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'):
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Asian_Bioethics.pdf
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Haeckelianlegacy_ABC5.pdf

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:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Indicator.html

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:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Videos_animations_flagella_evidence_existence_creation_contra_evolution.htm

I wish an analogous documentary film was made concerning the DINOGLYFS or dinolits: http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/dinosaur.htm
It seems that the ancient man not only saw but also documented the last megafauna (gigafauna, I should say).

"Expelled Exposed" Exposed: Your One-Stop Rebuttal to Attacks on the Documentary Expelled

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/02/expelled_exposed_exposed_your.html

In light of the DVD release a few months ago of the terrific Ben Stein documentary Expelled, we thought it would be a good time to provide a comprehensive listing of articles that correct the various misrepresentations and falsehoods spread by Darwinists about Expelled.
Most of the falsehoods in circulation about the film can be traced to a website called "Expelled Exposed" set up by the pro-Darwin National Center for Science Education (NCSE) as part of its PR effort to smear the documentary last year. “Expelled Exposed” alleges that Expelled made “dishonest attempts to make mountains out of molehills and to create martyrs where martyrdom does not exist.” As John West observed in response, "The basic thrust of [“Expelled Exposed”] seems to be the preposterous claim that pro-ID scientists never, ever face harassment, intimidation, or persecution. Not ever! Scientists who claim otherwise—such as biologist Richard Sternberg, astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, and Baylor University engineering professor Robert Marks—must be cry-babies or worse. The NCSE's approach is otherwise known as 'blaming the victim.'"
Although the NCSE's website spends much energy attempting (poorly) to debunk and deny claims that ID proponents experience persecution, the attitude found at “Expelled Exposed” wouldn’t be any different even if its authors admitted that the attacks experienced by pro-ID scientists had actually occurred. In essence, “Expelled Exposed” effectively says, 'There’s no persecution of ID-proponents in the academy. But even if there was, so what? They deserve it.'
"Expelled Exposed" occasionally pays lip-service to freedom of speech, but the site itself should be exposed for what it really is: an attempt to subtly—and sometimes not so subtly—convince readers that the pro-ID viewpoint does not deserve the full protections of academic freedom. By unashamedly encouraging would-be persecutors, “Expelled Exposed” unwittingly justifies the central thesis of the Expelled documentary, namely that ID proponents lack academic freedom and experience unjust persecution and blacklisting within the academy.
Responses Regarding Individual Scientists in Expelled
Guillermo Gonzalez:
Many of the false claims in “Expelled Exposed” regarding astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez are rebutted in a response I wrote to Michael Shermer’s error-ridden review of Expelled, “Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on Expelled Exposes Intolerance of Darwinists towards Pro-Intelligent Design Scientists.” Further documentation of the persecution experienced by Gonzalez can be found at "Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez And Academic Persecution" or FreeGonzalez.com. In particular, some of the following links are useful for rebutting false claims regarding Guillermo Gonzalez:
 "ISU astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez's stellar publication record outshines colleagues" rebuts the false claim that Gonzalez has not produced many research papers since getting involved with ID.
 "Chronicle of Higher Education Promotes Misinformation about Guillermo Gonzalez’s Publication Rate " shows the NCSE’s misplaced reliance upon the Chronicle of Higher Education’s false claim that "Gonzalez’s publication output dropped steadily during his time at ISU.” The reality is that while at ISU, Gonzalez outperformed all of the tenured astronomers who voted against his tenure in key measures of productivity.
 "Guillermo Gonzalez Has Highest Normalized Citation Count among ISU Astronomers for Publications Since 2001” discusses the highly impressive impact Gonzalez made upon the scientific community during his time at ISU.
