Back to the Thought
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Ben Stein is Expelled: The Movie
Applause from a poor Finnish dropout evo-critical biochemist (Master of sciing)
Ben(jamin) Stein is under heavy artillery for 'exaggerating' or 'going easy' on the influence of evolutionism behind Nazism and Stalinism (super evolution of Lysenkoism in the Soviet Russia). But the monstrous Haeckelian type of vulgar evolutionism drove not only the 'Politics-is-applied-biology' Nazi takeover in the continental Europe, but even the nationalistic collision at the World War I. It was Charles Darwin himself, who praised and raised the monstrous German Ernst Haeckel with his still recycled embryo drawing frauds etc. in the spotlight as the greatest authority in the field of human evolution, even in the preface to his Descent of man in 1871. If Thomas Henry Huxley with his concept of 'agnostism' was Darwins bulldog in England, Haeckel was his Rotweiler in Germany.
The whole title was: On the
Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured
Races in the Struggle for Life (1859). (Mein) KAMPF was a direct translation
from that 'Struggle'. Seinen Kampf. His application. There was, supposedly,
not enough Lebenstraume. That's why in the industrial revolution in England 12
year old proletariat girls had to work over 100 hours a week. Malthus set the
paradigm that is today very relevant even to Islamist terrorists. They believe
that unconscious myth that there is not just enough space for us all.
Catch 22: Haeckel's 140 years old fake embryo drawings have been mindlessly recycled for the 'public understanding of science' (PUS) in most biology text books until this millennium, although Haeckel's crackpot raging Recapitulation/Biogenetic Law and functioning gill slits of human embryos have been at the ethical tangent race hygiene/eugenics/genocide, infanticide, and Freudian psychoanalysis (subconscious atavisms). Dawkins is the Oxford professor for PUS - and should gather the courage of Stephen Jay Gould who could feel ashamed about it.
Here's some edited quotes from my conference posters and articles defended and published in the field of bioethics and history of biology (and underline/edit them a 'bit'):
The marriage laws were once erected not only in the Nazi Germany but also in the multicultural states of America upon the speculation that the mulatto was a relatively sterile and shortlived hybrid. The absence of blood transfusion between "white" and "colored races" was self evident (Hailer 1963, p. 52).
The first law on sterilization in US had been established in 1907 in Indiana, and 23 similar laws had been passed in 15 States and sterilization was practiced in 124 institutions in 1921 (Mattila 1996; Hietala 1985 p. 133; these were the times of IQ-tests under Gould's scrutiny in his Mismeasure of Man 1981). By 1931 thirty states had passed sterization laws in the US (Reilly 1991, p. 87). Typically, the operations hit blacks the most in the US, poor women in the Europe, and often the victims were never even told they had been sterilized.
Mendelism outweighed recapitulation (embryos climbing up their evolutionary tree through fish-, amphibian- and reptilian stages), but that merely smoothened the way for the brutal 1930’s biolegislation - that quickly penetrated practically all Western countries. The laws were copied from country to country. The A-B-O blood groups, haemophilia, eye colours etc. were found to be inherited in a Mendelian fashion by 1910. So also the complex traits and social (mis)behaviour such as alcoholism, schizophrenia, manic depression, criminality, rebelliousness, artistic sense, pauperism, racial differences, inherited scholarship (and its converse, feeble-mindedness) were all thought to be determined by one or two genes. Mendelism was "experimental" and quantitative, and its exaggeration outweighed the more cautious biometry operating on smaller variations, not discontinuous leaps. Its advocates boldly claimed that these problems could be done away within a few generations through selection, persisted (although most biologists must have known that defective genes could not be eliminated, even with the most intense forced sterilizations and marriage restrictions due to recessive genes and synergism. Nevertheless, these laws were held until 1970's and were typically changed only when the abortion legislation were released (1973).
Evolutionism was politically and
religiously driven. (By religion, I mean the old worship of nature akin
naturalism.) Evolutionism was a revolution, and revolutions are violent. It is
anachronism to mehasize the idea of selection since evolutionism was sold by
much harder claims, especially constant spontaneous generation of life from mud
(moneras), inheritance of acquired characteristics, mutationism in leaps (hopeful
monsters), linear model of human races - and especially recapitulation.
So the American laws were pioneering endeavours. In Europe Denmark passed the first sterilization legislation in Europe (1929). Denmark was followed by Switzerland, Germany that had felt to the hands of Hitler and Gobineu, and other Nordic countries: Norway (1934), Sweden (1935), Finland (1935), and Iceland (1938 ) (Haller 1963, pp 21-57; 135-9; Proctor 1988, p. 97; Reilly 1991, p. 109). Seldom is it mentioned in the popular media, that the first outright race biological institution in the world was not established in Germany but in 1921 in Uppsala, Sweden (Hietala 1985, pp. 109). (I am not aware of the ethymology of the 'Up' of the ancient city from Plinius' Ultima Thule, however.) In 1907 the Society for Racial Hygiene in Germany had changed its name to the Internationale Gesellschaft für Rassenhygiene, and in 1910 Swedish Society for Eugenics (Sällskap för Rashygien) had become its first foreign affiliate (Proctor 1988, p. 17). Today, Swedish state church is definitely the most liberal in the face of the world.
Hitler's formulation of the differences between the human races was affected by the brilliant sky-blue eyed Ernst Haeckel (Gasman 1971, p. xxii), praised and raised by Darwin. At the top of the unilinear progression were usually the "Nordics", a tall race of blue-eyed blonds. Haeckel's position on the 'Judenfrage' was assimilation and Expelled-command from their university chairs, not yet an open elimination. But was it different only in degree, rather than kind?
In 1917 the immigration of "defective" groups was forbidden even in the United States by a law. In 1921 the European immigration was diminished to 3% based on the 1910 census.
Eventually, in the strategical year of 1924 the finest hour of eugenics had come and the fatal law was passed by Congress. It diminished immigration to 2% of the foreign-born from each country based on the 1890 census in order to preserve the "nordic" balance in population, and was hold through World War II until 1965 (Hietala 1985, p. 132).
Richard Lewontin writes:“The leading American idealogue of the innate mental inferiority of the working class was, however, H.H. Goddard, a pioneer of the mental testing movement, the discoverer of the Kallikak family, and the administrant of IQ-tests to immigrants that found 83 % of the Jews, 80% of the Hungarians, 79% of the Italians, and 87% of the the Russians to be feebleminded.” (1977, p. 13.) Regarding us Finns, Finnish emmigrants put the cross on the box reserved for the "yellow" group (Kemiläinen 1993, p. 1930), until 1965.
Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his ‘Case for Sterilization,’ which called for the forcible sterilization of some ten millions Americans. Hitler later sent him a note thanking him for his work. Madison Grant’s ‘Passing of the Great Race also made a huge impression on Hitler, who called the book his ‘bible.’ In 1934, when the National Socialist Government had sterilized over fifty thousand ‘unfit’ Germans, a frustrated American eugenicist exclaimed, ‘The Germans are beating us at our own game.”
Selected parts of the final chapter scanned
from an evolutionist scholar D. Gasman from his The Scientific Origins of
National Socialism: Social Darwinism in Ernst Haeckel and the German Monist
League (Gasman 1971) are scanned here:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Gasman.htm I emphasize that Daniel Gasman,
unfortunately, is NOT an IDist or Idealist of any kind. Regarding Steins,
Gasmans, Lewontins or SJ Goulds Judaism, it is not a nationality nor a religion.
It is thrilling that it is the People of the Book who once more are the initiative spectators who have the balls to question the ambient amen and go against the loudy majority. Not the first time. Here's some statistics and charts regarding the success of the Jews in science and technological innovations when the others were too stubborn to change their minds:
Bruce Alberts first accepted from
his post as the president of the National Academy of Sciences USA that the
biological machinery can be called as such, machinery, without asserting to
metaphora. He gave the students that license in 1998. Other animations on the
tiny cellular machineries apart from the Expelled movie can be seen in here:
I wish an analogous documentary
film was made concerning the DINOGLYFS or dinolits:
It seems that the ancient man not only saw but also documented the last megafauna (gigafauna, I should say).
Biochemist, drop-out (Master of Sciing)
Insert from http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/Republicans-Democrats-Differ-Creationism.aspx
PRINCETON, NJ -- There is a significant political divide in beliefs about the origin of human beings, with 60% of Republicans saying humans were created in their present form by God 10,000 years ago, a belief shared by only 40% of independents and 38% of Democrats.
Gallup has been asking this three-part question about the origin of humans since 1982. Perhaps surprisingly to some, the results for the broad sample of adult Americans show very little change over the years.
Between 43% and 47% of Americans have agreed during this 26-year time period with the creationist view that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so. Between 35% and 40% have agreed with the alternative explanation that humans evolved, but with God guiding the process, while 9% to 14% have chosen a pure secularist evolution perspective that humans evolved with no guidance by God.
The significantly higher percentage of Republicans who select the creationist view reflects in part the strong relationship between religion and views on the origin of humans. Republicans are significantly more likely to attend church weekly than are others, and Americans who attend church weekly are highly likely to select the creationist alternative for the origin of humans.
Although it is not a front-burner issue (particularly in light of the economy and the price of gasoline) the issue of teaching evolution in schools came up on the campaign trail last year, and could resurface in one way or the other between now and the November election.
Presumptive Republican nominee John McCain is facing the challenge of gaining the confidence and enthusiasm of conservative Republicans. Turnout among this group could be an important factor in determining the final vote outcome in a number of key swing states. As seen here, Republicans are in general sympathetic to the creationist explanation of the origin of humans, and if the issue of what is taught in schools relating to evolution and creationism surfaces as a campaign issue, McCain's response could turn out to be quite important.
Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,017 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted May 8-11, 2008. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.
Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
To provide feedback or suggestions about how to improve Gallup.com, please e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org. "
Finns as a degenerate
Already in his Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte, admired by Darwin in the introduction to
his Descent of Man, Ernst Haeckel had classified Finns as Mongolians or peoples who resembled them.
Finland was a country located at the bloody northern borders of the east and west. Were the
Finno-Ugrian people capable of establishing a state? Consult the figure below for the place of Finns as the
degenerate "Mongolian" race in the Europe, in the linear Haeckelian evolution.
In his popular Wonders of Life, Haeckel categorized Finns as "middle civilized race" which
had 7 races below them and four races above them. Of the twelve races, these latter four were
"higher civilized races", "lower cultured races", "middle cultured races" and "higher cultured
races". Above us Finns were the fifteenth century Italians, French, English, and Germans.
Haeckel's evolutionary tree of the indoeuropean languages, naturally, did not include the Finns at all
(figure 10). The idea of Aryans popped up from the Indo/-European language gradient and idea of heroic conquedors, originally.
And Haeckel declared: "The views on the subject of European nations which have large colonies in the
tropics, and have been in touch with the natives for centuries, are very realistic, and quite different from the ideas that
prevail in Germany. Our idealistic notions, strictly regulated by our academic wisdom and forced by our
metaphysicians into the system of their abstract ideal-man, do not at all tally with the facts. Hence we can explain
many of the errors of the idealistic philosophy and many of the practical mistakes that have been made in the recently
acquired German colonies; these would have been avoided if we had had a better knowledge of the low psychic life of
the natives (cf. the writings of Gobineau and Lubbock)." (The wonders of life, 1905, p. 390-1).
Let us quote this Goubineau, recommended by the scientifically more correct Haeckel, on
Finns, then: "creatures so incontrovertibly ugly and repulsive as the ordinary specimens of the Mongolian race…
These are all people of low stature, with wide faces and prominent cheek-bones, yellowish or dirty brown in colous---
The Finns have always been weak, unintelligent, and oppressed---in the south through miscegenation with the
Negroes and in the north with the Finns." (Gobineau, Inequality of Races (1853-55, 1967).
Gobineau divided mankind in three races: the White, the Black, and the Yellow. In essence,
this meant the Good, the Bad - and the Ugly. The Yellow were extremely ugly, and the group
included not only Finns, but also Mongols and Tartars. Kemiläinen explains the history of the low
self esteem of the Finnish people: "Finns were a primitive aboriginal people in Europe and in Asia. They were
short of stature and deformed. Their limbs were feeble and they had protruding cheekbones and slanting eyes. They
were more yellow than the Chinese, who had the blood of the White race. How else could the Chinese have created a
high culture? Even the Hungarians were 'white Huns'; they had White ancestors… In an Aryan society at the top were
Aryans, in the second class were the Celtic and Slavic peoples and men and women of mixed blood. The deformed
Finns were lowest." (Kemiläinen 1998 p. 85).
Rudyard Kipling, the first British Nobel laureate in literature, versified:
Take up the White Man's burden
The savage wars of peace
Fill full the mouth of Famine,
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest (The end for others sought).
Watch sloth and heathen folly;
Bring all your hope to nought.
(McLure's Magazine 12 (Feb. 1899).
Germany was the most scientifically and culturally advanced nation of the world upon opening the riddles at the close of the nineteenth century. And she went Full Monty.
Today, developmental biologists are anticipating legislation of laws that would define the do’s and dont’s. In England, they are fertilizing human embryos for research purposes and pipetting chimera embryos of humans and monkeys, 'legally'. The legislation should not distract individual researchers from their personal awareness of responsibility. A permissive law merely defines the ethical minimum. The lesson is that a law is no substitute for morals and that dissidents should not be intimidated.
I am suspicious over the burial of the Kampf (Struggle). The idea of competition is innate in the modern society. It is the the opposite view in a 180 degree angle to the Judaeo-Christian ideal of agapee (contra epithumia, eros, filia & storge) (ahava in Hebrew), that I personally cheriss. The latter sees free giving, altruism, benevolence and self sacrificing love as the beginning, motivation, and sustainer of the reality.
Biochemist, drop-out (Master of Sciing)
Haeckelian legacy of popularization in Ojala PJ (2004) "Challenges for Bioethics from Asia". Fifth Asian Bioethics Conference, ABC (5):391-412.
Haeckelian type of vulgar evolutionism at the European continent drove not only the 'Politics-is-applied-biology' Nazi takeover, but also the nationalistic collision at the World War I. It was Charles Darwin himself, who praised and raised the monstrous Ernst Haeckel in the spotlight as the greatest authority in the field of human evolution, even in the preface to his Descent of man in 1871.
