers that they then gratuitously soil so that they can have the sexual pleasure they derive from being changed. Fortunately for those of us who find such perverisions disgusting, there are covert efforts disguised as "cougar matching" services which lure such diseased individuals to slow, horrible deaths by torture with knives, power drills, and hand-held cake mixers (don't ask). We should support the efforts of such sites to advertise wherever they get the opportunity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Are you on the right website? Posted by: zipper696
OH COME ON...
Posted by: shd1230 on Nov 5, 2009 7:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
BEN STEIN??? KIRK CAMERON??? WHAT KIND OF AUTHORIES ON ANY SUBJECT WOULD THEY BE?

I WISH EVERYONE COULD LET OTHERS EMBRACE WHATEVER RELIGIOUS MYTH THEY WANT TO BELIEVE AND GET OVER THINKING THEY KNOW SOMETHING THAT OTHERS DON'T. aLSO I WOULD PREFER MORE SERIOUS ARTICLES AND QUESTIONS THAN THESE YOYOS CAN COME UP WITH.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Pleas stop SHOUTING at us. Posted by: Changling
Oldjohn
Posted by: Oldjohn on Nov 5, 2009 7:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I saw a bumper sticker that said: "the Bible says it, I believe it and that's that's that!"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Oldjohn Posted by: freshlemon
» RE: Oldjohn Posted by: alturn
» RE: Oldjohn Posted by: Bibsisis
origins
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 5, 2009 7:59 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Evolution is mostly speculation. The physical evidence from the past is fragmentary; of the one billion species believed to have existed, 99 percent did not leave fossils. In the deliberate breeding of species, there are limits to the changes one can make. When pushed beyond a limit, species become sterile and die out or revert to their standard design. We can induce changes in existing forms via breeding, but cannot generate new complex structures.

If this cannot happen by man’s conscious efforts, why should it happen by blind natural processes? No satisfactory evolutionary models have ever been made.

In an article on animal rights entitled "Just Like Us?" appearing in the August 1988 issue of Harper's, Ingrid Newkirk, Executive Director of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) said:

"You cannot find a relevant attribute in human beings that doesn't exist in animals as well. Darwin said that the only difference between humans and other animals was a difference of degree, not kind. If you ground any concept of human rights in a particular attribute, then animals will have to be included. Animals have rights."

Many in the animal rights movement still base their ethical system upon the Darwinian theory of evolution. This will have to change, as Darwin's theory is being demolished. Michael Cremo & Richard Thompson's Forbidden Archaeology (1993) is a step in that direction. This controversial book shocked the scientific community and became an underground classic.

The book's premise is that evolutionary prejudices held by powerful groups of scientists act as a "knowledge filter" which has eliminated evidence challenging accepted views, and left us with a radically altered understanding of human origins and antiquity. Forbidden Archaeology shocked the scientific world with its evidence for extreme human antiquity. It documented hundreds of anomalies in the archaeological record that contradicted the prevailing theory and showed how this massive amount of evidence was systematically "filtered" out. This is how mainstream science reacts (almost like a religion) to any challenge to its deeply held beliefs.

The doctrines of karma and reincarnation as taught in the the Eastern religions (Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism) provide a valid theistic foundation for animal rights ethics, but are not yet accepted in the secular arena. In Wheels of a Soul, Rabbi Phillip S. Berg, a renowned contemporary Kabbalist, explains: "...the concept of reincarnation is by no means exclusive to Judaism. The idea was prevalent among Indians on the American continent; and in the Orient, the teaching of reincarnation is widespread and influential. It is the basis of most of the philosophical systems of India, where hundreds of millions accept the truth of reincarnation the way we accept the truth of gravity--as a great natural and inevitable law that only a fool would question."

Research by credible scientists into mind-body dualism and past-life studies suggest it is a real possibility.

In biology, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe calculated the probability of proteins forming from the random interaction of amino acids -- the building blocks of life. They found the odds were one out of ten to the 40,000th power. Given these extreme odds, it is hard to imagine the self-organization of matter without the deliberate intervention of some kind of higher power(s) or intelligence(s).

ALL life is thus precious and sacred. Dr. Francis Crick has admitted, "the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle." Future scientists and science teachers would do well to approach the study of the phenomenal world with this kind of reverence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: origins Posted by: amg
» There's more Posted by: ReallyBearish
» RE: origins Posted by: Bibsisis
materialism vs. non materialism is the debate
Posted by: Bertvan on Nov 5, 2009 8:57 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are two views of reality. Materialists view the universe as a mechanical device, devoid of all intelligent purpose. Non materialists see intelligence, volition, and sentience as basic aspects of reality, possibly playing active roles in the changing universe. Many materialists are atheists and many non materialists are religious. However, one doesn’t have to be religious to wonder exactly how something called “natural selection“ (early death or reduced number of progeny) might turn a collection of genetic accidents into complex biological innovations. (Neo Darwinism). Many people have strong feelings on both sides of this debate. However, neither of these world views, materialism or non materialism, can be proved. Neither view should be demonized. It is true that eugenics and materialism are compatible, but few if any materialists today advocate eugenics. And while young earth creationists are obviously not materialists, one doesn’t have to believe in a personal god to entertain the possible reality of non material forces, such as purpose and free will playing roles in the development of the universe. Materialism has become predominant in academia, and Ben Stein documented a number of people who lost their jobs because they argued for a less materialist view of evolution. If there are people who were discriminated against because of their materialist or non religious views, that was something that happened long ago - in past centuries.
Bertvan
http://30145.myauthorsite.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Does Kirk and his ilk deserve our attention?
Posted by: sconnelly on Nov 5, 2009 9:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Richard Dawkins does not suffer fools like Kirk Cameron. But this might be the problem and this is what the author is talking about. We need celebrity scientists like the much respected Carl Sagan.