 ""Design Was the Issue After All: ISU’s official explanation in Gonzalez case exposed as a sham" rebuts false insinuations by "Expelled Exposed" that ID was not the overriding factor in Gonzalez’s denial of tenure.
 ""Secret ISU Faculty E-mails Express Vitriol Towards Intelligent Design, Disregard for Academic Freedom, and attempts to Hide a Plot to Oust an Outstanding Scientist" provides further rebuttal to false insinuations that ID was not the overriding factor in Gonzalez’s denial of tenure.
 ""Cataloguing Darwinist Denials and Flip-Flopping over the Role of Intelligent Design in ISU’s Tenuregate" rebuts the NCSE's attempts to deny that ID played a major role in Gonzalez’s denial of tenure.
 “"The Truth about Research Grants, Gonzalez and ISU” rebuts misrepresentations by "Expelled Exposed" about the role of grants in ISU tenure evaluations.
 "Praise from Scientists for The Privileged Planet" rebuts any false insinuations that Dr. Gonzalez's work on ID is illegitimate or does not deserve the protection of academic freedom.
Richard Sternberg:
Many of the false claims at "Expelled Exposed" about Richard Sternberg also seem to parrot the arguments of Michael Shermer, and thus my response to Shermer provides rebuttals to many of the website’s claims: see “Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on Expelled Exposes Intolerance of Darwinists towards Pro-Intelligent Design Scientists.” “Expelled Exposed” makes the unbelievable assertion that “the worst that happened to Sternberg is that people said some unkind things about him in private email to one another.“ My rebuttal to Shermer documents the precise e-mails and evidence which show that, contrary to the claims of “Expelled Exposed,” Sternberg did experience harassment and persecution, including pressure to resign, investigations into his outside activities regarding evolution, and inappropriate restrictions on his research.
More facts about Richard Sternberg’s unfortunate story can be found on his home page at RichardSternberg.org as well as at the following links:
 "Sternberg, Smithsonian, Meyer, And The Paper That Started It All"
 “Statement of Facts / Response to Misinformation” rebuts the false claim by "Expelled Exposed" that Stephen Meyer’s paper was outside the scope of Proceedings for the Biological Society of Washington.
 U.S. Office of Special Counsel Letter (2005)
 "Transcript of NPR Report on Sternberg Case"
 U.S. House of Representatives Staff Report (2006): Intolerance and the Politicization of Science at the Smithsonian
 Appendix to U.S. House of Representatives Staff Report (2006): Intolerance and the Politicization of Science at the Smithsonian
Caroline Crocker:
Caroline Crocker wrote her own direct rebuttal correcting various false claims about herself in “Expelled Exposed,” "Reply to Expelled Exposed." Crocker points out that “Expelled Exposed” fails to understand that “calling scientific arguments ‘creationist’ does not address the validity of the arguments. It is merely an ad hominem attack that does not require response.” More information about Crocker's plight can be seen in "One Long Article: Washington Post Highlights Persecution of Caroline Crocker." Some of the website’s false attacks upon Crocker’s scientific arguments are rebutted at "Problems with the Natural Chemical "Origin of Life"" and "Critics Rave Over Icons of Evolution: A Response to Published Reviews." Further direct rebuttals to "Expelled Exposed" from Dr. Crocker will be included in her forthcoming book about her experience to be published later in 2009.
"Expelled Exposed" tries to muddy the waters about Crocker's plight. On the one hand, it suggests that she was let go "simply for staffing reasons," further stating that "[w]e do not know for certain why Crocker was not re-hired for her non-tenure track job." On the other hand, the website tries to impugn Crocker by claiming she received received "student complaints," and "was unable or unwilling to teach accurate science." The truth is that at the very time she was told by her Department Head that she would be disciplined for challenging evolution and mentioning ID in the classroom, Crocker received a performance review from her Provost who called her teaching "outstanding" as "evidenced by unusually high student rankings." The Provost even praised her saying, "This kind of teaching quality is essential for this vital educational program, and we're very grateful for your successful efforts." Such statements hardly sound like a teacher who would be expected to lose her job, was receiving poor student reviews, or was teaching inaccurately. Yet Crocker did subsequently loser her job, and received all kinds of after-the-fact attacks on her performance. The NCSE's litmus test for teaching "accurate science" seems to be paying homage to Darwin, and their characterization of Crocker as a poor instructor is simply false. For details and documentation on the praise given to Crocker's teaching abilities at George Mason University, see Letters About Caroline Crocker.
