The Discovery Institute will show the movie “Darwin’s Dilemma” at 7 p.m. Tuesday at the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History. The movie discusses the Cambrian Explosion and the implications and problems it presents to Darwin’s theory. The museum released this statement pertaining to the event:
“The Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History is dedicated to science and to elucidating the remarkable evolutionary history of life on Earth. The museum actively engages in public programs, undergraduate and graduate education, outreach education and other efforts to increase the scientific literacy of visitors to the museum and the people of Oklahoma.
The museum does not support antiscientific views masquerading as science, such as those espoused by the Discovery Institute, although the museum respects the religious beliefs of all people. Moreover, the museum is obligated to rent its public space to any organization that is engaged in lawful activities, free speech and open discourse.
We invite everyone interested in an accurate description of how life developed over the last four billion years to visit our exhibits, which illustrate through real specimens and science, the fact of evolution as first described by Charles Darwin and that has been continually supported by all branches of science ever since that time. The museum also recommends that people interested in evolutionary science review the more than 1,000 publications by our curators and professional staff that are based in evolutionary biology. The museum does not discriminate against recognized campus organizations based on their religious beliefs, political philosophy, scientific literacy or any other factors. The museum’s many galleries of evolution will be open before and after the showing of the intelligent design film so that the public can learn there is no scientific controversy involved in evolutionary science’s explanation of the development and history of the Earth’s biodiversity.”
Furthermore, at 5 p.m., before the presentation of “Darwin’s Dilemma,” a presentation entitled “The Cambrian Explosion and the Burgess Shale: No Dilemma for Darwin” will be held. They will also provide free admission to the museum from 5 to 11 p.m. It is clear that the Sam Noble Museum is reluctantly facilitating the presence of the Discovery Institute and the showing of its documentary.
The reason for their aggressive, albeit passive statement, is because the documentary raises questions about the Cambrian era and how organisms came into being fully formed at the beginning of time.
The fossil record from that period does not readily support Darwin’s idea of gradual evolution and therefore raises problems with his theory.
It is a question that Darwin still hasn’t answered, even as his 200th birthday has come and gone.
This is why members of the scientific community at OU and in Norman are opposing the showing of the documentary. They have resorted to calling those interested in intelligent design “illiterate,” declaring that the Discovery Institute espouses “crap” rather than science.
The museum, through their statement, joined the opposition.
“The museum does not discriminate against recognized campus organizations based on their religious beliefs, political philosophy, scientific literacy or any other factors.”
This statement assumes that those presenting the documentary and supporting it must be religious, have conservative political views and lack scientific literacy, while disguising the museum’s malicious shot at those people and groups as tolerance.
The release also denies intelligent design as science, stating that “the museum does not support antiscientific views masquerading as science, such as those espoused by the Discovery Institute, although the museum respects the religious beliefs of all people.”
Again, the museum hides its opposition to the free exchange of ideas in jargon that makes it appear tolerant.
However, the museum’s actions, in surrounding the Discovery Institute presentation with pro-evolution events, reveal its true sentiments clearly.
The museum should not have opposed the event in this way. Rather than hijacking the night of the documentary presentation with an opposing seminar and free extra hours of operation, it should have let the event stand on its own.
And, rather than releasing a statement of vehement opposition, thinly veiled in tolerance, it should have said nothing.
OU and the surrounding halls of learning and education should be places of academic freedom and the open exploration of ideas.
Instead of fostering and working toward this ideal, the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History has chosen to align itself with the many mean-hearted voices that wish no one would hear any alternative outside of evolution, which, along with intelligent design, is just a theory at the end of the day.
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Print Story
Mail to Friend
More Stories
Comments
Amen.
The Discovery Institute had the choice where to show the film, and for some reason they chose Sam Noble over, say, Meacham Auditorium, a venue better suited for a movie. Why would they make that choice? If they really wanted the movie to "stand on its own," why would the choose a venue that is dedicated to the scientific community over a neutral venue such as theater?
