Expelled(Ben Stein Documentary)

[James]

Both of you guys are debating the minutiae of evolution and it seems that your issues with it have more to do with semantics than any actual real disagreement. That being said, you are both well spoken (written?) and it has been a pleasure to read this on my snowy NYE morning. Sevtt, you definitely threw in some barbs there that took away from focus from your argument. Civility in an intelligent debate such as this one is so valuable. Thanks for bringing up the strawman fallacy, I had somebody try to put words in my mouth recently and I couldn't remember the name of the fallacy and ended up with a lame retort in comparison to what I would have had. Also, quoting Inigo Montoyo (or anyone from The Princess Bride) should be the opposite of Godwin's Law. Once you have used a quote from The Princess Bride you have automatically won the argument.

Good day,
James

 

[e.muehlbauer]

Alfredo- If you look in any dictionary, you will see that most words have multiple meanings. Such is the case with theory. You are insisting on one particular definition, yet that definition does not apply to evolution, gravity, quantum mechanics, etc. Insisting on your definition while talking with a scientist would be like asking an oncologist who just told you that you have cancer why your astrological sign should matter. I wouldn't say that comparing the difinitions of evolution is like comparing apples and oranges, but it is like comparing grapefruits and oranges. Of all issues in presenting evolution, convincing lay people that theory has a specific definition that is different from the one they use on a daily basis is the hardest thing. As for the origin of life...evolution is an explanation of how life has existed, continues to exist and maintain itself. The origin of life is not a matter of evolution, but of chemistry. Evolution would then take it from there.

 

[Alfredo De La Fe]

I know the definition of theory, my point is that regardless of the word used to label it, evolution is still an unproven idea. Sure, there are many different pieces of the puzzle that science has put forward, some of which fit together, but using the analogy of a very large puzzle, the pieces which we have are of the "sky" and we do not even have the box cover to guide us so we do not even have an idea of what the end result of the completed puzzle should look like.

I personally think that variation and adaptation of any given kind (or species) is part of the design of that particular species programming. I also think that many of the changes which are cited as proof of evolutionary theory are adaptation or "evolution within a species" and that they happen in much shorter time periods than proposed. It took hundreds of years to develop the domesticated canine and it took only a few generations to develop specific dog breeds by selective breeding. But this does not necessarily prove evolutionary theory, only that a kind/species can adapt to it's environment and that specific traits can be isolated for breeding purposes.

Alfred

Alfredo- If you look in any dictionary, you will see that most words have multiple meanings. Such is the case with theory. You are insisting on one particular definition, yet that definition does not apply to evolution, gravity, quantum mechanics, etc. Insisting on your definition while talking with a scientist would be like asking an oncologist who just told you that you have cancer why your astrological sign should matter. I wouldn't say that comparing the difinitions of evolution is like comparing apples and oranges, but it is like comparing grapefruits and oranges. Of all issues in presenting evolution, convincing lay people that theory has a specific definition that is different from the one they use on a daily basis is the hardest thing. As for the origin of life...evolution is an explanation of how life has existed, continues to exist and maintain itself. The origin of life is not a matter of evolution, but of chemistry. Evolution would then take it from there.

 

[e.muehlbauer]

But what you are citing IS proof of evolution! Evolution has been proven time and time again...in fact, nothing has yet come up or been discovered that in any way disproves any aspect of evolution.

 

[Alfredo De La Fe]

No. What has been proven are specific pieces of the puzzle.

Imagine if you were arrested of a crime simply because you match the description of the criminal- your approximate age, race, height and build. We can even go as far as to cite other pieces of circumstantial evidence- the crime occurred in New York and you live in NY, the criminal drove away in a car, while no description could be given of the car, you own a car, add to this the fact that you claim that you were home sick with the flu and do not have any witnesses as to your whereabouts, perhaps you may even have a book at home about a subject that touches on the crime (let's say a detective novel where a similar plot was used).

All of the above "pieces" to the puzzle certainly fit, but they may not belong to the puzzle we are trying to put together and we do not even know how many pieces any of the puzzles contain or if we even have enough pieces to be able to put together one of the puzzles. There still is not enough evidence (hopefully) to convict. The same holds true for evolutionary theory. We certainly have many pieces on the table, but we are not sure from how many puzzles nor are we sure when each of the puzzles is supposed to look like. In fact, many of the pieces are interchangable and could easily fit into any number of theories or variations thereof.