Robert Marks:
“Expelled Exposed” leaves off key facts about the persecution Robert Marks endured at Baylor University and tries to make it sound like his persecution was reasonable (more on this below). In the end, Marks’ website was permanently shut down, Baylor pressured Marks to cease his ID-related research, and Baylor even returned grant money given to Marks to hire research assistants his ID-related work. For the full story on Marks that “Expelled Exposed” doesn’t tell you, see:
 “Academic Freedom Expelled from Baylor University”
 “BU had role in Dembski return”
 Ironically, by admitting that Marks’s treatment was related to his ID work (they acknowledge it concerned "the intelligent design material"), “Expelled Exposed” has admitted precisely what Baylor denied. For details, see “Credibility Gap: Baylor Denies Robert Marks’ Situation Has Anything to do with ID.”
Michael Egnor:
SUNY Professor of Neurosurgery Michael Egnor asked "How much information can actually be produced by Darwinian mechanisms?" and was then subjected to many harsh attacks on the internet. Some of Egnor’s experiences were recounted in Expelled and “Expelled Exposed” obliges the movie by quoting some of the bloggers who attacked Egnor. “Expelled Exposed” makes typical assertions that Egnor (who isn’t just a brain surgeon but is a professor of brain surgery!) doesn’t understand the science he’s talking about. As is typical, Egnor’s critics don’t answer his question, but engage in further demonization of Egnor, as the post that “Expelled Exposed” quotes is titled “Egnorance: The Egotistical Combination of Ignorance and Arrogance.” It seems that “Expelled Exposed” simply proves Egnor’s point about the incivility of his critics. In fact, Dr. Egnor—with far more grace and civility than his critics—has handled his critics quite easily, as is seen in the following links:
 “Dr. Humburg Sets Me and Galen Straight”
 “Asking the Right Questions Brings out Internet Darwinists’ True Colors”
 “Another post from a ‘Bastion of S***headed Ignorance’”
 “Darwinian Medicine and Military History”
 “‘Why would I want my doctor to have studied evolution?’”
 “Orac’s Challenge: Do Scientists ever use the Design Inference in Biology? (Hmmm...let me think…)”
 “Dunford, Darwinism, and the Paranoid Style”
 “Proving Dr. Novella Wrong: Enjoying Tennis in a Persistent Vegetative State”
As a final point regarding Dr. Egnor, “Expelled Exposed” also claims that “most physicians accept evolution,” but a poll from 2005 revealed that up to 60% of doctors take a pro-ID position. For details, see “Poll: 60 Percent of Doctors Reject Darwinism.”
Responses Regarding ”Expelled Exposed” and Its Discussion of Hitler's Reliance upon Darwin
“Expelled Exposed" makes various questionable arguments about how the Expelled documentary treats the issue of Hitler's reliance upon Darwinism. This is, of course, a highly delicate issue that must be handled with great sensitivity to all involved. But misrepresentations of Expelled abound and "Expelled Exposed" is more than happy to indulge them, for Expelled was not trying to claim that modern-day Darwinists are Nazis, but was simply observing the historical connections of Hitler’s reliance upon Darwinism. A number of articles defending Expelled ‘s treatment of this issue can be found at some of the following links:
 "Connecting Hitler and Darwin" by David Berlinski.
 "Don't Doubt It: An important historic sidebar on Hitler and Darwin" by David Klinghoffer.
 "What’s wrong with uttering “Darwin” and “Hitler” in the same breath?" by William Dembski.
 "Breeding Our Way out of Poverty " by John G. West (excerpted from Darwin Day in America).
 "Why the Darwin-Hitler Link Is So Sensitive"
 "Why the Jews? " by David Klinghoffer.
 "The Descent of Darwinism from Hitlerism " by David Klinghoffer.
 "Darwin and the Nazis " by Richard Weikart.
 "Opening up Mein Kampf" by David Klinghoffer.
 "Hitler's Debt to Darwin " by David Klinghoffer.
 "Re-examining the Darwin-Hitler Link " by Richard Weikart.
 "Expelled does NOT try to ‘blame Darwin for the Holocaust’" by David Klinghoffer.
 "Darwin and Hitler: In Their Own Words" by Benjamin Wiker.