"(...) any alternative outside of evolution, which, along with intelligent design, is just a theory at the end of the day."
I would like to highly as well that the department of physics is refusing to teach the controversial "Intelligent Falling" (IF) theory, barring the student to make an informed decision. Gravity, like evolution, is only a theory in crisis which is not internally consistent nor mathematically reconcilable with quantum mechanics. IF postulates that gravitation does not explain every aspects of the phenomenon and that consideration should be given to the fact that things fall because a higher intelligence is moving them. As one of the leading experts in the field adequately says:
"There's no way a weak force such as gravity can possibly hold everything onto the planet. It must be God, using our souls, to hold everything together."
Charles Darwin (again), feeling that his communist theories were endangered, felt the need to counter the forces of go(o)d and counter IF. One drunken night he wrote:
"What would the Astronomer say to the doctrine that the planets moved (not) according to the law of gravitation, but from the Creator having willed each separate planet to move in its particular orbit?"
Hey Darwinians,
Please spare us your emptyheaded and far too common squealing about the following of Sims' statements:
--It is a question that Darwin still hasn’t answered, even as his 200th birthday has come and gone.--
You know exactly what he means. Instead of wasting space and time with "Haha, m0r0|\|, Darwin's dead, yo!" or "evolution has changed a lot since Darwin's time", you could spend your time actually answering the challenge.
Or:
--evolution, which, along with intelligent design, is just a theory at the end of the day.--
It's possible, just possible, that Sims thinks evolution is NOT, like Dick Dawk likes to say, a scientific fact, and that it still has a ways to go to prove itself. It should be fairly obvious, really. Instead of wasting everyone's time whining about "theory really means fact, n00b", provide some actual evidence for it.
Right... a cheap documentary made by an antiscientific organization dedicated to undermining science through... nonscience is going to explode the scientific world with information scientists are conspiratorally trying to suppress because they hate Jesus. Sounds plausible to me.
Intelligent Design (Creationism) is not a scientific theory. It is a proposition that does not attempt to modify itself to include new evidence as it is presented, unlike scientific theories such as evolution and gravity, which have been modified repeatedly in light of new findings.
Intelligent Design also makes no predictions about phenomena that should be researched in the future, which would explain why the Sam Noble Museum of Natural History's staff scientists would oppose its presentation as science, as their research has been successful only because they have placed their confidence in the evolutionary theory, which has successfully explained their findings and led them in search of new discoveries.
Ooh, Rhology is getting quite uppity today. You've been told this an infinite number of times, Rhology, but luckily we don't need to justify the fact of evolution to you when you could just browse the thousands of papers on PubMed, none of which have ever contradicted the theory of evolution. Your refusal to interact with actual science, choosing instead to pick and snipe at people with lesser rhetorical skills than you while the enormous edifice of peer-reviewed facts is at your (probably quite unskilled) fingertips is more than a little pathetic, as is every single time when you're laughed off someone else's blog while spinning victory out of a lot of stupid semantic nonsense that passes for apologetics.
@Rhology
Hey m0r0|\|,
The facts you are looking for are described in books hold in any decent scientific library. For your own convenience, a team of architects and construction workers even built the Bizzell library on campus some time ago. There you will find the textbooks containing the (trivial) proofs you have been asking for.
I think this column hits the proverbial nail on the head. Darwinists reject the scientific and philosophical ethic of disinterested dialectic in the pursuit of truth. To them, Darwinism is the scientific mask for atheism, their one true creed and faith. That is why they relentlessly seek to stifle all dissent and criticism.
mythman - they chose a venue dedicated to the scientific community because the movie deals with science.
dio - nice straw man, but I don't think it carries much weight...
JJanowiak - nice ad hom... and nice red herring, but your hatred of Jesus should be discussed in a different forum.
oumotorcyclist - nice equivocation, but ID is not extrapolated from the Bible... As far as predictions and research go, look at http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_isidt... and http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sho...