But lets not forget that it not only takes a lot of 'guts' to engage these fundamentalists, but they may even be risking their lives. Some of Kirks followers are really off their rocker... just ask Keven Smith. After he released his movie Dogma, he received death threats....

Only religion breeds this sort of hateful fervor.

'Imagine a world without religion....'

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

None satisfactory for you but for a few of us it is conclusive
Posted by: Changling on Nov 5, 2009 9:56 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Speculation maybe in the earliest aspects but it is a detective drama following clues piecing together the evidence and coming to conclusions based on that evidence. Where the evidence disagrees with the hypothesis, the speculation is thrown out. The new field of genetics have also helped to bridge the gaps between the extinct and the extant.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stein has fooled all of you
Posted by: frantaylor on Nov 5, 2009 10:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He is actually quite an intelligent person.

He KNOWS FULL WELL that he is peddling horse manure.

He is just preying on stupid people and taking their money.

You can laugh at him and call him stupid but in the end he is the one holding the wad of cash.

You will not be successful at attacking him unless you understand his true motive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Science versus big money
Posted by: PaulK on Nov 5, 2009 10:54 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The real story here is the big cash behind making stuff up. We live in a world where all the scientists believe in man-made climate change but half the population doesn't. In general, if the science doesn't suit a big company we get a science-washing campaign. This goes back to the 1920s when doctors endorsed cigarettes to make women slim. Then Exxon/Mobil bought a climate change campaign, the nuclear industry bought a radiation is good for you campaign, coal became clean coal (use it like soap!). This evolution serves Jesus deal is just one more schtick.

50,000 copies, for free, and lots of money put into the product. Of course the public will buy it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

missing the point of what Olson says
Posted by: Drclaw on Nov 5, 2009 11:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
..its that communication of these things is not strictly via "FACTS"-one has to tell those facts in a way that engages people, or they will tune out the message. Although we scientists are good at the facts, we're often horrible at framing them in a way the people without all our specialized knowledge can appreciate. People are not necessarily dumb (of course they can be) but many times just not so informed, and we need to be better at helping people understand why we accept certain theories and not others. To some extent, the failure of the American public to understand science is ours, although there are considerable religious and political forces that have not helped.

Randy's got a great movie called "Flock of Dodo's" about the evolution vs. creationist scrum. It's very good at illuminating how each of these communities work. It's a very convincing demonstration that every time we throw up our hands and say "Why don't these people get it"?, we're really indicting ourselves for being poor communicators. Most times, we don't even realize it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Did Humans Evolve?
Posted by: mizobe on Nov 5, 2009 11:52 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although I'm an atheist and a logical scientist there are a few questions concerning the evolution of humans that I have often wondered about.
While it is quite true that natural selection is the basis of evolution there may have been other factors involved when it comes to humans.
At the risk of coming off as loony I submit the idea that there may have been some ET meddling.
Perhaps we are the result of genetic manipulation by a nearby sentient species (Mars?) that destroyed themselves and chose to recreate themselves here many millions of years ago. Or perhaps overpopulation finally drove the invention of Interstellar travel?
Now remember here that we humans now have the technology to not only create new lifeforms but to cause the extinction of the entire planet. We are on the verge of inevitable overpopulation.

Here are my questions:

1. Why would we evolve to be at such extreme odds with Earth's ecology?
2. Why do we lack protective fur?
3. Why do we burn in the sun?
4. Why do we walk upright on a planet where the gravity is so high? Other bi-pedal animals have tails for balance or have bodies that are horizontally oriented; Ostriches etc.
5. Why does our own sweat get in our eyes and interfere with vision.
6. Why do our butt-cheeks hide our anuses (we're the only ones) which require wiping to stay clean?
7. And finally, why would an animal with such a large brain and intellectual capacity invent religion? And why do humans point to the sky when talking about god(s)?

Oh, I could go on and on with this stuff but there could be more than just Survival of the Fittest and Natural Selection at play here.

Perhaps even Jesus was an embryonic gene-enhanced implant and Easter just a cloning event? So, there seems to be room for much speculation at least when it comes to human evolution. And perhaps UFOs are simply mechanisms that are still manipulating....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» answers Posted by: Drclaw
» RE: answers Posted by: mizobe
» estrous swellings Posted by: Drclaw
» RE: Did Humans Evolve? Posted by: THCarlisle
» RE: Did Humans Evolve? Posted by: mizobe
» RE: Did Humans Evolve? Posted by: Bibsisis
» RE: Did Humans Evolve? Posted by: mizobe
You know what gets me?
Posted by: l_m_n on Nov 5, 2009 2:41 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The same people on Alternet that ridicule creationists for being no-nothings who ignore evidence that's right in front of them... are the same people that scream and cry about the evil of vaccines and their non-existant link to autism.