A0 poster from a conference on bioethics and history of
[Introduction in Finnish]: Ben(jamin) Steinin filmi Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed on noussut Blogosfäärin kuumimmaksi aiheeksi. Expelled dokumentoi, miten darvinistit vaarantavat akateemisen vapauden. Freedom of Inquiry >> Freedom of Speech terveessä yhteiskunnassa ja tiedeyhteisössä. Leffa kuvaa, miten "tiedejuntta" sortavat ja uhkailevat tiedemiehiä ja luonnontieteen opettajia, jotka uskaltavat edes ehdottaa, että kaikki olevainen ei ole syntynyt ja kehittynyt itsestään. Dokumentti on rikkomassa kaikkien aikojen maailmanennätyksen dokkarileffojen ensi-iltojen määrässä maailmalla 18.4.2008, mutta turha luullakaan, että elokuvaa esitettäisiin silti Suomessa. Missään. Yhdessäkään elokuvateatterissa.
BlogPulse-analyysi paljastaa, että syy koko Internetin kärkiaiheeksi nousemiseen oli itse asiassa aggressiivisten evolutionistien mollauskampanja. Yksi ylpeä kirjantekijä yritti huijaamalla sisään kutsuvieraiden etukäteisnäytökseen ja torjuttiin - minkä johdosta hän julistaa maailmankuvalleen sinänsä vieraalla "vanhurskaalla vihalla" että älykkään suunnittelun kannattajia tulee vastustaa tuolla vanhurskaalla raivolla, potkia heitä takamuksiin, ja monille opettajille ja koululautakunnan jäsenille tulee järjestää julkiset potkut. Paha kello kauas kantaa, Kaifaan-julistus johti huikeaan markkinointiin:
Expelled from 'Expelled'
"There's a little statistic called,
"Per Screen Average." In general, $1000 per screen is considered impressive.
Expelled did $2,997 for the weekend. These guys did a very good job of placing
their movie in the
right theaters. It's in only one theater in the Hollywood/Beverly Hills/Santa Monica region -- a huge population, but not likely to be supportive. In Kansas City it opened in 12 theaters.
I'm so tired of reading the rants of academics on these blogs who know nothing about the film world but feel certain "Expelled" flopped because the critics didn't like it. And they also got excited about
what they thought were copyright violations that would sink the movie. But in the end, it was again just their lack of knowledge of the film world.
It's sad to watch evolutionists swinging in the dark. As comments above say, let's go ahead and be honest here -- concede that these guys scored a major victory -- then figure out how to realistically
deal with this communications failure rather than try to deny it happened.
Posted by: Randy Olson | April 20, 2008 2:09 PM "
reviews of the movie Expelled contains some 750 reviews. One wrote:
"As an observer, I have never seen so many extremes in reviews. Virtually either an "A" or an "F". No middle ground."
Posted April 10, 2008
1:00 am Eastern
"On April 18, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," will boast the largest U.S. opening of any documentary film ever.
Scheduled for release in 1,000 theatres (1,055), "Expelled" will be hotter than "Farenheit 9/11," which debuted on 868 screens, and much more convenient to see than "An Inconvenient Truth," which I was surprised to find opened on only four screens nationwide despite all the hype, peaking at 587 before its appeal melted.
What's "Expelled" about? Synopsizes CNS News:
"Expelled" calls attention to the plight of highly credentialed scholars who have been forced out of prestigious academic positions because they proposed Intelligent Design as a possible alternative to Charles Darwin's 150-year-old theories about the origins of life. Instead of entertaining a debate on the merits of competing theories, the scientific establishment has moved to suppress the ID movement in a "systematic and ruthless" way at odds with America's founding principles, the film asserts.
Liberals have been going ape about "Expelled" for months as it has been screened around the country.
On March 20, two Darwinian defenders, who accepted payment to talk like buffoons on the film, tried to bust into a private screening in Minnesota.
"PZ" Myers, a University of Minnesota biology professor and proprietor of the popular atheist blog Pharyngula, was quickly expelled, much as he condones expelling professors who deviate from the monkey line, as he wrote on The Panda's Thumb blog:
The only appropriate responses [to Intelligent Design proponents] should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing and humiliation of some teachers, many school board members, and vast numbers of sleazy far-right politicians." ~ Comment #35130, PZ Myers, June 14, 2005
Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist at Oxford who wrote the book "The God Delusion," gained entry only by foregoing his evolved surname for the formal, Clinton.
Myers then disrupted an "Expelled" conference call with reporters the next day.
These uncivilized spectacles caused a liberal mass meltdown. According to an "Expelled" press release, the "Expelled" controversy held the No. 1 slot in the blogosphere all day March 24, as registered by Nielson's BlogPulse, and garnered over 800 Technorati results.
If we are seeing this meltdown on the left even before "Expelled" officially opens, expect a Big Bang on April 18.
"This is not a scientific battle; this is a worldview battle," "Expelled" producer Mark Mathis told me. Mathis has encountered unbridled hostility from the scientific establishment, i.e., avowed Darwinists, at previews.
"Expelled" connects atheism and Darwinism with no missing link, one of the film's two major flashpoints.
Darwinism is a specific evolutionary theory that excludes everything but material processes in the design of all life forms. No Intelligent Design allowed.
"What's driving it is Darwinism is a foundational principle – scientific validation of secularism, atheism, liberalism – and that it strikes at the core of who they are," said Mathis.
"Secondarily, these scientists are the high priests of the biggest question ever asked. They have all the authority, knowledge, power, funding," continued Mathis. "This is ground they own exclusively. They look down their elitist noses at the unwashed ignorant religious masses and scoff. That's why they respond with such extreme hostility. They are very concerned that if this monolith cracks, then the whole thing could crash."..
Not only is Darwinism foundational to atheism, it is foundational to eugenics, the other reason for the left's apoplexy against "Expelled," according to Mathis. They cannot tolerate the connection "Expelled" draws between Darwinism and Adolf Hitler...
That Hitler and Nazism drew from Darwinism is irrefutable. "Hitler said genocide of Jews was doing good, cleansing the world of 'useless eaters' and strengthening formation of an 'Aryan' race of super-humans," said Mathis.
One complaint Darwinist scientists interviewed for "Expelled" have not lodged is that the filmmakers applied Michael Moore cut-and-paste editing to make them look bad. The film includes many of their long, uninterrupted thoughts."
\Expelled did well at the box office, despite being almost universally panned by mainstream media critics (a rather hostile review by the New York Times actually described the film as a sleazy "conspiracy theory rant"). Expelled took in $3.2 million in its opening weekend. It managed to break into the top 10 at the box office, despite only showing on about 1,000 screens nationwide (wide release films typically show on 2,000+ screens). While $3.2 million certainly isn't spectacular for a mainstream movie, it is quite good for a documentary. In fact, Expelled had the third best opening in history for a documentary, and could end up as one of the top 10 highest-grossing documentaries of all time.'
The Dang Thing: John
Derbyshire and the movie he hasn't seen.
By David Berlinski | May 05, 2008, 4:00 a.m. | National Review
In an essay published recently on National Review Online, John Derbyshire has declared that the documentary Expelled contains a blood libel against Western Civilization. His is an exercise of striking vulgarity, the more so since, as he insouciantly admits, he has not seen the dang thing.A blood libel, one might recall, refers to the charge that the Jewish people are irredeemably stained by their occasional, if modest, need for Christian blood. Some terms have acquired through their historical associations a degree of repugnance that persuades sensitive men and women not to use them. If Derbyshire has been repelled by the smell of blood, it is a revulsion that he has successfully overcome.
Having not seen the documentary that he proposes to criticize, Derbyshire is nonetheless quite certain that he knows what it conveys. It is pretty plain,he asserts, that it is a piece of creationist porn.Perhaps I will be forgiven for suggesting that John Derbyshires late-night scrutiny of the Internet may have corrupted his habitual search for le mot juste. Expelled has nothing to do with creationism, and if it is pornographic, the details have not become widely known.