As a lawyer with some training in identifying credible witnesses, there is one final point that must be made about Expelled and its discussion of Hitler’s reliance upon Darwin. It seems to me highly compelling that the person in Expelled who makes the most forceful argument that Hitler made natural reliance upon Darwin was the curator of a government museum in Germany dedicated to remembering the horrors of the Nazis. This museum curator is a neutral third party with no personal stake in the debate over Darwin and is thus a highly credible witness. Yet she is the one arguing that Hitler made heavy reliance upon Darwin. If Hitler didn't rely on Darwin, then it seems that curators of Holocaust remembrance-museums in Germany must also be in on the big conspiracy to make it seem that he did.
Responses Regarding General Attacks Upon Intelligent Design in "Expelled Exposed"
“Expelled Exposed” features various videos about the Kitzmiller v. Dover lawsuit, encouraging its readers to take the “Judge Jones Said It, I Believe It, That Settles It” approach to ID. In fact, many of the false claims by "Expelled Exposed" related to the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial are rebutted in the law review article "Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover" or at the website TraipsingIntoEvolution.com. Other articles that refute many of the false claims about ID in "Expelled Exposed" are found at some of the following links:
 "Principled (not Rhetorical) Reasons Why Intelligent Design Doesn't Identify the Designer" rebuts the false claim that the designer must be a supernatural being “whom everyone recognizes as God.”
 "ID Does Not Address Religious Claims About the Supernatural" rebuts the false claim that ID is a form of creationism and necessarily refers to a supernatural or divine being.
 "The ‘Wedge Document’: ‘So What’?" rebuts the fallacious arguments by "Expelled Exposed" regarding Discovery Institute and the "wedge document."
 "Any larger philosophical implications of intelligent design, or any religious motives, beliefs, and affiliations of ID proponents, do not disqualify ID from having scientific merit" rebuts the fallacious harping by "Expelled Exposed" on the alleged religious motives, beliefs, and affiliations of ID proponents.
 "FAQ: Does intelligent design theory implement the scientific method?" rebuts the false claim by "Expelled Exposed" that ID has an “unscientific nature.”
 "The Positive Case for Design" rebuts the false claim by "Expelled Exposed" that ID’s “main activity appears to be to carp about the success of evolution.”
 "Intelligent design (ID) has scientific merit because it uses the scientific method to make its claims and infers design by testing its positive predictions" and "FAQ: Does intelligent design make predictions? Is it testable?" rebut the false claim by "Expelled Exposed" that “intelligent design claims cannot be tested” and its blatantly false claim that “No observation could possibly be incompatible with a claim that an ‘intelligent agent’ … acted to, say, introduce information into a system.”
 "The Facts about Intelligent Design" rebuts the citation by "Expelled Exposed" of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences’ booklet Science, Evolution, and Creationism as an accurate source of criticism against ID.
 "Barking up the Wrong Tree" and "Peter Atkins Dramatically Overstates the Evidence for Evolutionary Phylogenies" rebut inaccurate insinuations by "Expelled Exposed" that we have a nice, neat picture of the “tree of life.”
 "A Response to Dr. Dawkins’ 'The Information Challenge'" rebuts the false claims by "Expelled Exposed" that natural selection can produce new meaningful biological information.
 "Problems with the Natural Chemical "Origin of Life"" rebuts false insinuations by "Expelled Exposed" that origin of life researchers are making noteworthy progress towards explaining the chemical origin of life.
 Biologic Institute’s Research Page rebuts the false claim by "Expelled Exposed" that intelligent design proponents are “scientifically unproductive” or that ID proponents “have not performed the research and theory-building demanded of everyone in the scientific enterprise.”
 Likewise, "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated) " rebuts the false claim by "Expelled Exposed" that ID proponents do not do research.
 Additionally, the Evolutionary Informatics Lab of Robert J. Marks (the lab which has been forced off the Baylor campus) conducts computer simulation research and has a website hosting papers that support ID and challenge Darwinian evolution.
Responses Regarding the NCSE’s Attempt to Promote Darwinist Persecution Stories
