The documentary went a bit into this: one likely answer appears to be that the creationists have better PR.

Biologists and science advocates don't do a good job of popularizing evolution, and they don't do a good job of boiling down the evidence to a pithy, memorable phrase. They always want to explain everything--which is admirable, but it doesn't do the PR job.

The creationists, in contrast, use their huge funding resources to hire fancy PR firms who figure out the best way to present their side.  For example, they develop talking points.  "Teach the Controversy."  "No New Information."  "Gaps in the fossil record."  Everybody in their bloc all up and down the line from Kirk Cameron to the local schoolboard administrator to the kids who made their GodTube video on the Museum of Natural History all use these phrases (and others) consistently.  All of these phrases have counter-arguments that are convincing, but people don't remember that: they just remember the slogan. 

 So by spending their money on PR rather than scientific research, they circumvent the scientific review process and sell their position directly to the public.

The judge of the Dover trial possibly plagerizing for a speech constitutes proof that goddidit?  I'm confused.

Plus, given DI's history concerning honesty and integrity, if they told me the sun is going to rise in the east tomorrow morning, I'd set my alarm and put a compass next to it just to make sure. 

That's funny.  The documentary Flock of Dodo's mentioned the Discovery Institute as the main political action (not scientific) force behind the teaching of creation/ID in schools. 

The documentary showed the difference between the multi-million dollar budget of the Discovery Institute (partly funded by Reverend Moon, btw) and the comparatively tiny budget of their main freethought rivals, the National Center for Science Education. 

Finally, the film made the point that instead of spending their huge budget on actual scientific research, the Discovery Institute spends its money on media and hiring expensive PR firms to get its message out.  They are the source of all those pithy talking points like "teach the controversy" that all the ID drones spout.

If you actually investigate the Discovery Institute, you'll find that although a lot of its bigwigs have Ph.D.'s, they're mostly not in biology.  They have a mathematician, a chemist, that one Australian biologist who's still pushing the "feathers are irreducibly complex" argument, and Behe.

Well, I am part of the scientific community, and I say the Discovery institute is a site of quacks and frauds. I have read the literature on ID. I have read Darwin's Black Box, as well as corresponded with Behe, Dembski and Ross. (None of whom has responded in months) I remember the Dover trial where Behe tried to convince the jury that ID was fact based on the lack of evidence for the evolution of the complex immune system.

He was presented with nine books and fifty eight journal articles on immunology from qualified professionals. He first dismissed them as unfruitful, then when pressed admitted he had not read them. Dishonesty at its peak.

 

As a biologist, I am embarassed that someone of Behe's credentials is promoting this nonsense. Just out of boredom, I personally shredded one of Behe's examples of Irreducible Complexity here:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/yellow_number_five/evolution_of_life/5975

 

42 is only a handful, a pitiful handful, really. "Strength in numbers" is something that the ID/creationist should not bring up when compared to respectable scientific institutions. For instance, the top 75 scientific institutions who have signed a petition against Intelligent Design all have over 500,000 members. Just for fun, you should look at this hilarious prank started by the worlds most respected scientific instituion, the NCSE:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve

[MOD EDIT - fixed link] 

History is abound with true stories of a pitiful handful of people or even mere individuals going against ridiculous odds in various situations be it military, political, ethical or religious and eventually succeed and in given situations, been proven to be right all along, even when everybody else didn't or refused to believe or support them.

Now i'm not saying that ID proponents are like the 300 spartans, but what I am saying is that might does not automatically mean right and that strenght in numbers doesn't necessarily mean strenght in reason.  Just imagine how much scientific advancement was stunted by the fanatical religious institutions during the dark ages.  They did so because they didn't give the scientists during their time  an opportunity to air their views and an environment for meaningful scientific exchange.  Denouncing creationism outright without even a formal series of debates held in a national scale would be like declaring yourself the winner of the war even before any major battles are fought.

I long to see the day when a nationally televised series of  debates between theism/ID and atheism would be aired, with the major news networks covering them.  That way the pertinent views aired in this and other forums would be given the attention due them.  Oh there have been skirmishes before with both sides claiming victory, but none really at the level of even the US presidential debates.  Its possible that it will never happen actually, but one can always hope for the best.

Btw, i noticed deludedgod that you only comment on certain portions of my responses.  Does that mean that you agree with those portions that you didn't comment on?  Or am i being overly optimistic?

You don't have to believe me, or the documentary.  You can check out the Discovery Institute's own mission statement on it's Web site, www.discovery.org:

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the word "science" anywhere in their mission statement.  I also don't see the word "research."  Their own materials appear to be telling us that they are a PR organization, and not a scientific one.