Expelled makes a point far plainer than pornography and points to a phenomenon just as widespread. The scientific community is intolerant of dissent and morbidly so when it comes to Darwins theory of evolution. Those who reject criticism because it is unwelcome have in John Derbyshire acquired an ally of the best sort. He is not disposed to ask questions of his friends; and he is eager uncritically to attack their enemies.
It is a match made in heaven.
After first considering the possibility that Ben Stein was financed by secret Saudi funds Je mimagine cela Derbyshire at once reprises two errors. The first is that the animations in Expelled were copied.
They were not.
And the second is that the brief segment of a John Lennon song used in the film required Yoko Onos permission before it could be aired.
It did not.
The facts are easily available from the Expelled website. John Derbyshire has failed to appreciate the neat retributive irony by which frivolous lawsuits have been used to suppress a film calling attention to the suppression of dissent.
Derbyshires generous conviction that Expelled is an exercise in dishonesty owes much to the charge that those participating in the film were duped. It is an accusation made by both P. Z. Myers and Richard Dawkins. I appear in the film, and I read and signed the same release that Myers and Dawkins did. I knew precisely what the film proposed to do. So did they. Myers and Dawkins now regret their appearance. This is because they seriously overestimated their own ability to think nimbly before a camera. They are as result appalled either by how they look or by what they said. A veritable Internet scourge, Myers sits before the camera in solemn stupefaction. He has nothing to say and says nothing. Dawkins goes much further. Without ever once realizing that he is about to topple into the badlands of absurdity, he allows Ben Stein to force him into the acknowledgment that life as it appears on earth may well have been designed by space aliens.
That Dawkins was duped is undeniable; but as in so many of the better crime stories, the victim of a crime turns out to have been its perpetrator.
This is something that John Derbyshire might have realized without my help.
Having found in Expelled an occasion to exercise his organs of indignation, Derbyshire proceeds in his essay to squeeze them until they squeal. The Discovery Institute is a special target. He regards its very existence as an affliction. His indignation has prompted him to impertinence. Knowing nothing of my life, he has nonetheless concluded that I am one of a number of eccentric non-Christian cranks keen for a well-funded vehicle to help them push their own flat-earth theories.
Non-Christian? There is no need for euphemism. I am a secular Jew, reason enough apparently for Derbyshire carelessly to suggest that I am in it for the money.
Ah, that old familiar smell blood, I mean.
As for my eagerness to affirm that the world is flat, I believe it round, and have said so many times. Beyond this settled conviction, I have no theories to offer not even theories of intelligent design, which I have rejected in the pages of Commentary.
It goes without saying that in all this John Derbyshire is persuaded that the Other Side holds a monopoly in dishonesty and sheer nastiness, even down to plain bad manners.
Does it indeed?
All this would be trivial, if tawdry, were it not for the single serious charge that Derbyshire makes: That Intelligent Design is a disguised form of creationism.
In the United States, at least, creationism is a doctrine of Biblical inerrancy. Intelligent Design is otherwise. It is the thesis that living creatures appear designed because they are designed. It is said to be Darwins great merit that he successfully dissolved the appearance of design in life. Those who believe that the design of living systems is real believe correspondingly that Darwins theory is false, or, at best, incomplete.
Whether true or false, the issue is one of fact, and the inferences to which design theorists appeal are in common currency in subjects as diverse as political science, forensics and archeology. Seeing tallies scratched on a pre-historic ax handle, John Derbyshire of all people! might well conclude that they represent signs designating the natural numbers. The arrow of thought passes from the properties of an object to its classification as an artifact.
The question that Derbyshire has asked of an ax handle, design theorists ask of Derbyshire. Does he bear the marks of design?
Is it impermissible to ask this question? If so, why?
If not, whence the blood libel?
Like so many men who have reached late middle age, John Derbyshire suffers the impression that the the barbarians are at the gate.Women no longer topple blood-ripe into his lap. A gaggle of fools and fraudstersis everywhere disturbing his tranquility. Things that he treasures are under ceaseless attack.
And where awe is merited, none is forthcoming. And now here is Ben Stein,Derbyshire objects, sneering and scoffing at Darwin.
Stein is, in fact, doing no such thing, and I have seen the documentary in which he appears. He is asking that certain possibilities in thought not be struck from the table prematurely. In so doing, he is offering Darwin the homage that a serious thinker deserves. It is the only homage to which he is entitled.
As for the rest of John Derbyshires agitated geschrei, what can one say? A talented writer is entitled to make a fool of himself at least once.
Why not Derbyshire?
David Berlinski, author of The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions, is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.
Other animations on the tiny cellular machineries apart from
the Expelled movie can be seen in here:
I think an analogous documentary film should
also be made concerning the DINOGLYFS or dinolits:
It seems that the ancient man not only saw but also documented the last megafauna (gigafauna, I should say).
Summa summarum: Benjamin Stein got the world record in terms of the amount of theaters reserving a documentary film in the first-night. One thousand theaters in US only. Wow! Here's some statistics and charts regarding the success of the Jews in science and technological innovations: http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Indicator.html
EXPELLED at Scientific American
"Michael Shermer's piece for Scientific American sets the tone in establishing at the outset that the film is "a Science-free Attack on Darwin" and that it advances "the pseudoscience of intelligent design". The lack of clarity about the real issues in this debate is apparent from the comment: "Intelligent design creationists, by contrast, have no interest in doing science at all." This is so blatantly untrue that most readers will realise that that something deeper is going on here... Nazi attempts to weed out the weak and unfit, or greedy exploiters of others within the capitalist economic system. He says: "Scientific theorists cannot be held responsible for how their ideas are employed in the service of non-scientific agendas."
Mocked and belittled, World
Magazine, April 2008 (restricted access): ""It turns out some of the most hardened, doctrinaire anti-design zealots in the scientific establishment - people like Richard Dawkins, author of "The God Delusion" and, coincidentally, the de facto leader of the worldwide atheist movement - aren't really opposed to the notion of design at all. They just can't accept God as the designer.
You will hear some of the world's most celebrated evolutionists admit design is possible - just not by the hand of God.
They will attribute the possibility of design to visitors from other planets and even to crystals. The two things they cannot tolerate are consideration of God's role and any of their colleagues deviating from their own ideas about origins.""
Farah, J. I can't wait to be 'Expelled', World Net Daily, March 04, 2008: ""I would want it to open freedom of speech at schools and universities so that people could express their concerns and reservations about Darwinism and any subject in science related to macroevolution so that one small group wouldn't have a lock on what's discussed on campuses. And there's already some progress on that front. In Florida there's a law making its way through the House of Representatives that helps ensure academic freedom by mandating that you cannot be punished for questioning Darwinism. And there's a similar law that's about to be introduced in Missouri to the same effect. And I think it's unfortunate that we even need such laws, but apparently we do. Besides that, I want people to walk away remembering that there is a great deal that Darwinism cannot explain and that there is a great deal that can be explained by intelligent design. If you have a book in front of you that has hundreds of millions of words written in it, it was probably written by an author rather than by rain dripping on a page.""