While “Expelled Exposed” tries to "blame the victim" by attacking ID proponents who were persecuted, it also tries to create the impression that Darwinists are subjected to persecution and harassment. "Expelled Exposed" thus attempts to get a lot of mileage out of false and exaggerated claims of one incident, that of Chris Comer, a former staff member at the Texas Education Agency who Darwinists have claimed was fired because she didn’t support teaching creationism. According to "Expelled Exposed," Comer was "Expelled for Real."
“Expelled Exposed” basically took Comer’s side of the story and uncritically promoted it to the public. But Comer’s side of the story is only one side and the truth appears very different from what she is saying--she wasn't fired and no one in Texas was advocating the teaching of creationism. As John West observes, "now it looks like Comer isn’t a martyr after all. Internal TEA documents released earlier today by Texans for Better Science Education (TBSE) show that Comer had a long history of disciplinary problems at her agency that had nothing to do with evolution." For more details on what really happened in the case of Chris Comer, visit any of the following links:
 "Inventing a Martyr? Newly-Released Documents Suggest that Christine Comer’s Resignation Was Due to Misconduct, Not Views on Evolution" by John West.
 "Newly Released Internal Documents Indicate Former TEA Official Chris Comer Resigned Over Misconduct and Insubordination Issues--Not Over Her Views on Evolution" by Texans For Better Science Education.
 "Summary and Timeline of Chris Comer’s Disciplinary History at the TEA" by Texans For Better Science Education.
 "Documentation of Comer’s Case" by Texans For Better Science Education.
It should be noted that there is a marked difference between the case of Comer and those scientists in Expelled: Comer had a long history of insubordination, as she "received a three disciplinary letters spanning at least eight separate incidents, and seven of these eight incidents had nothing to do with evolution" and "During her last year at the TEA, Comer was found guilty of violating direct orders—'insubordination'—on three separate occasions." Perhaps some Darwinists do experience persecution for their views, and if that happens, it is most inappropriate. But as TBSE stated, "If Darwinists want to create a scandal and invent a martyr for their cause, they appear to have picked the wrong case."
Conclusion: ”Expelled Exposed” is Intended as a Breeding Ground for Future Persecutors
Setting aside the errors and misrepresentations about Expelled and ID, the most interesting aspect of “Expelled Exposed” is the mere fact that it exists. “Expelled Exposed” is an attempt by the NCSE to on the one hand argue that ID proponents don’t get persecuted, and on the other hand argue that they deserve all the persecution they receive anyway. This isn’t merely “blaming the victim,” it’s also called inciting the mob, and it’s just one part of the NCSE’s strategy to blacklist and censor ID proponents within academia.
 When discussing Guillermo Gonzalez, "Expelled Exposed" says that his "distracting work on an unscientific enterprise like intelligent design," among other things, "make[s] it impossible for supporters to legitimately claim that the decision not to grant him tenure was unfounded." The site also argues that ID proponents do not deserve the protection of academic freedom, stating, "A scientist should not expect his colleagues to ignore his advocacy of a perspective that those in his field have overwhelmingly rejected." In other words, when ID-proponents like Gonzalez come up for tenure, the NCSE thinks that ID should count as an automatic and absolute negative. Clearly the NCSE endorses discriminating against Gonzalez simply because he supports ID.
 When discussing Richard Sternberg, NCSE executive director Eugenie Scott seemed to contradict the claim of “Expelled Exposed” that “the worst that happened to Sternberg is that people said some unkind things about him in private email to one another.“ In an article in The Washington Post, Scott admitted that there was discrimination against Sternberg due to his views on evolution, and even tried to justify it:
[S]aid Eugenie Scott, the group's executive director[:] "If this was a corporation, and an employee did something that really embarrassed the administration, really blew it, how long do you think that person would be employed?" ... Scott, of the NCSE, insisted that Smithsonian scientists had no choice but to explore Sternberg's religious beliefs. "They don't care if you are religious, but they do care a lot if you are a creationist," Scott said. "Sternberg denies it, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it argues for zealotry."