According to their 2005 form 990, which is available from your library's Web site as public information because they are a 501(3)(c) charity, their income from 'public support' for that year was $2,784,188 (although they spent over 3.8 million that year). Bruce Chapman, their president, was paid over $144K in compensation that year.  Their highest-paid employees have titles like "program director" "program policy director" and "program manager," but not "researcher."  I got this info directly off the pdf of their tax form.

I found this information with five minutes of Web searching.  If I were a trained journalist with access to a real Lexus-Nexis database, I could find out everything I wanted to know about the income and expenditures of any non-profit in the country.

Not at all.  I do it all the time.

My point is that it is wrong to think of the Discovery Institute as a scientific research organization.  It is a public relations organization.

Deludedgod already amply handled the point that 42 scientists is a laughable number.  42 scientists from different fields is good for a community college, not for a scientific movement.  It's actually good evidence that they don't have any support from the legitimate scientific community. 

 

Speaking of the Discovery Institute, has anybody checked out the "Cascadia" project on their Web site?  Apparently they have this big project afoot to build a high speed train from Vancouver to California?

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

Maybe it's part of some clever plan to show that Intelligent Design must be true.  If the train to Vancouver has a designer, God must exist.

Has anyone seen the documentary that I was talking about?   " Flock of Dodos: Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus"

This is basically what I was talking to you guys about and then some idiot called "

curiousjorge050476"Decided to take my welcoming by you guys and turn it into  somthing really really bad.If anyone recalls I am Joe Moe, I am a Roman Catholic, and after a bit of research, was suprised about how much we had in common. The debate between the "Intelligent Designers" and normal rational human beings, the "evolutionists", has sparkeda particular interest in me, and watching Kelly and Chris debate asshole Kirk Cameron and his asshole partner really made me think twice about what the hell I was doing!      When I left off last time, there were at least 3 of your members who said they were going to try to see the movie/documentary "Flock of Dodos: Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus", a documentary by Randy Olson. (Olson is on your side BTW)      I looked up my responders last time and no one seemed to have responded.      The main reason that I am so interested is because of how much I agree with you, and how different we appear to be. I have faith, I don't think that that makes me a retard or anything, it has helped me through some hard times. You guys don't believe in any higher power, especially that of any organized religion, and we still have alot in common.       I believe the Intelligent Designers are a bunch of fucking retards. You Agree. It is a ridiculous way of trying to circumvent the laws pertaining to the separation of church and state. The want to teach children that there is an amazing force out there who has designed life in all aspects. The rational people of the world know that there is a scientific explanation for these things, and evolution is a fact! Not a theory, a fact! The people who make the books need to stop calling it the "theory" of evolution, and start calling it "Evolution, the fact that is the basis for all life." The money situation is ridiculous, $700,000 /year budget for the holy rollers to smash ID down everyones throats, and about $50,000 to get the word out about evolution sciences.    For everyone who has no idea about who I am and what I have had to say before, I will let you know again. I am a Roman Catholic, I have faith in God. I do, however believe in the realism of this world, and the scientific facts that exist to better our knowlege of everything.    I hope someone has seen this movie, and I hope you respond to me with an open mind, I am not the enemy. The fact that I have faith, and agree with you on most of your issues only makes you stronger!!Joe Moe

I was one of the first to see Flock of Dodos when it premiered at Darwin Day earlier this year. I wasn't impressed by it at all. It was being shown as part of the Darwin Day festivities so I assumed it was going to be a documentary explaining evolution, but it turned out to be about the evolution/creation "controversy." I think the documentary gives way too much time for the creationists to spew their nonsense and assumes the viewer already knows enough about evolution to answer the creationist's ridiculous claims.

 

People just need to be properly educated about what a scientific theory actually is. 

As for you making us stronger, while I certainly commend you for speaking out against creationism, when you say you're a Catholic who supports science it sounds similar to me as if you told me that you're a good Nazi.

This is the sort of thinking I'd expect from fundies. You may not like Catholics, AtheistInWonderland, but lumping in science supporting Catholics in with "good" Nazis speaks of a narrow mind that thinks in absolutes. You're like my Dad who thinks bra ads in the newspaper are pornography.

Oh, and Goodwin's law says you loose the argument.

 Typo: "The Case for A Creator." Not "The Case for the Creator."

 Sure it explains it from an atheist position. Evolution is dead. New discoveries are pointing to an intelligent creation. This is clearly a sign from God as we approach the end of history. He's giving people one last chance.

