The researchers believe the similarity in lung structure may explain why some animals were better able to adapt after the extinction, when oxygen levels dropped.

“We know that birds are really good at breathing in hypoxic conditions. They can fly at altitudes that would kill a mammal,” said Dr Farmer.

“Many archosaurs, such as pterosaurs, apparently were capable of sustaining vigorous exercise. Lung design may have played a key role in this capacity.

“That’s been a puzzle, why do birds have these very different lungs? But now we can date it back to the common ancestor of birds and crocodilians.

From the BBC article. (See also NewScientist.)

Whatever else Texas may have going for it, teaching religion in science class is inexcusable, whether or not it’s dressed in the deceptive language of intelligent design.  My (very) conservative Catholic grandma believes that evolution and faith are compatible.  Plenty of people do.  That’s because they are compatible.  The evolution vs. creation debate is less about that issue than it is about cultural dominance in general. It’s just one battleground chosen in the ongoing culture wars.

Needless to say, you should just go read it:

When the overwhelming scientific consensus points to evolutionary biology as the explanation for life, Christians have two choices.  They can say that this is consistent with their religion (God created everything including the field of evolutionary biology); or they can attempt to subvert the overwhelming consensus to fit their own narrative. Conservative institutions like, say, the Catholic Church have chosen the former over the latter.

From “Roger Ebert, Ben Stein, and the culture wars”.

Researchers in the science journal Nature say the discovery of the footprints of a crocodile-like creature has led them to rethink our understanding of the evolution of life.

They don’t really say why exactly this is making them rethink things (no dates, etc.) I would be skeptical if the first fish on land had feet rather than fins, but maybe that’s the point.

In other words, the other 11 populations may have evolved through different beneficial mutations to the same outcome, in terms of increased survival. If that is true, then there would be no evolutionary pressure in the 11 populations to evolve a mutation that would be superfluous or perhaps even harmful.

From the paper itself:

The latter explanation adds historical contingency, such that the likelihood of a particular outcome is conditional on whether some other event has already occurred.

This is essentially what Neil Shubin says in Your Inner Fish concerning the evolution of bodies: that organisms had the DNA to evolve them but weren’t able to until the advent of significant amounts of oxygen in the atmosphere.

When I get a chance to read the paper itself, I’ll try to post my impressions.

Leslie Tomory, who has just finished a PhD in the history of science and technology at the University of Toronto, has an excellent piece entitled “The shock and awe of creation.” In it he takes aim at the idea that evolution is inherently atheistic (an idea he labels “evolutionism”) and examines the roots of philosophical resistance to evolution.

The science of evolutionary biology is very well established, and the residual tension between religion and evolutionary biology harms both. On one hand, it makes the scientific work evolutionary biologists suspect in the eyes of many, and on the other, it makes religion appear like a regressive force. It is far better to reject the bundling of evolutionary biology with evolutionism, the real crux of the problem, than to wage a war over the minutiae of evolutionary biology, which should not be problematic from a religious point of view. Finally, accepting theistic evolution does not diminish the beauty and awe we can feel when contemplating God’s creation. On the contrary, God’s is manifest in his works, including in evolution.

This is exactly the sort of thought that we need in the struggle to combine these two fields in the popular mind.

A useful corollary to this article would be one examining the idea of God’s ordinary providence as paradox. The universe functions according to it’s own rules, yet it could not function without God. God is more directly involved than a watchmaker with his machine, yet at the same time less involved.

But, until I find or write said article, you can start by reading “The shock and awe of creation.”

Forty years into our unique lifelong experiment,we believe that Dmitry Belyaev would be pleased with its progress. By intense selective breeding, we have compressed into a few decades an ancient process that originally unfolded over thousands of years. Before our eyes,“the Beast” has turned into “Beauty,” as the aggressive behavior of our herd’s wild progenitors entirely disappeared. We have watched new morphological traits emerge, a process previously known only from archaeological evidence. Now we know that these changes can burst into a population early in domestication,triggered by the stresses of captivity, and that many of them result from changes in the timing of developmental processes. In some cases the changes in timing, such as earlier sexual maturity or retarded growth of somatic characters,resemble pedomorphosis.

There are also videos of the foxes here and here. Finally, a slightly more up-to-date article (though still three years old) from the New York Times.

I’m with Myers on this:

They too briefly showed a blind depigmented cichlid that apparently lives in very deep troughs in the river — I wanted to see more about that. It’s probably out of the question to send divers down into that maelstrom, but cameras? Someday? Please?

Obviously, I could not help being somewhat biased as I entered the showing, seeing my previous comments on the film.  I did, however, attempt to maintain as open a mind as possible to Expelled. Hopefully that will be apparent in this post.  Let us then begin.

The Presentation

A good place to start is my first impressions, which were less about the content of Expelled than about its filmmaking.  From the very beginning, it was obvious how well made the whole project was.  Make no mistake, this was no half-budget, slipshod operation.  While it didn’t quite achieve the indie feel that the opening sequence was clearly going for, the entire movie was enjoyable to watch.  (Though I personally don’t like the camera-bouncing-while-moving cinematography that was often employed.)

The order and flow of the documentary was great, guided along by Ben Stein’s narration of his investigation into the controversy.  He often says things such as, “this led me back to X to ask him about Y,” making it very easy to follow.

The one major problem I had with the filmmaking was the injection of short scenes, generally from older films or movies, into the narrative.  For example, while Stein is talking about how some scientists have been “expelled” for their views, it cuts to a clip of three men pushing another man around before hitting him.  By far the most common image, however, was film from the Berlin Wall.  The connection the producers were trying to make was to the “wall” that Darwinists have built to keep ID out.  There were also numerous images from the Nazi and Soviet states.

The problem with injecting such clips is that it detracts from the main argument that Expelled sought to convey.  Clips of the Soviets or Nazis are inherently emotional, designed to create a certain impression in the viewer.  While this emotional content may have succeeded in getting people worked up about the issue, the clips detracted from any potential academic or intellectual appeal the movie could have held.

(My roommate, correctly, points out that such emotional appeal is going to be inherent in the film medium.  In all likelihood a film created by atheistic evolutionists would have similar, though opposite, film clips.)

The Scientists

The film begins with stories about a number of scientists who have been “expelled” for their beliefs in Intelligent Design.  This section is well, and carefully, put together. If you just watch the film, it makes a very persuasive argument.  There is, however, more to each of these cases than was presented.  I’ll leave it up to Expelled Exposed to cover the facts here.

That doesn’t necessarily mean, of course, that Expelled is completely wrong in its assertion.  I would not be surprised at all if the scientists’ views on ID did have an effect on their situations.  In the end, this is just as much a problem created by the ID community itself in the way it has approached the situation as it is with the scientific community.

Facts, Evidence, and Definitions

One thing to remember about Expelled is that it does not present any evidence about whether Darwinism or ID is correct.  It is not a scientific film and should not be considered as such; never does it present a compelling argument from either side. This is somewhat ironic after the statement by one of the ID supporters that in the end the debate will be settled by the evidence. (In light of this, it is also somewhat unfair of the film to mock theories put forth by scientists about the origins of life.  Without examining the evidence and presenting opposing theories, such ideas can’t be adequately judged.)

Without presenting evidence, Expelled spent most of the time talking about the vaguely titled movements of “Darwinism” and “Intelligent Design.” There are two things to note here.  First, the term “Darwinism” is consistently used, with no reference to later developments in evolutionary theory.  While it is true that Darwin fathered the modern idea of evolution, there have been great strides in scientific knowledge since his time.  The term “Darwinism” is a very powerful and very stereotyped reference to evolutionists.

Second, the film never defines exactly what Intelligent Design means, other than what can be inferred from those two words.  Interviews throughout the film speak of how ID is very broad, including many ideas.  What isn’t stated is that one of those ideas can be the acceptance of biological evolution.  For example, many ID proponents may have no problem with most of “Darwinism,” while believing that a designer intervened at some point to move the process along.

This becomes very important when the film speaks of Darwinism as causing a devaluation of human life.  What of ID proponents who still believe in evolution?  Unless such ID beliefs also devalue human life, not something the producers would want to say, then the problem isn’t with evolution.  Instead, the problem is with atheism, and that is a completely different fight.

I find it puzzling that the producers spend so much time distinguishing between ID and creationism and yet still don’t mention that ID proponents may accept many of the ideas of evolution.

Christians and Evolution

At one point during the documentary, it is mentioned that one can be both religious and believe in Darwinism.  It proceeds, however, to say that this is less common than the Darwinists say it is.  Where they get that idea from, I don’t know.  I attend a Christian college that is by no means liberal and yet I know plenty of students who hold to the theory of evolution.  (Not to mention the entire Roman Catholic Church.)

Even the National Academy of Sciences, an institution demonized by anti-evolutionists, states clearly that religion and science are not at all incompatible.  The problem is that Expelled depends heavily on arguments from Richard Dawkins, who is not exactly the best example of a moderate.  In fact, as my friend pointed out, Dawkins is almost a straw man for the Darwinist viewpoint.

On the Nazi Connection

If there is one part of Expelled that I vehemently disagree with, it is the use of the Nazi example.  Clearly, the Nazi regime did embrace the idea of Social Darwinism (a term, coincidentally, never mentioned in the movie).  This does not mean, however, that Darwinism was the cause of the movement.  For the most part I will, again, leave the facts to Expelled Exposed.

Still, there are several things to note.  First is that, just as with the interjected film clips, the Hitler argument is not helping the film achieve any academic or intellectual superiority.  All it succeeds in doing is demonizing the opponents, while failing to address the topic of the “expelled” scientists.

Second, the assertion made in the film that Darwinism is a “necessary condition” for the atrocities is patently false.  I’m not denying that Darwism can be linked to Nazism through Social Darwinism and eugenics.  There are plenty of examples, however, of atrocities committed by religious people that had nothing to do with Darwinism (the Crusades, the Inquisition, the KKK, Rwanda, Darfur).   There are also plenty of examples of Darwinists who have not committed atrocities. The assertion of an inherent connection between Darwinism holds little value for the film and is in no way persuasive.

Science and Worldviews

With all that said, did the film have any good points?  It did, in fact.  One of the best points was made by a scientist Stein interviewed who expressed the view that both Darwinists and ID proponents bring their worldviews to the table before the data.  The Darwinists may tend to look for evidence that supports the worldview that their is no design evident in creation.  The ID proponents may look for design anywhere in science.  What is needed instead is a careful look at the data.

What About That Freedom?

Finally, the main assertion of the film is that freedom is being suppressed by the scientific community and this is damaging to our country.  Here Expelled fails to acknowledge several things.  First, no one is suppressing freedom in the Constitutional sense.  The ID proponents can (and are, as evidenced by the film) still speaking out.  Second, no one has guaranteed freedom of expression in the scientific journals.  They are private enterprises, allowed to choose what they publish, which they do by peer review in the scientific community.

At some point, the scientific community has to decide what will or will not be published.  If someone tried to publish an article about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, everyone would be outraged.  The argument that all scientific journals should publish ID ideas, without stating what those ideas are or whether they are even valid, is not compelling.  It lies in the scientific communities hands to decide what qualifies as science and should be published, which it does through a variety of means.  If it decides that ID is not to be published, we can hardly accuse it of suppressing freedom.

Conclusion

Where does Expelled leave us, then?  Nowhere, really.  The movie makes no compelling case one way or another. It only succeeds in making the scientific community angry at ID proponents and the ID proponents angry at the scientific community.  In addition to this, it makes several misleading connections between Darwinism and world problems which most definitely get us nowhere.

Your reaction to Expelled will probably depend on your views on ID before the movie. If you consider ID to be a valid approach, you will be horrified at what the film “reveals.”  If you are skeptical, or worse, about ID then you will find little value in Expelled. In the end , the movie accomplishes very little.