(Michael Powell, "Editor Explains Reasons for 'Intelligent Design' Article," Washington Post, August 19, 2005, emphases added)
Thus, not only does Scott sanction attacks upon scientists “if you are a creationist” but she contradicts “Expelled Exposed” by acknowledging--and trying to justify—events that “Expelled Exposed” claims never happened to Sternberg.
 When discussing Caroline Crocker, “Expelled Exposed” says that “there may have been grounds to fire her with cause” and complains in the same sentence that she was allegedly “teaching demonstrably false creationist material.” Apparently if a scientist is teaching what the NCSE deems is “false creationist material,” she can be fired. “Expelled Exposed” goes on to argue that universities should be able to censor ID from courses:
She was instructed to not teach about intelligent design and creation science, which was not part of the curriculum of the courses she had been hired to teach. Academic freedom does not mean the freedom to teach about anything you want, regardless of the expected content of your courses.
The site further asserts that Crocker “failed to teach the curriculum, and short-changed her students by not teaching them standard science in favor of a lot of misinformation” and therefore her employer “would have been justified in firing her outright.” Again, the site continues saying that, “if Crocker was unable or unwilling to teach accurate science, and there is evidence of this, an institution would have been entirely justified in making a negative evaluation and not renewing her contract.” In other words, if Crocker isn’t willing to fully support neo-Darwinism in the classroom, then universities have the right to fire her. (See above for discussion of Crocker's extremely high student reviews that counter's the NCSE's mis-characterization of her teaching abilities.)
 When discussing Robert Marks, “Expelled Exposed” admits that ““Concerned that the material on the website misleadingly suggested a connection between the intelligent design material and Baylor, administrators temporarily shut the website down…”, thereby acknowledging precisely what Baylor University denied: that Marks faced negative treatment due to his work’s relation to ID. But since Marks still has a job at Baylor, “Expelled Exposed” asks “Where is the harm?,” as if shutting down faculty websites for no reason other than its pro-ID content is not a legitimate form of academic “harm.”
 “Expelled Exposed” says that SUNY Professor of Neurosurgery Michael Egnor "was shocked by the 'viciousness' and 'baseness' of the response" he received when critiquing neo-Darwinism on the internet. “Expelled Exposed” apparently tacitly defends such behavior, as its only response is, "Egnor had apparently never been on the Internet before."
 In perhaps its most blatant statement against academic freedom for ID-proponents, “Expelled Exposed” expressly argues that ID proponents “have failed to make a convincing case for it, yet they seem to believe that they have an entitlement to a place in academia.” In other words, because the NCSE believes that ID has “failed to make a convincing case,” it wants readers to come away from its website believing that ID proponents don't even have a right "to a place in academia.”
This argument turns the true meaning of academic freedom on its head.
Of course critics of ID (like the folks at the NCSE) should have every right to publish their views within academic circles and should have the full protection of academic freedom. But academic freedom doesn’t just mean the freedom to agree with the predominant viewpoint. Academic freedom in science means nothing if it doesn’t include the right to hold legitimate minority scientific viewpoints. ID proponents have published serious scientific research in mainstream, credible academic venues. Many of them have sterling academic qualifications and accomplishments. They have earned the right to freely express their views without fear of intimidation or discrimination.
“Expelled Exposed” is now exposed for what it really is: it’s not just a website making the case against ID (which is perfectly fine if that’s what ID critics want to do)—it’s a website attempting to convince people that ID deserves no academic freedom. In other words, “Expelled Exposed” is an effort to encourage the further persecution of ID-proponents.
Ironically, by denying that professionally qualified ID proponents have a right to "a place in academia,” “Expelled Exposed” has justified the central thesis of the documentary Expelled, namely that qualified ID proponents do not receive academic freedom to hold, discuss, and promote their views within the academy.