 Since you have an interest in molecular biology, explain this one:

 

Chemical Evolution: The Problem Of Improbable Proteins

Let’s attempt a calculation of the likelihood of the formation of a single protein by random chemical reactions within a hypothesized “primordial soup” on the primitive Earth. For a relatively short protein of just 100 amino acids, we can calculate a separate probability in relation to each of five specific difficulties.

1. Cells select from a list of just 20 specific amino acids to make proteins. But many other varieties of amino acids also exist. For example, some 70 different amino acids have been discovered in meteorites, which astronomers suggest could have delivered extraterrestrial organic compounds to the primordial soup. Using that figure, the chance of a given amino acid in the chain being an allowable one would be ; the probability of the whole protein being composed of allowable amino acids would be .
   
2. Most amino acids exist in equal amounts of two alternate forms (“isomers”), referred to as left- and right-handed (or L- and D-). But proteins are made from only L-amino acids. Each amino acid added to the growing protein has only chance of being an L-isomer. (Actually, since glycine exists in one form only, the probability can be stated more correctly as , assuming equal concentrations of all the types of amino acid.) For the whole protein, then, the chance of all amino acids being proper isomers is .
   
3. Amino acids in proteins are joined together by a specific linkage called an a-peptide bond. The a-amino group of one amino acid is linked by dehydration synthesis to the a-acid group of the other amino acid — that is, the reacting functional groups must be the ones attached to the central carbon (a-carbon) of the amino acid. But some amino acids have more than one acid group or amino group (or polar nitrogen acting like an amino group). Among the standard twenty amino acids, the total number of such groups not attached to an a-carbon is about ten. We can therefore approximate the chance of forming a correct bond between amino acids as . The total number of such bonds will be 99, so the probability of all bonds being the correct a-peptide bond is .
   
4. The “primordial soup” must certainly contain other organic compounds in addition to amino acids, including amino compounds with no acid group, organic acids with no amino group, and many others. Let us generously estimate the chance that every compound within the chain would be an amino acid (and not some other molecule) as . The probability of the entire chain consisting only of amino acids would then be .
   
5. Protein function requires that only certain amino acids are usable in at least some portion of the protein. In some cases, a mutation that changes even one amino acid in the active site of an enzyme will destroy the function of that enzyme. Supposing, rather generously, that only 5 amino acid sites out of 100 in our protein are critical, and that any of 4 amino acids will be acceptable in such locations, the probability of obtaining a functional protein will be .
   

Combining all of these independent probabilities related to the forming of one short protein molecule by random chance processes, we estimate the overall probability as

=

Now, it has recently been determined that a minimal functioning cell (an obligate parasite) must have no fewer than 265 protein-coding genes (Clyde A. Hutchison III, Scott N. Peterson, Steven R. Gill, Robin T. Cline, Owen White, Claire M. Fraser, Hamilton O. Smith, J. Craig Venter. 1999 [Dec 10]. “Global Transposon Mutagenesis and a Minimal Mycoplasma Genome.” Science, Vol. 286, pp. 2165-2169). Assuming that each gene codes for a single protein, this implies that the cell requires at least 265 proteins to operate as a “living cell.” In that case, considering proteins only, the probability of a complete living cell coming into being through random, chance processes would be

If we ponder that the whole universe is estimated to consist of only about subatomic particles, that fewer than seconds have elapsed since the alleged “Big Bang,” and that mathematicians reckon that an event with a probability of less than is effectively impossible, the above calculation easily destroys any hope whatsoever of a random, chance chemical origin of life! (It’s interesting that the noted astronomer Fred Hoyle arrived at a similar figure of through a different route [1981. Evolution from Space. New York: Touchstone. p. 24].)

Of course, many biomolecules other than proteins are required for a fully functioning cell to be able to metabolize nutrients and reproduce itself. The above calculations have considered only proteins, and have not looked at carbohydrates (needed by cells as nutrients), lipids (constituents of cell membranes), or nucleic acids (extremely complex information molecules such as DNA and RNA, found in all cells).

A further difficulty is that random chemical reactions are more likely to lead to the destruction of any partly-formed protein than to its continuing increase in size! As stated by evolutionary biologist and Nobel laureate George Wald: “In the vast majority of the processes in which we are interested the point of equilibrium lies far over toward the side of dissolution. That is to say, spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis” (Scientific American, Aug 1954, pp. 44, 49-50).

 

Article from: www3.telus.net/csabc/

 

I'm not atheist. 

People have taken my comment way out of proportion:

 A Catholic who supports science is a contradiction like being a good Nazi is a contradiction is what I meant by that. A Catholic believes some things that are contrary to what science tells us. A Nazi believes some things that are contrary to what most of society has agreed upon is good. I never compared anyone to a Nazi...sheesh.