Alfred

But what you are citing IS proof of evolution! Evolution has been proven time and time again...in fact, nothing has yet come up or been discovered that in any way disproves any aspect of evolution.

 

[Alfredo De La Fe]

I wanted to add something...

Imagine we take eight 100,000 and twelve 50,000 piece puzzles of the skyline of 20 major cities in North America, mix them all together, discard 50% of the pieces and give them to a group of six year olds to put together without the benefit of even one of the pictures. This problem is infinitely simpler to solve than the issues underlying the origin of life problems being addressed and our abilities in the grand scheme of things is not much better than the group of six year olds trying to figure out 20 large, incomplete and similar puzzles.

Alfred

 

[SevTT]

I know the definition of theory, my point is that regardless of the word used to label it, evolution is still an unproven idea.

Okay, let me put this another way: A scientific theory is a sufficiently accurate model of the way that a certain aspect of the world works. Scientific theories are Deep Mysteries: they allow you to predict the future, see the past, and know the unknowable. If a model is sufficiently accurate that it can predict that which is otherwise unknowable -- the existence of black holes, frame dragging, or the electrochemical behavior of a certain molecule.

Also, evolution happening is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is different; that addresses the how, not the is.

Sure, there are many different pieces of the puzzle that science has put forward, some of which fit together, but using the analogy of a very large puzzle, the pieces which we have are of the "sky" and we do not even have the box cover to guide us so we do not even have an idea of what the end result of the completed puzzle should look like.

Actually, this is more like we had the puzzle box, which described the puzzle perfectly well, but you didn't like it so you went and hid it.

I personally think that variation and adaptation of any given kind (or species) is part of the design of that particular species programming. I also think that many of the changes which are cited as proof of evolutionary theory are adaptation or "evolution within a species" and that they happen in much shorter time periods than proposed. It took hundreds of years to develop the domesticated canine and it took only a few generations to develop specific dog breeds by selective breeding. But this does not necessarily prove evolutionary theory, only that a kind/species can adapt to it's environment and that specific traits can be isolated for breeding purposes.

Alfred

...So, you think that species evolve, but in a programmed way? Can you decide which position you're gonna take?

 

[SevTT]

I wanted to add something...

Imagine we take eight 100,000 and twelve 50,000 piece puzzles of the skyline of 20 major cities in North America, mix them all together, discard 50% of the pieces and give them to a group of six year olds to put together without the benefit of even one of the pictures. This problem is infinitely simpler to solve than the issues underlying the origin of life problems being addressed and our abilities in the grand scheme of things is not much better than the group of six year olds trying to figure out 20 large, incomplete and similar puzzles.

Alfred

Suppose we don't. Suppose you learn something about what you're disputing before you attempt to dispute it. Everything you put forward as a disproof of or a 'hole' in the Theory of Evolution is, well, wrong. There's no other way to put it. And you wallow in and attempt to spread your ignorance -- which is what drives me to counter it.

See, I think the essential difference is that you simply do not believe in causality, so can make up whatever voodoo explanation you like of what 'actually' happens, so that it fits your own personal worldview. Unfortunately, the world doesn't work like that. You're standing on the sidelines, screaming the equivalent of "No, no! Calculus doesn't work!" while countless teams of engineers use it to create vast buildings and sweeping bridges, oblivious to and unaffected by your objections. (Calculus is, after all, only based on the Theory of Limits.) You may think it's all bullshit, but, frankly, the proof is in the pudding: the theory of evolution is what has glued together most of Biology, and is responsible for most of our understanding of biology, and how it works -- our current Theory of Biology. It's being used, it's being applied, and it works. If evolutionary theory was fundamentally flawed, it wouldn't work, and all the rest of our understanding of biology would be wrong, and all the successes based on that knowledge, so far, would be mere coincidences. Evidence supports the model put forth by the Theory of Evolution, by vast orders of magnitude more so than any other explanation.

There's no real reason to continue the conversation here; we might as well be trying to talk to a table. You don't understand the theory that you're disputing, you don't understand the words you're using in the context you're using them, what knowledge you do have is outdated or wrong, your objections are either spurious or unproveable. I'm going to refer further objections to The Index of Creationist Claims; if you come up with an objection to or hole in the Theory which isn't listed there, it might be worth talking about.

But probably not.

Now, to address the area of personal attacks: Meh. Saying someone's wrong and ignorant isn't an attack. Yes, I'm derisive and highly dismissive, because you're arguing for and attempting to spread your ignorance, instead of, y'know, doing some research, and realizing what a poorly constructed house of cards your argument is.

Now I think I'm going to try and stop replying to this thread, unless Alfredo or others attempt to spread further misinformation, in which case I will demolish your arguments and lade (further) censure and derision upon the perpetrators.

 

[Alfredo De La Fe]

Sev:

This is the problem. This is your definition of what a scientific theory is, but not THE definition of scientific theory. It requires a leap of faith that something is "sufficiently accurate".

I certainly do believe that species (or "kinds") can adapt and "evolve" to their environment or gene pool. But a monkey will still be a monkey and a human will still be a human or they will die out due to an incredibly limited gene pool and the errors in their genetic make-up that will occur as opposed to becoming an entirely new species or sub-species.

As with all major artists, a person can generally identify the artist by looking at his work. His "signature" is evident in his style, etc. I believe that the same holds true for living things. We can see God's signature throughout and what you, or another adherent of evolutionary theory attempt to fit into the "evolutionary theory box" are just other facets of God's signature. We may not understand them all, but every single one of these facets does have an explination. Why do turtles go to the same beach to lay eggs? I dont know(although we certainly have some understanding of the mechanisms that are used for them to do it), but there is a poetic beauty to it and if it were not for man's intervention sea turtles would be just peachy and not endangered or threatened.

I have attempted to avoid discussing "personal beliefs" and have attempted to keep the discussion very generic. But I am very comfortable explaining my beliefs and how, through careful study have grown to accept them first as being scientifically sound and second as being worthy of my faith.

Alfred

Okay, let me put this another way: A scientific theory is a sufficiently accurate model of the way that a certain aspect of the world works. Scientific theories are Deep Mysteries: they allow you to predict the future, see the past, and know the unknowable. If a model is sufficiently accurate that it can predict that which is otherwise unknowable -- the existence of black holes, frame dragging, or the electrochemical behavior of a certain molecule.

Also, evolution happening is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is different; that addresses the how, not the is.



Actually, this is more like we had the puzzle box, which described the puzzle perfectly well, but you didn't like it so you went and hid it.



...So, you think that species evolve, but in a programmed way? Can you decide which position you're gonna take?

 

[SevTT]

Sev:

This is the problem. This is your definition of what a scientific theory is, but not THE definition of scientific theory. It requires a leap of faith that something is "sufficiently accurate".

My definition is inexorably drawn from the definition of a theory. It's the logical conclusion to it. That you don't see that shows your lack of understanding. It doesn't require a leap of faith: if you use it and it always works, it's sufficiently accurate.

I have attempted to avoid discussing "personal beliefs" and have attempted to keep the discussion very generic. But I am very comfortable explaining my beliefs and how, through careful study have grown to accept them first as being scientifically sound and second as being worthy of my faith.

Alfred

Again, this shows your ignorance of what, frankly, science is. Your beliefs are beliefs because they are unproveable, the very antithesis of science. They can never be 'scientifically sound,' by any definition.

But if you want to argue theology, to know the work of a being is to know the mind of that being. To study the universe is to know the mind of God. Evolution is our best explanation of how God went about creating The-Creation-That-Is, created through the gathering of evidence and the observation of that Creation; to limit the ineffable, to reject what Is, because of your limited imagination, is rankest heresy.

 

[Alfredo De La Fe]

SevTT, no need to put words in my mouth. I can do a good enough job of that myself, thank you very much. There is a BIG difference between Calculus and Evolutionary theory.

In the context of this discussion I am saying "No, we cant blindly accept that Dawinian evolutionary theory is a FACT, because it is not and there is NO WAY of ever proving that it is within our lifetimes."