Rice University Professor
James Tour is a world class chemist/nano-technologist. He is also a Jewish
Christian. He was a close colleague of Rick Smalley, the Nobel laureate who
was much taken with ID before his death in 2005 (
Evolution/Creation: Layman's Reflections on Evolution and Creation. An Insiders View of the Academy
By James Tour
Assuming that I have something significant to contribute to the evolution vs. creation debate, many ask me to speak and write concerning my thoughts on the topic. However, I do not have anything substantive to say about it. I am a layman on the subject. Although I have read about a half dozen books on the debate, maybe a dozen, and though I can speak authoritatively on complex chemical synthesis, I am not qualified to enter the public discussion on evolution vs. creation. So please dont ask me to be the speaker or debater at your event, and think carefully about asking me for an interview because I will probably not give you the profound quotations that you seek. You are of course free to quote me from what is written here, but do me the kindness of placing my statements in a fair context.
I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments on the matter and I find some of them intriguing, but the scientific proof is not there, in my opinion. So I prefer to be free of that ID label. Blaise Pascal (1623-1662, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
Not that it matters much, but since many want to know, I will ask the question for them: Where does Jim Tour stand on the evolution vs. creation debate? I do have scientific problems understanding macroevolution as it is usually presented. I simply can not accept it as unreservedly as many of my scientist colleagues do, although I sincerely respect them as scientists. Some of them seem to have little trouble embracing many of evolutions proposals based upon (or in spite of) archeological, mathematical, biochemical and astrophysical suggestions and evidence, and yet few are experts in all of those areas, or even just two of them. Although most scientists leave few stones unturned in their quest to discern mechanisms before wholeheartedly accepting them, when it comes to the often gross extrapolations between observations and conclusions on macroevolution, scientists, it seems to me, permit unhealthy leeway. When hearing such extrapolations in the academy, when will we cry out, The emperor has no clothes!?
From what I can see, microevolution is a fact; we see it all around us regarding small changes within a species, and biologists demonstrate this procedure in their labs on a daily basis. Hence, there is no argument regarding microevolution. The core of the debate for me, therefore, is the extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution. Here is what some supporters of Darwinism have written regarding this point in respected journals, and it is apparent that they struggle with the same difficulty.
Stern, David L. Perspective: Evolutionary Developmental Biology and the Problem of Variation,Evolution 2000, 54, 1079-1091. A contribution from the University of Cambridge. One of the oldest problems in evolutionary biology remains largely unsolved&Historically, the neo-Darwinian synthesizers stressed the predominance of micromutations in evolution, whereas others noted the similarities between some dramatic mutations and evolutionary transitions to argue for macromutationism.
Simons, Andrew M. The Continuity of Microevolution and Macroevolution,Journal of Evolutionary Biology 2002, 15, 688-701. A contribution from Carleton University.A persistent debate in evolutionary biology is one over the continuity of microevolution and macroevolution whether macroevolutionary trends are governed by the principles of microevolution.
So the debate
between the validity of extending microevolutionary trends to
macroevolutionary projections is indeed persistentin evolutionary biology.
Some are disconcerted or even angered that I signed a statement back in 2001 along with over 700 other scientists: We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.Do not the texts written by the two authors above underscore what I signed, namely, Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged? And these oldest problems in evolutionary biologylead me and many others to our being skeptical.It is not a matter of politics. I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened. Hence, am I not free to join the ranks of the skeptical and to sign such a statement without reprisals from those that disagree with me? Furthermore, when I, a non-conformist, ask proponents for clarification, they get flustered in public and confessional in private wherein they sheepishly confess that they really dont understand either. Well, that is all I am saying: I do not understand. But I am saying it publicly as opposed to privately. Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me. Lunch will be my treat. Until then, I will maintain that no chemist understands, hence we are collectively bewildered. And I have not even addressed origin of first life issues. For me, that is even more scientifically mysterious than evolution. Darwin never addressed origin of life, and I can see why he did nothe was far too smart for that. Present day scientists that expose their thoughts on this become ever so timid when they talk with me privately. I simply can not understand the source of their confidence when addressing their positions publicly.
Furthermore, most of my scientist colleagues do not discuss macroevolution very often because they are too busy with their own fields of interest to be sidetracked by such tangential matters. Though the acceptance of macroevolution is rather implicit within their core understandings, most science professors are simply too harried to take much notice of the details. Pondering and thoughtfulness has been pounded and distilled out of many of us; theres another meeting to attend, another proposal to write, another manuscript to proof, yet another lecture to deliver, 100 more emails to answer, and the anxieties about our futures must be allayed. The peace which passeth all understanding,is beyond reach, nay beyond understanding.
Likewise, I do not well-understand the stance of many of my creationist friends regarding their scientific evidence for creation or intelligent design, but they seem to be quite comfortable in most respects with the natural and historical suggestions for its claims. I am happy for them, but I hope that their position does not cause them to trump brotherly love or charity in thought or words. When they write on these topics, they are too quick to cite each other or to refer to 40-year-old studies, and slow to consider the newer findings in the mainstream scientific literature. The scientist is not the creationists enemy, and most scientists are quite sincere in producing research that is accurate to the best of todays measurement abilities. For example, the gross dismissing of radiometric dating experiments that use even multiple corroborating nuclei, not by a mere 20% or even 100%, but by 4-5 orders of magnitude, based on antiquated scientificarguments, is unscientific and unfair. Moreover, to simply suggest that God made it look older than it really isis also unreasonable. With what else is God deceiving us? The virgin birth, the crucifixion or the resurrection, perhaps? Never. God is not in the business of deception, but in causing man to seek so that he could find. And my creationist friends need some thoughtful explanations for their children because, in my experience, young college-aged people seek truth, and if you threaten them, try to brow-beat them, or show them a select set of cloistered scientificdata, theyll smell hypocrisy, and sooner or later in life, reject it altogether.
What a comfort it must be to be pleasantly settled in one camp or the other, but I can not be so settled, and hence I have few tent-fellows. Based upon my faith in the Scriptures, I do believe (yes, faith and belief go beyond scientific evidence for this scientist) that God created the heavens and the earth and all that dwell therein, including a man named Adam and a woman named Eve. As for many of the details and the time-spans, I personally become less clear. Some may ask, Whats less clearabout the text that reads, For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth&? That is a fair question, and I wish I had an answer that would satisfy them. But I do not because I remain less clear.
I hope thats satisfactoryI mean for me, a scientist and a Christian, to be unsure of a few things in both science and Christianity. The question is not fundamental to my salvation as a Christian which is based upon the finished work of Jesus Christ, my confession in him as Savior and my belief in his resurrection from the dead. And I used to think that my outward confession of skepticism regarding Darwinian Theory was also of little consequence to my career as a scientist. Specifically, in the past, I wrote that my standing as a scientist was based primarily upon my scholarly peer-reviewed publications.I no longer believe that, however.
In the last few years I have seen a saddening progression at several institutions. I have witnessed unfair treatment upon scientists that do not accept macroevolutionary arguments and for their having signed the above-referenced statement regarding the examination of Darwinism. (I will comment no further regarding the specifics of the actions taken upon the skeptics; I love and honor my colleagues too much for that.) I never thought that science would have evolved like this. I deeply value the academy; teaching, professing and research in the university are my privileges and joys. Rice University, from the administration, has always been gracious and open. The president of Rice University, David Leebron, has even written to the faculty that a,
&core value of our university is free and open inquiry. We encourage robust debate on the difficult issues of the day, and we welcome people with many points of view to our campus to better understand those issues and the differences that can divide us. That can and does mean that we sometimes provide a forum for opinions that may be controversial or even on occasion reprehensible to many or a few. While we cannot and will not censor the expression of divergent opinions, we do expect those opinions be expressed with civility and with respect for other points of view.