--Intelligent Design also makes no predictions about phenomena that should be researched in the future
Yeeeesssss, b/c physicists get amazingly accurate results with their predictions. And evolutionary biologists so often are able to discern where fossils fit into their taxonomic schemes. And they never find new fossils and trumpet "the missing link!!!!!! finally!!!111", and are never proven wrong later on. B/c there's no controversy over taxonomy vs cladistics and whether it's possible to reconstruct ANY fossil timeline.
Besides, workable predictions do not make sthg true. That idea is based totally on pragmatism, and pragmatism as a philosophy has fatal flaws. Try again.
It's the museum of natural history...not supernatural history. By invoking a non-natural mechanism for "design" you're inherently going against the princples of the museum. I for one, applaud the museum for releasing this statement.
“Just a theory” is like nails on a chalkboard. It is a clear indicator of scientific ignorance! It astounds me that so many people are ignorant of the meaning of the words “science” and “theory.” Intelligent Design is NOT science or a theory! The museum had to take a stand against this presentation/movie, or their reputation in the scientific community would have been in jeopardy. SNOMNH is filled with amazing scientists that do REAL peer-reviewed research. The Discovery Institute is determined to undermine the legitimacy of real scientists. At the same time, as evident by their choice in venue, they seek legitimacy for themselves from those scientists. If anyone is offended by being called scientifically illiterate, there’s a simple solution: Become educated in real science!
@BrianCBiggs
Well, if you do not see the one-to-one relationship between IF and ID, then there is nothing I can do for you. By the way, after reading the links you submitted I reached a couple of conclusions:
- ID is not testable,
- ID is not falsifiable.
In other words ID is not a science, unlike evolution.
@Rhology
*Ahem* FYI, cladistics is a taxonomic system. "taxonomy vs cladistics" carries as much meaning as "cars vs vehicles". Try to work on your big words next time.
sjohnson said:
--It's the museum of natural history...not supernatural history. By invoking a non-natural mechanism for "design" you're inherently going against the princples of the museum.
That's the spirit of free inquiry! Just ignore everything that might have supernatural sources! There you go. You're really thinking outside the box.
VTGirl said:
--“Just a theory” is like nails on a chalkboard. It is a clear indicator of scientific ignorance!
Seriously, see my first comment. Couldn't you spare us, just this one time?
Rhology said:
"That's the spirit of free inquiry! Just ignore everything that might have supernatural sources! There you go. You're really thinking outside the box."
You've got a great point. Let's have lectures/movies on ghost hauntings, witchcraft, astral projection, and psychics. Heck, let's have a psychic perform, I mean "predict the future", at the museum as well. It might be "free inquiry" but that doesn't make it science, and it doesn't mean that it should be conducted in a place of science (e.g., a museum of natural history).
It's clear that the author doesn't understand that a theory in science has been tested by multiple scientists for years, decades, and in Darwin's case centuries. In science a theory is considered fact. To say it is just a theory is nonsense.
Most people use the word "theory" quite loosely in everyday language. Such as, "I have a theory about who ate my cereal." That's just saying you have a guess or a hypothesis. It hasn't been tested or proven correct or incorrect.
I think the museum felt the need to stand up for itself and for evolution because it was being lambasted by the scientific community for allowing Intelligent Design to be taught within its walls. The museum, rightly and fairly, defended itself. They mention that they don't discriminate against scientific literacy because as a museum, they are there to teach people about science who may not know much about it. That's the job of any museum; teaching people. To say they were being insulting is a vast assumption.
Finally, to say that the museum isn't fostering academic freedom is ridiculous at best. Why should a science museum teach about religion? We have churches and many other institutions for that. In my opinion, it's the Discovery Institute that doesn't foster academic freedom. If they did, they would allow people to believe in evolution without forcing Intelligent Design down their throats and insulting evolutionists by holding their documentary premiere in a hall of science. Perhaps the SNOMH should hold its next big evolution event in a church? I'm only guessing, but I bet that may insult a few Christians.
PS-The Cambrian actually shows evolution quite well. One of the reasons gradualism isn't so apparent is because the fossil record, as in any period, is incomplete. This is partly a result of there not being many organisms with hard-parts, such as bone, in the Cambrian and therefore they weren't preserved.
>
> a theory in science has been tested by multiple scientists
> for years, decades, and in Darwin's case centuries. In
> science a theory is considered fact. To say it is just a
> theory is nonsense.
>
"a theory is considered fact"....unbelievable!
The thinking here is remarkably fuzzy. First, we are told
that a theory is "tested" and then we are told that a "theory" is a "fact." But "facts" don't require
testing. So, the poster is contradicting himself.
Why not cite one--just one--"test" of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. In fact, you cannot, because the theory is untestable. The theory predicts
speciation by the accumulation of small changes from natural
selection over very long periods of time, and therefore cannot be tested in a human time frame. That's one reason its so controversial. Even with accelerated artificial selection, no one has ever produced a significant speciation event.
--One of the reasons gradualism isn't so apparent is because the fossil record, as in any period, is incomplete.
Darwinism of the gaps. We don't have the evidence, but we're just SURE it's out there. Somewhere.
--it's the Discovery Institute that doesn't foster academic freedom. If they did, they would allow people to believe in evolution without forcing Intelligent Design down their throats and insulting evolutionists
Forcing it down your throat? Is someone forcing you at gunpoint to attend? Please.
And I'm more concerned with freedom of debate and truth than "insulting" evolutionists. Pop on over to Pharyngula or ERV if you want to see insulting. And it ain't the ID-ers doing the insulting.
I believe the choice to hold the film "Darwin's Dilemma" at the Sam Noble Museum of History was a good choice. All "scientific theories" should have a forum. If the film is an attempt to veil religion under the guise of science, it will be apparent; however, the idea of scientific debate is a democratic idea, which allows all to voice their opinions. It will be left to the scientific community to deem these ideas as relevant to scientific discussion or as pure rubbish. We should not deem the opinion of others as ludicrous before even listening to their ideas.
Kale Tarron, Microbiology Senior.
@briareus
"and therefore cannot be tested in a human time frame"
Have you ever seen a dog or a sheep or a horse or even a cow in your life? Now go check what their ancestors looked like right after the last ice age, right before their domestication by humans. If you want a shorter time frame, then look at fruit flies and bacterias in laboratories, or even at the corn you eat everyday. Maybe you should also check how some drugs are developed...
>> "Even with accelerated artificial selection, no one has ever produced a significant speciation event."
How was your burger you ate the other day? Good? Then you should probably thank the science of animal husbandry and their "significant speciation events" obtained through "accelerated artificial selection". If you enjoy the company of a dog or if you ride horses then you should also thank the very same science.
@ Cambrian:
To be fair, it looked like Mr. Sims was just trying to balance out the Jerry Coynes and Richard Dawkins attitude of reverence toward neo-Darwinism and highlight that, just as gravity itself is open to inspection (unless you take Newton over Einstein), evolution ought to be on the table. We can't have a "no touching allowed" policy to the way we view biological origins. At the end of the day, every hypothesis will be shown to be wrong or insufficient to some measure.
[I will say, though, that I find this common anti-evolution "argument" to be as absurd as the evangelical atheists. But give Sims a break; that wasn't the tone of his article.]
Now, I must say that accusing the ID camp of pseudoscience in a video which you have not viewed seems somewhat presumptuous, particularly when a paleobiologist like Simon Conway Morris appears in it. Could you not be jumping the gun a bit? Just give them a chance. They're not going to be beating you down with a text. I think they are legitimately trying to analyze the evidence.
The major problem with the museum's response was not that they distanced themselves, but that they totally mocked the DI in the name of "tolerance." What a joke! Everyone knows they wouldn't be tolerating this if there wouldn't be PR repercussions. Apart from the academic freedom rants, the museum could sweep this out of their door and the university would probably look the other way. It's one thing to distance yourself from an idea. It's another to pretend that you actually respect it.