There are MANY different theories on the origin of life and MANY variations to Darwin's original theory. Mankinds combined knowledge of "stuff" barely fills the proverbial thimbal. The ones that try to make things fit into their belief systems are evolutionists (and irrational creationists that refuse to accept that there is room for the unknown) "See! This bird developed a longer beak to survive! This is yet MORE positive, irrefutable proof that evolutionary theory is factually accurate!" and "Nope! Those dinosaur bones were put there by the devil to test my faith." are pretty much similar statements in their audacity. But it is important to realize that we do not understand the why's, when's and how's enough to make such a definitive statement about the first and there is no sense in trying to use logic and reason with the second because their argument is based entirely on faith. Both have chosen to throw the science rulebook out of the window, but it is just a matter of degree. Quite frankly, the second is harmless because it is so easy to ignore them while the first is dangerous because they are fitting factual information into their "box" without even admitting the possibility that the data may in fact belong in an entirely different box.

Alfred

There's no other way to put it. And you wallow in and attempt to spread your ignorance -- which is what drives me to counter it.

See, I think the essential difference is that you simply do not believe in causality, so can make up whatever voodoo explanation you like of what 'actually' happens, so that it fits your own personal worldview. Unfortunately, the world doesn't work like that. You're standing on the sidelines, screaming the equivalent of "No, no! Calculus doesn't work!" while countless teams of engineers use it to create vast buildings and sweeping bridges, oblivious to and unaffected by your objections. (Calculus is, after all, only based on the Theory of Limits.) You may think it's all bullshit, but, frankly, the proof is in the pudding: the theory of evolution is what has glued together most of Biology, and is responsible for most of our understanding of biology, and how it works -- our current Theory of Biology. It's being used, it's being applied, and it works. If evolutionary theory was fundamentally flawed, it wouldn't work, and all the rest of our understanding of biology would be wrong, and all the successes based on that knowledge, so far, would be mere coincidences. Evidence supports the model put forth by the Theory of Evolution, by vast orders of magnitude more so than any other explanation.

There's no real reason to continue the conversation here; we might as well be trying to talk to a table. You don't understand the theory that you're disputing, you don't understand the words you're using in the context you're using them, what knowledge you do have is outdated or wrong, your objections are either spurious or unproveable. I'm going to refer further objections to The Index of Creationist Claims; if you come up with an objection to or hole in the Theory which isn't listed there, it might be worth talking about.

But probably not.

Now, to address the area of personal attacks: Meh. Saying someone's wrong and ignorant isn't an attack. Yes, I'm derisive and highly dismissive, because you're arguing for and attempting to spread your ignorance, instead of, y'know, doing some research, and realizing what a poorly constructed house of cards your argument is.

Now I think I'm going to try and stop replying to this thread, unless Alfredo or others attempt to spread further misinformation, in which case I will demolish your arguments and lade (further) censure and derision upon the perpetrators.

 

[Alfredo De La Fe]

Just because we do not attend the same church and wear the same science blinders does not make me ignorant. (lack of knowledge or education)

Alfred

Again, this shows your ignorance of what, frankly, science is. Your beliefs are beliefs because they are unproveable, the very antithesis of science. They can never be 'scientifically sound,' by any definition.

 

[SevTT]

Just because we do not attend the same church and wear the same science blinders does not make me ignorant. (lack of knowledge or education)

Alfred

No, your obvious lack of comprehension regarding the subject you're speaking about makes you ignorant.

 

[SevTT]

SevTT, no need to put words in my mouth. I can do a good enough job of that myself, thank you very much. There is a BIG difference between Calculus and Evolutionary theory.

Nope. Both are fundamental to the practice of a wide range of scientific disciplines. The effectiveness of their implementation is proof of their validity.

In the context of this discussion I am saying "No, we cant blindly accept that Dawinian evolutionary theory is a FACT, because it is not and there is NO WAY of ever proving that it is within our lifetimes."

That's like saying that there's no way to prove a murderer was at the scene of the crime, after the fact. We've observed evolution in action. We can observe that evolution has occurred from the fossil record. We can observe that speciation has occurred due to environmental changes in the recent past. Speciation has been observed among Homo sapiens -- Helacyton gartleri is deep weirdness, but it is what it is. Hell, it's (moderately) easy to reproduceably induce speciation in a predictable manner in plants through polyploidy. These plants can't reproduce with their progenitor species, yet can with other similar mutants.

There are MANY different theories on the origin of life and MANY variations to Darwin's original theory.

Stop mixing the issues. Darwinian evolution has absolutely nothing to do with biogenesis, only what comes after.

There aren't many accepted variations to Darwin's original theory. There have been many refinements, to both the theory and our understanding of the elegance of it, but nothing has been invalidated, and the predictions which one can make from the theory hold true.