Hence, by my observation, the unfair treatment upon the skeptics of macroevolution has not come from the administration level. But my recent advice to my graduate students has been direct and revealing: If you disagree with Darwinian Theory, keep it to yourselves if you value your careers, unless, of course, youre one of those champions for proclamationI know that that fire exists in someso be ready for lead-ridden limbs. But if the scientific community has taken these shots at senior faculty, it will not be comfortable for the young non-conformist. Richard Dawkins ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
So what should be taught in schools regarding evolution? As I wrote, I am not a proponent of Intelligent Design for the reasons I state above: I can not prove it using my tools of chemistry to which I am bound in the chemistry classroomthe same tools to which I commensurately bind my evolutionist colleagues. But I think that a better approach might include more teaching about evolution, namely coverage of legitimate scientific criticisms of neo-Darwinism and disputes about the origin of the first life. That would be more balanced.
Some have asked me what I think of the movie, Expelled. No Intelligence Allowed.I saw a closed viewing of the movie in February 2008, two months before its public showing. It was difficult for me to watch because it struck so close to home, thus I am sure that my feelings were different than the other non-scientists in the theater. As to the veracity of the specific claims by others in the movie, I cannot judge since I was not walking in their shoes. But here is what I fear: the movie might serve to increase the polarization between the scientific and lay communities. That a subset of the scientific establishment is retarding the careers of Darwinian skeptics is true as far as I have witnessed personally. If there are legitimate scientific skepticisms regarding the extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution, those skeptics are sometimes stifled through unfair treatment regarding their career advancementthat is real although most scientists would say that such attacks on careers are nonexistent. Most would say such a thing because they are not involved in the skirmish and they are not aware that a colleague down the hall is hemorrhaging. Like many, they are absorbed in their own work because science can be all-consuming. I do not fault them for that. Most scientists, as I said, are far too busy with their own careers to be involved with others problems of this sort. A small number of scientists would say that the stifled deserve stifling. Therefore, if attention can be brought to the unfortunate state in science through the movie, let it come. I hope all welcome freedom of speech and freedom of inquiry, even if that freedom threatens ones own preconceived views or areas of research. But I also hope that the reaction will not be too great on the laypersons side wherein their disgust induces a politician or two to become incensed in the investigation because of the unnecessarily incendiary portrayals to Nazism, Berlin-walling and church-demolishing in the moviealthough entertaining from a theatrical perspective, that part of the movie is taken to an unrealistic extrapolation point. But then again, one who is far more qualified than I am, and further seasoned by fire, believed differently. Viktor Frankl ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
If we present a man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present man as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind-machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instinct, heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone.
I became acquainted with the last stage of that corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environmentor as the Nazi liked to say, of Blood and Soil.I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers [emphasis added].
If Frankl is correct, God help us.
The Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture at: http://www.discovery.org/crsc/
Access Research Network at: http://www.arn.org/arn2.htm
Origins at: http://www.origins.org/
Pihalle nauretun ja kuulemma reputetun väitöskirjan kässärin painatusluvan perään kyselee nimimerkki 'Hätääntynyt vanhus!'
- Ja piirtää taas uuden päivän syksystä 2002 jatkuneeseen tukkimiehen kirjanpitoon.
email@example.com alias Tuohiurkuri
(Rafaellon "leveäselkä-Platon" ja "Viisauden Kaivo" Aristoteles Ateenassa)
Universals or Particulars?
Postmodernina nykyaikana: University or party cursity?
Älä pelkää debattia ja aitoa väittelemistä, Keisarillinen yliopisto!
Helsingiensis Universtas - Älä nuku!
Huu Haa! Vai Hii Hoo?
Skepsis ry palkitsee vuosittain pseudotieteen aseman vakiinnuttamisessa kunnostautuneita Huuhaa-palkinnolla.
Skepsis ry on myöntänyt vuoden 2004 Huuhaa-palkinnon Teknillisen korkeakoulun bioprosessitekniikan laboratoriolle kreationistisen opin esittämisestä luonnontieteellisenä seminaarina.
Vuoden 2004 Sokrates-palkinto myönnetään Helsingin Sanomain Tiede- ja luonto-sivujen toimitukselle tasapainoisesta ja asiallisesta tiedeuutisoinnista.
Palkinnon myöntämisen perusteena on perjantaina 22.10.2004 Teknillisen korkeakoulun Mellin-salissa järjestetty seminaari "Biology - Tackling
Ultimate Complexity". Seminaari toteutettiin bioprosessitekniikan professori Matti Leisolan toimesta ja tilaisuudesta ilmoitettiin laboratorion verkkosivuilla.
"Älykkään suunnittelun" teoria eli "Intelligent Design" on oppi, joka kritisoi evoluutioteoriaa ja sitä tukevia luonnontieteitä. Näiden tilalle ID tarjoaa käsitystä yliluonnollisesta suunnittelusta väittäen sitä luonnontieteellisistä havainnoista seuraavaksi, väistämättömäksi päätelmäksi. Toisin kuin luonnontieteessä, ID:ssä käytetään yleensä perusteluina sitä mitä ei tiedetä ja tarpeen tullen unohdetaan hyvin tunnetut asiat. Maailman johtava tiedejärjestö, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, on hallituksensa virallisessa julkilausumassa todennut, että ID-kreationismin väitteille ei ole tieteellistä tukea eikä sitä tulisi liittää osaksi tiedekasvatusta tai -opetusta.
Tämänvuotisen Huuhaa-palkinnon kautta Skepsis ry haluaa kiinnittää huomion tieteen ja pseudotieteen väliseen eroon sekä muistuttaa, ettei jälkimmäiselle ole sijaa yliopistojen eikä muidenkaan oppilaitosten opetuksessa. ID-kreationismi on monissa maissa systemaattisesti pyrkinyt - siinä kuitenkaan onnistumatta - saamaan itselleen jalansijaa akateemisessa maailmassa ja jopa tuomaan "älykkään suunnittelun" osaksi biologian kouluopetusta. Skepsis ry ei luonnollisestikaan halua rajoittaa tieteellistä keskustelua tai siihen kuuluvaa kritiikkiä. ID-opin esittäminen vakavasti otettavana teoriana luonnontieteellisessä tai teknistieteellisessä viitekehityksessä on kuitenkin verrattavissa siihen, että astrologia tuotaisiin osaksi akateemista tähtitieteen opetusta tai alkemia osaksi kemian opetusta.
Samassa yhteydessä Skepsis ry haluaa kiittää Helsingin yliopistoa ryhdikkyydestä. Luentosarjaa oltiin ensiksi järjestämässä yliopiston täydennyskoulutuskeskuksen, Palmenian, tiloissa luonnontieteellisenä täydennyskoulutuksena, mutta biologian laitoksen tutkijoiden ja yliopiston johdon aktiivisuuden ansiosta se kuitenkin peruttiin.
Skepsis ry haluaa kiittää Helsingin Sanomain Tiede ja luonto -sivujen toimitusta tasapainoisesta ja asiallisesta tiedeuutisoinnista. Sivuilla kerrotaan niin suurista kuin pienistäkin tapahtumista tiedemaailmassa ja meitä ympäröivässä luonnossa. Artikkelien laaja kirjo on omiaan herättämään kiinnostuksen ja lähdeviitteet mahdollistavat tarkemman perehtymisen juttujen aiheisiin. Toimituksen yhteydet eri alojen asiantuntijoihin takaavat artikkelien luotettavuuden ja ajankohtaisuuden. Koska suomalaiset lukevat paljon sanomalehtiä, ovat sanomalehden tiedesivut oiva väline rationaalisuuden ja kriittisen ajattelun edistämiseen. Tiede ja luonto -sivut toimivat tässä tehtävässä erinomaisesti."