1"Republicans, Democrats Differ on Creationism

Republicans much more likely than Democrats to believe humans created as-is 10,000 years ago

by Frank Newport

Finns as a degenerate Mongolian race
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.

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 biology: http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Asian_Bioethics.pdf

[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:

"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 "
http://scienceblogs.com/shiftingbaselines/2008/04/meet_ben_stein_the_new_spokesm.php

Yahoo user 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."

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:

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.

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

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=M2M0M2ZiOWE4YzgwNDIyOTI5NWE4NGY1NTYxNmYxNzA =

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.
€€€

I think an analogous documentary film should also be made concerning the DINOGLYFS or dinolits: http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/dinosaur.htm
It seems that the ancient man not only saw but also documented the last megafauna (gigafauna, I should say).

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

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 ( go here).
-------------------------
Evolution/Creation: Layman's Reflections on Evolution and Creation. An Insiders View of the Academy
By James Tour
SOURCE: http://www.jmtour.com/?page_id=27

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/Blaise_Pascal), one of the finest scientists, mathematicians and inventors that the world has ever enjoyed, and also among the most well-respected and deepest thinking Christian apologists, wrote in his Pensées 463 , It is a remarkable fact that no canonical [biblical] author has ever used nature to prove God. They all try to make people believe in him. David, Solomon, etc., never said: There is no such thing as a vacuum, therefore God exists.They must have been cleverer than the cleverest of their successors, all of whom have used proofs from nature. This is very noteworthy.As Kreeft ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kreeft) points out in his commentary on Pascals Pensées, If the Scripture does not use nature to prove God, it cant be the best strategy. Notice that Pascal does not say that there are no good proofs of God or that none of them begin with data from nature. Elsewhere, he specifies merely that such proofs are psychologically weak, but he does not say they are logically weak. More important, they are salvifically weak, [meaning that] they will not save us. If nature proved God clearly, we would not have to search for him with all our hearts.Pascal further writes in his Pensées 429 , This is what I see that troubles me& Nature has nothing to offer me that does not give rise to doubt and anxiety&if there is a God supporting nature, she should unequivocally proclaim him, and that, if the signs in nature are deceptive, they should be completely erased; that nature should say all or nothing so that I could see what course I ought to follow.Though 350 years since Pascal penned his dilemma, as a modern-day scientist, I do not know how to prove ID using my most sophisticated of analytical tools. I share Pascals frustration. Wouldnt it have been wonderful if, when scientists had obtained the first molecular resolution images of human DNA, it had self-assembled (a thermodynamic process) into the Hebrew script to say, The God of Heaven and Earth was here.? But it did not, and I suppose that the wonder would have elicited no love from the skeptic anyway. Therefore, God seems to have set nature as a clue, not a solution, to keep us yearning for him.

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.

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/Richard_Dawkins), the unabashed leading proponent of neo-Darwinism and a professor at Oxford, has now suggested that any prospective student with a creationist worldview should be refused admittance to Oxford. Thus, non-conforming professors and students alike are to be muzzled. When the power-holders permit no contrary discussion, can a vibrant academy be maintained? Is there a University (unity in diversity)? For the United States, I pray that the scientific community and the National Academy in particular will investigate the disenfranchisement that is manifest upon some of their own, and thereby address the inequity.

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/Viktor_Frankl), a former Auschwitz inmate wrote in The Doctor and the Soul, that the source for much of the 20^th Centurys inhumanity has come from the very origins being discussed here.

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.

Pihalle nauretun ja kuulemma reputetun väitöskirjan kässärin painatusluvan perään kyselee nimimerkki 'Hätääntynyt vanhus!'

- Ja piirtää taas uuden päivän syksystä 2002 jatkuneeseen tukkimiehen kirjanpitoon.

(Rafaellon "leveäselkä-Platon" ja "Viisauden Kaivo" Aristoteles Ateenassa)

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.

Huuhaa-palkinnon perustelut

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.

Lisätietoja:

http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=432
http://www.natcenscied.org/
http://www.skepsis.fi/
http://www.hut.fi/Units/BioprocessEngineering/LSB.html

Sokrates-palkinnon perustelut

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."

"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.

Ystävällisin terveisin
Matti Leisola"

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.

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.
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Yliopistolehti.html
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Ylioppilas.htm
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!

Tämän aihetodisteen:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Indicator.html
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:

Ei Huu-Haa, vaan...
...Hii-Hoo! Ja vespa käyntiin Internetissä.

Laillista esivaltaa ja korruptoitumattoman tieteen eetosta palvellen,
Pauli.Ojala@gmail.com

Haihattelija? Minäkö haihattelija!
- Herge, Tuhatkaunon tapaus ja matka Kuuhun -