Mankinds combined knowledge of "stuff" barely fills the proverbial thimbal.

Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we don't know what we know.

The ones that try to make things fit into their belief systems are evolutionists (and irrational creationists that refuse to accept that there is room for the unknown) "See! This bird developed a longer beak to survive! This is yet MORE positive, irrefutable proof that evolutionary theory is factually accurate!"

Again, this shows your lack of understanding of the concept. The bird didn't evolve a longer beak to survive. The population of birds with longer beaks was selected for due to a change in their environment, generally along with being isolated from their original population.

How about a fish that was evolved to survive in Lake Malawi -- copper-rich areas where tailings from a mine were dumped -- and the mine and thus the environment which it is adapted to didn't exist before about 1850. Yet there's this species found there, adapted to live there, and found nowhere else. Now, that's something predicted by the Theory of Evolution: that changes in environment (or access to new environments with different environmental parameters and pressures) will cause speciation.

Again, I refer you to The Index of Creationist Claims, which thoroughly dismantles (with citations!) all of the objections you've made, in detail, generally with examples.

But it is important to realize that we do not understand the why's, when's and how's enough to make such a definitive statement about the first

Except we do. Well, you don't, evidently, but please realize that arguments from incredulity are always a waste of everyone's time.

Quite frankly, the second is harmless because it is so easy to ignore them while the first is dangerous because they are fitting factual information into their "box" without even admitting the possibility that the data may in fact belong in an entirely different box.

Alfred

Except they do. The analysis of, confirmation of, attack of, and defense of hypotheses and experimental conclusions is, well, what science is.

 

[Alfredo De La Fe]

Since you insist on lobing personal insults I will make this my last reply.

It is painfully obvious that you are either unaware or unwilling to accept the conclusions and discussions of the various controversies by biologists and evolutionary scientists alike. I could waste time and provide quotes, but I will simply direct you to the preface written by W. R. Thompson to the special centennial edition of Darwin's Origin of Species "As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution."

Darwinism is intimately linked to biogenesis. If life evolves per the orthodox definition of evolution it stands to reason that the origin of life itself must have followed a similar process and that we can demonstrate that at it's most basic level we can duplicate said processes under controlled conditions.

Speaking unemotionally, it is possible that heredity is evidence of darwinian evolutionary theory, but then again it is demonstratably likely that it is not.

Heredity is afterall a big part of what we have been discussing throughout much of this thread and with some massaging you can get it to fit many different theories from Darwinian evolution to Intelligent Design and everything in between.

Alfred

Nope. Both are fundamental to the practice of a wide range of scientific disciplines. The effectiveness of their implementation is proof of their validity.

QUOTE]

 

[SevTT]

Since you insist on lobing personal insults I will make this my last reply.

A statement of fact is not an insult.

It is painfully obvious that you are either unaware or unwilling to accept the conclusions and discussions of the various controversies by biologists and evolutionary scientists alike.

The 'controversies' you mention ... aren't. They've been quite thoroughly debunked.

I could waste time and provide quotes, but I will simply direct you to the preface written by W. R. Thompson to the special centennial edition of Darwin's Origin of Species

Congratulations on saying that you're not going to waste time and provide quotes ... and then wasting time and providing quotes.

So it was the Centennial edition? That was published, what, over 50 years ago? You know what also happened about fifty years ago? The advent of molecular genetics, which, by the way, filled in most of the missing pieces of the Theory at that time and which has only confirmed the suppositions of the Theory. Since then, our understanding of biology has exploded.

Darwinism is intimately linked to biogenesis.

Again, young padawan, Darwinism has nothing to do with biogenesis. Biogenesis dictates how life first came to be. Darwinistic evolution made absolutely no assumptions or suppositions about biogenesis.

Evolution models how life changes, not how it started.

Speaking unemotionally, it is possible that heredity is evidence of darwinian evolutionary theory, but then again it is demonstratably likely that it is not.

Oh, dude. Dude. The amount of Comprehension Fail here is astounding.

Heredity isn't evidence of darwinian evolutionary theory. It is, however, an underlying, requisite mechanism for it, predicted by the Darwinian model of Evolution. The fact that it exists allows for the Evolutionary Theory; without a mechanism to preserve and pass on traits (and occasionally mutate,) evolution wouldn't be possible.