Matti Leisolan vastaus:
"Hyvä Matias Aunola
Viestisi tuli todella myöhään ja olen itse vuoteen pohjalla flunssassa. En siis pääse jakotilaisuuteen. Olisin iloinen, jos jakotilaisuudessa voitaisiin lukea alla oleva viestini:
Skepsis ry on tehnyt arvokasta työtä vastustaessaan erilaisia länsimaiselle tiedekäsitykselle vieraita mystisluonteisia virtauksia. Länsimaisen tieteen ihanteeseen on aina kuulunut neutraali totuuden etsintä. Thomas Kuhnin ja Karl Popperin ajoista lähtien tieteenfilosofia ei kuitenkaan ole enää pitänyt tiedettä neutraalina totuuden etsintänä, joka ei olisi sidoksissa laajempiin olettamuksiin todellisuuden luonteesta.
Otaniemessä järjestettyä luentosarjaa ovat erityisesti kritisoineet henkilöt, jotka eivät olleet paikalla. Kritiikki ei myöskään ole kohdistunut luennoilla esitettyyn materiaaliin. Suorastaan hysteerisiä piirteitä saanut vastustus selittyy ainostaan sillä, että luennot herättivät kuulijoiden mielessä kysymyksen tieteen naturalistisen paradigman lutettavuudesta. Yliopistomaailman tulee olla avoin erilaisten uusien asioiden käsittelyyn. Havaintojen ja niistä tehtyjen johtopäätösten tulisi ohjata ymmärrystämme maailmasta - ei ennakkoasenteiden.
Otaniemen seminaarissa puhui evoluutio- ja systeemibiologi Sternberg, joka ei ole ID-liikkeen kannattaja. Hän kuvasi luennoissaan biologisessa tutkimuksessa tapahtuvaa muutosta reduktionismista systeemiajatteluun ja esitti kysymyksen miten tämä uusi käsitys vaikuttaa perinteiseen darvinistiseen historiantulkintaan.
Toinen puhuja oli tieteenfilosofi Paul Nelson, joka on ID-liikkeen aktiivinen vaikuttaja. Nelson debatoi ensi viikolla aiheesta Hollannin tiedeakatemian sponsoroimassa tilaisuudessa tieteen- ja erityisesti biologian filosofi Michael Rusen kanssa. Michael Ruse pitää Design-teoriaa ensimmäisen merkittävänä nykyisen biologian paradigman haastajana vaikka pitääkin sitä virheellisenä.
Michael Ruse on yhdessä William Dembskin kanssa toimittanut kirja "Debating Design", joka juuri ilmestyi Cambridge University Pressin kustantamana. William Dembski on ehkä merkittävin design-teoreetikko. Hänen - myös Cambridge University Pressin kustaman - kirjansa "Design Inference" arviointipaneelissa oli mukana muun muassa nobel-palkittu John Harsaney. Maailmankuulu fyysikko Paul Davies pitää Dembskin analyysiä erittäin arvokkaana.
Tätä taustaa vasten on harhaanjohtavaa verrata Design-teoriaa astrologiaan. Design-teoriaa ovat esitelleet laajat artikkelit monissa johtavissa sanomalehdissä. New York Times kirjoitti siitä muutama vuosi sitten sunnuntainumeronsa etusivulla. Jos Helsingin Sanomat pystyisi samanlaiseen objektiiviseen uutisointiin tästä teemasta olisi se paremmin ansainnut sille myönnetyn tunnustuksen.
Design-teoria on hyvin helposti osoitettavissa vääräksi ja koko kohu asian ympärillä voidaan haudata kuriositeettina. Ei tarvita muuta kuinselitys mekanismista ja informaatiopolusta, joka johti elämän syntyyn tai kolibakteerin nanoteknologin unelmaksi kutsutun sähkömoottorin syntyyn.
Skepsis yhdistyksen tulisi vaihteeksi suunnata kriittinen huijausilmaisimensa esimerkiksi lukion biologian kirjoihin, joissa vuodesta toiseen kierrätetään tietoiseksi huijaukseksi tiedettyjä Ernst Haeckelin sikiöpiirroksia tai virheellisen tutkimusmetodologian tuottamaa tarinaa teollisuusmelanismista puhumattakaan Stanley Millerin koelaitteistosta, jolla ei ole mitään tekemistä elämän synnyn salaisuuden kanssa. Mielelläni olen apuna näiden huuhaiden paljastamisessa.
Vastine Skepsis ry:n julkaisuun:
Miksi skeptisyys darvinismia kohtaan olisi huuhaata?
Skepsis ry:n Huuhaa-palkinnon sai TKK:n Bioprosessitekniikan laboratorio luentosarjasta ”Biology – Tackling Ultimate Complexity”. Tieteenfilosofi Nelsonin ja evoluutiobiologi Sternbergin luennot aiheuttivat ennen kokematonta levottomuutta yliopistomaailmassa, koska niissä suhtauduttiin skeptisesti biologiaa hallitsevaan darvinistiseen paradigmaan. Onko skeptisyys darvinismia kohtaan vailla perusteita?
Darvinismille perustuneet ennusteet ovat vuosien aikana yksi toisensa jälkeen romahtaneet, mutta itse darvinismin totuus ei ole siitä kärsinyt. Fossiiliaineisto ei täyttänyt Darwinin odotuksia, sikiön kehitys ei toista lajinkehitystä, keinotekoinen valinta ei ole luonnonvalintaa, homologia-argumentti ei ole vankalla pohjalla, DNA:n koodi ei ole universaali, ja teollisuusmelanismi on esimerkki huonosta tutkimuksesta.
Evoluution mekanismista ei ole yksimielisyyttä. Makroevoluutio on joidenkin mielestä mikroevoluution jatkumoa; toisten mielestä ei. Elämän sukupuu on juuriltaan muuttunut pensaaksi. Molekyylikellot tikittävät eri aikaa kuin fossiilikellot. Joidenkin mielestä elämällä oli yksi alkupiste, toisten mielestä monia. Viimeisin darvinistinen kupla oli ns. roska-DNA, jonka piti olla kertomus tuhlailevasta ja sokeasta evoluutioprosessista. Biologian kompleksisuutta on systemaattisesti aliarvioitu. Cambridgen paleontologi Conway Morris kuvaa evoluution hämmentynyttä nykytilaa hyvin: ”When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: It happened. Thereafter, there is little consensus”. [Cell 100 (2000) 1-11]
Kaikkein selvimmin ongelmat tulevat esiin elämän syntyyn liittyvässä keskustelussa. Millerin koelaitteisto komeilee edelleen biologian oppikirjoissa merkkinä siitä, että sattumanvaraiset kemialliset reaktiot selittävät elämän alkuperän. Elämä toki ratsastaa kemialla, mutta pelkkä kemia ei selitä elämää tai sen syntyä. Elämän oleellinen tuntomerkki on informaatio. Tietokone ohjelmistoineen on hyvä analoginen malli solulle. Jokainen luonnon tutkija tietää vallan hyvin, ettei luonnontieteellä ole mitään selitystä DNA:n, sen koodikielen tai elävän solun synnylle. Fyysikko Davies sanoo, että olemme ”a very long way from comprehending” kuinka elämä syntyi. “This gulf in understanding is not merely ignorance about certain technical details, it is a major conceptual lacuna… My personal belief, for what it is worth, is that a fully satisfactory theory of the origin of life demands some radically new ideas”. [The Fifth Miracle, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1999, 17]
Tällä kohtaa naturalistin täytyy perustaa näkemyksensä uskoon, että naturalistinen selitys jonakin päivänä löydetään. Ideologisista, ei tieteellisistä, syistä naturalistilla ei ole muuta vaihtoehtoa. Miten perusteltua tämä usko ja luottamus on? Täyttääkö naturalistinen selitys koskaan informaation synnyn aukkoa? Tämä herättää väistämättä kysymyksen onko virallinen skeptisyys aina suunnattu oikeisiin kohteisiin. Eikö evoluutiossa todellakaan ole mitään kritisoitavaa? Mielelläni kutsun Skepsis ry:n julkiseen keskusteluun esimerkiksi elämän syntyyn liittyvistä teemoista.