If they're wrong, engage their ideas and tell them why they're wrong (don't accuse them of blind, theological allegiance). If they're right, you shouldn't care who they offend in the interest of scientific progress.
PS-The soft-bodied argument might work if most of the Cambrian fauna wasn't soft-bodied. Or if they didn't find fossilized embryos. Checks it: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab...
^^^
Except for the fact that ID has been shown for decades to be nothing but misinformation. ID is not science, and shouldn't be treated as such.
"The thinking here is remarkably fuzzy. First, we are told
that a theory is "tested" and then we are told that a "theory" is a "fact." But "facts" don't require
testing. So, the poster is contradicting himself."
A theory begins as a hypothesis. This hypothesis is tested, and if it holds against a large amount of tests and explains a lot of phenomena, then it becomes a theory, which is pretty much the highest level in the "hierarchy or ideas." Gravity is another theory, but you don't see anyone challenging that.
Even if evolution is wrong (it isn't) how can ID be tested like evolution can? Since it assumes a creator, it makes studying nature pretty boring and brings up lots of contradictions.
Unfortunately Rhology, like most kooks and cranks, doesn't realize how the unconverted see his ridiculous and stupid antics on blogs like ERV (an HIV/making fun of creationism blog run by an OUHSC grad student). Please do jump over to ERV so you can see Rho's game played identically over and over again until his mental illness really starts to show. There's no real debate to be had with this robot whose theological beliefs are for more insane than his mild antiscientific attitude. Insults are the only kind of reasonable response to his total disengagement from reality. With his internet-debater ethos, however, any kind of comment about the man will automatically concede the truth of ID to him because of "ad hominem" attacks - a Pyrrhic victory if he would ever wonder why every single pro-science individual has had to give up discussing with his obstinate, stupid, anti-rational rants.
I say we have a fair on the South Oval of other commonly held beliefs that were considered "science" yet were never proven, but rather disproven- a model displaying that the world is flat, a model of Earth at the center of the universe, spontaneous generation, etc. C'mon, it'll be fun!
@JJanowiak
Well said!
Satan at work: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/natur...
Janowiak,
You really are a sad piece of work.
You will search in vain for anything I've written in quite some time in which I claim some kind of victory b/c of ad hominem attacks. But by all means, go see how the open-minded and tolerant denizens of ERV treat me.
You said:
--there's no real debate to be had with this robot whose theological beliefs are for more insane
To make such a statement, I presume you have an objective standard for insanity and rationality. What is it?
(I know from past experience that you are prepared in no way to answer this kind of question. I just like to pose it repeatedly to show how vapid your "objections" are.)
Also, perhaps there are others who are a little more courageous and like to actually put their position to the test against someone who disagrees. I've seen little evidence that you are even capable of understanding the challenges I pose, so keep on doing what you're doing. You're lagging way behind the ERV peeps in the profanity department, though - need to work on that.
I wish people here would stop referring to the "theory" of gravity. There is no such thing...which just goes to show how little science many evolutionist/atheists really understand. There is Newton's Theory or Law of Universal Gravitation. But it was most certainly not obvious to people at the time that an unseen and invisible force acting at a distance without any apparent physical mechanism could account for the movements of the planets. There was nothing obvious about it, and even Newton felt the need to address the issue with a disclaimer in Principia.
@briareus
"There is no such thing [as a theory of gravity]...which just goes to show how little science many evolutionist/atheists really understand. There is Newton's Theory (...) of Universal Gravitation."
I know some physicists who are laughing at you right now. Anyway, can you see how badly you contradict yourself in two sentences or do you want someone to draw it for you?
Can I propose that we teach the moon landing hoax theory to all high school students?
I mean it is a "theory". Shouldn't we explore all possible ideas an present them as possibilities?
Oh wait, that would be silly!
And so is this.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.