Heredity is afterall a big part of what we have been discussing throughout much of this thread and with some massaging you can get it to fit many different theories from Darwinian evolution to Intelligent Design and everything in between.

Uh, no, it can't. Mostly all of those 'many different theories' aside from the accepted one include massive logical failures which make them utterly invalid. Sorry, that's the way it is.

Nope. Both are fundamental to the practice of a wide range of scientific disciplines. The effectiveness of their implementation is proof of their validity.

I'll just leave that there, since you did, and it makes a nice coda.

 

[Alfredo De La Fe]

I just sat through half of this documentary and will finish watching it tomorrow (I love On Demand service!). Very interesting and discusses several of the points that have been "discussed" throughout this thread and goes into greater detail concerning many of the arguments I have made with specific examples.

Alfred

Saw this today on Showtime during the Giants game.Comes on again tomorrow at 9pm on SHO.Interesting stuff.



http://www.expelledthemovie.com/aboutthemovie.php

 

[ZANYMASTER]

Let's play nice guys.You're both obviously passionate about the way you feel on this subject.

 

[SevTT]

I just sat through half of this documentary and will finish watching it tomorrow (I love On Demand service!). Very interesting and discusses several of the points that have been "discussed" throughout this thread and goes into greater detail concerning many of the arguments I have made with specific examples.

Alfred

And it's wrong about all of them.

Scientific American has an excellent response about the intellectual dishonesty in the film: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-john-rennie

Wikipedia runs down the information about "The Expelled," among sundry other errors and omissions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed

And, of course, http://www.expelledexposed.com/

Expelled is a film which attempts to show that Evolutionary Theory is discredited/morally undefensible/just wrong primarily by using the fact that Hitler liked it (auto GodwinFail. Besides, he also liked watercolors. Quick! BURN THE WATERCOLORS! They're tainted by nazis,) and by making examples of a few (abberant) people in scientific fields who claim to have been discriminated against because of their anti-evolution views, but who appear to have been sacked due to lack of performance, misappropriation of resources, or they weren't actually on a permanent position anyway, and their contract wasn't renewed.

Basically, Expelled tries to use emotional arguments to make a scientific case. The Theory of Evolution is demonstrably fact-based and can be disproven. It has not been, and the predictions made by it have been valid.

Intelligent Design is an opinion, unproveable, and tells us nothing about how the world operates. Unlike Evolution, which can and has been used to predict how organisms came to be and continue to evolve, and whose principles can be applied in a rigorous scientific setting, Intelligent Design leaves us with "it's God's will!" and makes no testable predictions, and allows no testable predictions. Its lack of utility -- particularly compared with the 'competing' (only in the eyes of ID 'Theorists') Theory's actual practical utility makes it self-evident which is true.

(Also, ID-as-a-replacement-for-Evolution also fails on logical and theological levels, since 'Creation-fulfilling-the-will-of-the-Creator' doesn't exclude evolutionary mechanics as a way to fulfill that will, and for any number of other reasons that I won't go into here.)

 

[e.muehlbauer]

The Wikipedia article has an interesting reference to Kenneth Miller...a religious Catholic who has testified against Intelligent Design, and in favor of evolution. There should be nothing unusual about that, since the Catholic Church has endorsed evolution, and the Big Bang, as consistent with church teachings. There are many religious leaders who have endorsed evolution..its not difficult to reconcile the ideas at all, as long as one is willing to accept that the creation stories of not just the Abrahamic faiths, but Hinduism, Native American religions, etc are symbolic...representing a greater truth than just the literal words. How hard can that be to acknowledge? Reminds me of my (long ago) college days...when i was hitchiking through Virginia (yes, in those days, hitchiking was not only acceptable, but a desirable means of travel....)...I got a ride from a real backwoods redneck...nice guy though...after passing sheep in a meadow, he gave me a whole explanation of how one "does it' with a sheep...something he of course claimed he had never done...then he got philosophical. He told me about how he was aware of evolution, and how it was generally accepted by people, but he couldn't reconcile it with his religious beliefs. I explained the concepts of metaphor and allegory, and how a story could be told symbolically, rather than literally. It was like a light went off in his head...all of a sudden everything made sense to him...and he realized that he could believe in both evolution and his religion. possibly the most important education have ever given someone.....