Juuri tässä kohtaa astuu kuvaan teoria älykkäästä suunnittelusta (Intelligent Design, ID). Tiedämme kokemuksesta, että informaatio ja ohjelmistot syntyvät älykkään suunnittelun tuloksena. Älykkäästi suunniteltujen asioiden havaitseminen on tässä mielessä empiiristä tiedettä kuten rikostutkinta, arkeologia, salakirjoitustiede tai SETI-ohjelma. Mahdolliseen (joskin epätodennäköiseen) naturalistisen selityksen löytymiseen saakka suunnittelu on paras selitys informaatiolle. Nelsonin ja Sternbergin esitelmät eivät esitelleet kreationismia (kuten Skepsis ry palkinnon perustelussa virheellisesti väitti) vaan keskittyivät evoluutioparadigmaan. En ymmärrä miksi Skepsis ry ei ole valmis kannustamaan (estämisen sijasta) skeptisyyttä evoluutiota kohtaan. Juuri skeptikkojen odottaisi tervehtivän skeptisyyttä innokkaasti ja ottavan Sternbergin ja Nelsonin kaltaiset tutkijat avosylin veljinä vastaan.
Naturalisti ei koskaan luovu materialistisesta todellisuus- ja tiedekäsityksestään, koska koko hänen maailmankatsomuksensa lepää sen varassa. Monella on henkilökohtaisia uskonnollis-elämäntavallisia syitä ja tarpeita sille, että materialismin täytyy olla totta. Siksi tiedekin halutaan valjastaa tähän uskonnollis-ideologiseen taisteluun rajaamalla tieteen pelikenttä. Tieteen- ja erityisesti biologian filosofi Ruse on itse vakaumuksellinen evolutionisti. Hän kuitenkin myöntää evoluution uskonnollisen ulottuvuuden harvinaisen rehellisesti. Evoluutio on Rusen mukaan “more than mere science. Evolution came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity…It is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion – a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality… Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” [National Post, 13.5.2000, B-3]
Ruse kertoi tästä näkemyksestään AAAS:n kokouksessa vuonna 1993. Hänen esitystään seurattiin ällistyneen hiljaisuuden vallassa. Joulukuussa 2004 Ruse debatoi ID-ajattelusta Otaniemen luentosarjassa puhuneen Nelsonin kanssa Hollannin tiedeakatemian sponsoroimana. Juuri Nelsonin Otaniemessä pitämä esitelmä sai Skepsis ry:n reagoimaan. Päinvastoin kuin suomalainen tiedeyhteisö, katsoo Hollannin tiedeakatemia tämän tärkeän aiheen julkisen keskustelun arvoiseksi.
Älykkään suunnittelun (ID) vertaaminen alkemiaan tai astrologiaan on harhaanjohtavaa. Alkemia yritti muuttaa lyijyn kullaksi tuntematta mekanismia. Siksi juuri naturalistista yritystä selittää elämän syntyä voisi verrata alkemiaan. Naturalistinen alkemia yrittää tehdä elämää sattumanvaraisten kemiallisten reaktioiden avulla jättäen kaikkein tärkeimmän aineksen – informaation – pois keitoksesta.
Skepsis ry:n Huuhaa-palkinnon tarkoituksena on torjua huonosti perusteltuja väitteitä epätieteellisinä ja ilmeisesti myös varjella naturalistista maailmankuvaa. Harvardin evoluutiobiologi Lewontinin mukaan ”we (naturalists) have a prior commitment,… to materialism” ja tämän sitoutumisen on oltava ”absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door” [The New York Review of Books, 9.1.1997, 28]. Tieteen ihanne on totuuden etsintä, mutta miten materialistiseen filosofiaan ennakolta sitoutunut tiede voi olla arvovapaata ja neutraalia?
Skepsis ry:lle suosittelen seuraavaksi Huuhaa-paljastimen suuntaamista koulujen oppikirjoihin, jotta niistä saataisiin poistettua runsas virheellinen ja arvoton evoluution todistusaineisto. Olisi myös rehellistä myöntää, että moniin arvoituksiin ei ole tiedossa edes kaukaisessa tulevaisuudessa ratkaisua. Luonnon käsittämättömän monimutkaisuuden äärellä annos nöyryyttä - ottaen huomioon mitä todella tiedämme - ei ole pahaksi viralliselle skeptikollekaan.
Matti Leisola, Professori
Hyvä Skepsis-yhdistyksen tieteellinen neuvottelukunta,
Tässä on terveiset saunojen takaa: Kiitos saamastamme Huu-Haa -palkinnosta. Tämä on hyvä maa. Suomalaisen tiedekulttuurin edestä ja Suomen tutkimuksen vapauden puolesta voi levollisin mielin tulla akateemisesti lahdatuksi, myös väitöskirjani linjauksen kanssa.
En usko että uhri on turha. Olemme olleet joka vuosi uudella vuosituhannella transparency indexin vähiten korruptoitunut maa. Jätkä on saanut maksaa Helsingin yliopiston rakenteisiin käyvästä fasismista (SSS, SVL jne.) ja taistolaismaterialismista pitkällä perinteellä. Olette tehokkaita lisäämään pelkokerrointa yliopistojemme hallinnon keskeisistä asemistanne käsin. Alas sorrettu joukko on minua kunniakkaampi ja siihen on hyvä käydä pitkäksensä. Anttoon sanoja saunan takaa lainaten: Hautaa pystyyn niin menee vähemmän maata!
oikeutuksella minä kiitän tässä ja nyt El Elyonia - mikä Korkein sitten onkaan - siitä että professori Matti Leisolan sekä äitini pojan artikkeli printattiin Jahrbuch fur Europäische Wissenschaftsculturen alias Yearbook for the European Culture of Science -sarjan inauguraationumeroon. Kyse on mm. lähdelöydöistä Ernst Haeckelin suomalaisista kirjeenvaihtokumppaneista ja vulgaarista evolutionismistamme. Challenges for Bioethics from Asia -kirjan artikkelini pidempi versio on vapaasti luettavissa:
Haeckelian legacy of popularization in Ojala PJ (2004) "Challenges for Bioethics from Asia". Fifth Asian Bioethics Conference, ABC (5):391-412.
Ei Huu-Haa, vaan...
...Hii-Hoo! Ja vespa käyntiin Internetissä.
Laillista esivaltaa ja korruptoitumattoman tieteen eetosta palvellen,
Haihattelija? Minäkö haihattelija!
- Herge, Tuhatkaunon tapaus ja matka Kuuhun -