So be humble about the creationist's lack of knowledge. It seems that everyone's got an area of irrationality and fear.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You know what gets me? Posted by: frantaylor
» Idiots are idiots Posted by: SalB
» RE: You know what gets me? Posted by: Bibsisis
Another pair of cooks in actor's garb
Posted by: reelectnoone on Nov 5, 2009 3:05 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would first like to see these fools scientific credentials to refute what science has shown us already.

They have nothing to offer to counter a great mind but failed acting careers. I guess they plan on "acting" like they know something.

Seems what Cameron and Stein are really proving is how much closer to apes they are than the rest of us. I am sure that scares them and the apes for both their reputations would be damaged.

//

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is about Ray Comfort
Posted by: SalB on Nov 5, 2009 8:47 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You know, Bananman? These are the idiots that tried to pass a banana off as "proof of creation".

So if you're around the UC Berkeley area, come out to campus and help the campus atheist group in their response to this crap.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

intollarance is not confined to religion
Posted by: Bertvan on Nov 7, 2009 7:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ben Stein’s movie EXPELLED may have gone overboard in equating evolution with eugenics, but it was mainly a documentation of academics who were persecuted and lost their jobs for questioning “random mutation and natural selection” as an explanation of life’s diversity. Is evolution driven by natural selection (premature death) somehow organizing a series of genetic accidents into living organs. Or do living organisms have an ability to change purposefully in response to environmental stimuli? Should anyone who asks such questions be expelled from academia? Evangelical atheists become hysterical at the mere suggestion that purposeful organization might be an aspect of nature for fear that such a concept might give credence to religion. They have thus become more dogmatic and intolerant than the religions they claim to despise.
bertvan
http://30145.myauthorsite.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Intolerance and ignorance are confined to humans
Posted by: Changling on Nov 7, 2009 2:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Actually it wasn't about that at all. It is hard to be in the club if you don't accept the tenants of the science. Evolution isn't random as you seem to think. It is very active and is always putting forth variations in order to be ready for changes that will inevitably occur with no intelligence added or needed to the equation.

Natural selection isn't "premature death" it is lack of survival and propagation of the species. There is very little randomness in it as the environment is very good at making sure the traits best for survival work. But the aspects of behavior too are important to perpetuation of the species.

The only ones who become "hysterical" are they likes of you who propose such mythical reasons for existence. No evidence for evolution from you because there is none.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

accidental or on purpose
Posted by: Bertvan on Nov 8, 2009 8:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are only two options: accidental or on purpose.

Does this “evolution” that you envision as “very active and is always putting forth variations in order to be ready for changes that will inevitably occur” dream up all these variations accidentally, for no particular reason? And what is this entity “evolution” that dreams up these complex variations?

I claim we don’t know how complex adaptations, often requiring the participation of hundreds of parts of the genome, “just happen” to all simultaneously show up when needed. To me the process has the appearance of intelligent, purposeful response. I don’t have to insist that it is all a improbable series of accidents - just to make sure some religion won’t claim participation by their god. As an agnostic I am no more interested in proving the claims of Atheism than I am of disproving the claims of some religion.
Bertvan
http://30145.myauthorsite.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Disagreements are empty without examples n/m
Posted by: Changling on Nov 8, 2009 10:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
n/m

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Air Yeezy shoes
Posted by: NET1 on Nov 8, 2009 12:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
..
Posted by: maisnon55 on Nov 10, 2009 1:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Many can be found
Posted by: nikefilson on Nov 15, 2009 3:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many can be found in schools and colleges and universities, perhaps not exhibiting the show business savvy of comic celebrities or celebrity scientists, but working quietly and deliberately to educate the younger citizens of this profoundly immature, materially robust and often generous, good-hearted society. It will take some time (the luxury of which, it should be plain, we may not have ... and so there is some urgency about the matter).

Still, as America slowly and painfully grows up, it finest citizens must recognize, encourage and join the small heroes of the land.

America is like an awkward child - possessed of enormous strength, but also self-indulgent, emotionally unstable and given to adolescent vandalism, cheerfully wrecking казаки турнир по казакам туризм география film wallpapers movie wallpapers seropol5 the environment and roaming about the globe unthinkingly smashing other people's cultures ... starting with those of aboriginal Americans.

What's worse, even thoughtful Americans with a preternatural awareness that something is wrong, are inclined to put their overabundant faith in "star power," thus relieving themselves of their civic (if not quite their civilizational) duty to build civility, respect for knowledge and tolerance of dissent.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

no
Posted by: dewre on Nov 19, 2009 5:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Convert MTS with Aiseesoft's ware.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

fgd
Posted by: dewre on Nov 19, 2009 5:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Convert MTS with Aiseesoft's ware.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

fgd
Posted by: dewre on Nov 19, 2009 5:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Convert MTS with Aiseesoft's ware.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement