Topic: Religion
Ben Stein Should Be Expelled. Ben Stein will fleece a nation of people who aren't critically able to defend themselves.by Scott from Oregon
(Libertarian)
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Ben Stein is making money off of a gullible populace. Flocks of sheep will fork out cash to see his "documentary" and leave the theatre angry at science and its methods.
Then a funny thing will happen. They'll walk toward their cars, in shoes out of material designed by science, talking on their cell phones invented by science, passing up buildings all kept standing by science-- in fact, full of scientifically created materials-- and they'll be angry that science won't let them believe in god. They'll get in their scientifically engineered cars, riding on scientifically modified rubber, and head to their jobs which will, in almost all circumstances, have a scientific element inseparable from it.
If they have a sick relative or friend, they will take them to a scientifically developed medical facility and ask for doctors to apply science in curing them. They might even fly in a scientifically designed plane to go on Holiday and play cards made coated with a scientifically designed plastic (to make them shuffle easier).
The world around them will be full of scientific knowledge and technology, and they'll use it, all the while angry and nodding their heads in the direction of Ben Stein's decadent and obviously manipulative film, feeling woeful that science has abandoned them.
It makes me sad.
Here we are, a leading nation in the twenty first century, and we have a vague majority population that eschews the scientific method which brought us here, so that "magic" can be perpetuated as a scientific theory for the origins of everything. Now I am not a scientist, but I do understand the scientific method. You make assumptions about something. You search for evidence to prove or disprove your assumptions. You devise experiments to test and/or demonstrate your assumptions. You present your findings for the scrupulous revue of others, who attempt to duplicate your findings and either affirm or deny your assumptions. From this basic, established ritual, cancer treatments and Titan probe landings have sprouted.
Religion, especially the belief in a god, has created what? Nothing but more ritual and more belief.
Ben Stein will make a lot of money from his movie. There are enough deluded people in America who will flock to it like, well, sheep. They will get angry at science for not allowing god in their damn science classes. They will disregard the scientific method which brought them almost everything they take for granted, and they will feel righteous in their indignation.
If you tell them that calling something unknown "god" is not an answer to the question-- but another way of keeping something "unknown"-- you will confuse them. If you ask them to use the scientific method to demonstrate a single supernatural "truth" they claim to know, they will get angry and demand to be excused from the scientific process. Then they'll get on their cell phones, and call someone who cares about their "faith" and feel completely vindicated.
Maybe they'll even send a text message...
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 21 thumbs so far
2008 Scott from Oregon, all rights reserved.
Published: Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Last modified: Tuesday, April 22, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Scott from Oregon only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Scott from Oregon is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Religion, especially the belief in a god, has created what?
It has also created the right for people to get away with inhumane acts, racism, cruelity, and above all else the ability to bomb an abortion clinic or a moderate Muslim/cooperating-with-coalition forces side of Baghdad.
"Faith is the surrender of the mind; it's the surrender of reason, it's the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other mammals. It's our need to believe, and to surrender our skepticism and our reason, our yearning to discard that and put all our trust or faith in someone or something, that is the sinister thing to me. Of all the supposed virtues, faith must be the most overrated."-Christopher Hitchens
I'm looking forward to seeing the movie and evaluating it for myself. Is it a "tempest in a teapot" or not? The thesis of the movie is that "establishment scientists" have suppressed dissent, which anyone with even the most casual acquaintance with the history of science knows is "par" for the course. It will be interesting to see for myself whether or not Ben Stein and Expelled make that case against modern "Big Science" as they put it.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2008-04-22 19:17:26
Ummm, there is plenty of the movie already out via clips and Ben Stein has been trying to sell his propaganda wares all over TV.
Let's see, he started with intellectual dishonesty, lying to participants what the movie was about...
Then he got on talk shows all over America, and misrepresented Darwinism and science completely...
I wouldn't give the clown a dollar for popcorn.
If you want to teach creationism in science class, it needs to play by the rules. The rules are, no supernatural mumbo jumbo, no "magical" claims, and no wishful thinking...
Evidence evidence evidence...
Without evidence, you need to simply shut up or make a fool out of yourself... Ben Stein made a fool out of himself, and the ironic thing is, the same people who made Haggart and Falwell rich will make Stein rich. Sad and disgusting, if you ask me...
So anyone? Evidence? Evidence? Evidence? Get past those three, and even I will give the creationist's nonsense an ear...
Ben Stein is a great Centrist Republic economist and a smart man, but he really should have stayed in economics and policy review rather than try to make money endorcing his own (possible) personal beliefs.
Ben Stein answered questions about Evolution on "Win Ben Stein's Money", so I doubt that he really believes in this ID and Creationism garbage. If so he might believe in man made global warming the way that Al Gore describes it and not how others have theorized it. (The Religious right is moving in that direction. Funny how junk science appeals to the religious. Thank you Pat Robertson.)
I'm not really sure Christian's are as united behind creationism as Scott or Lloyd would like to think. I battle still wages on within the church because they are beginning to realize that science, more so now than ever, can explain the acts of God. I believe science and God to hand in hand. There would be those who believe in the "poof" theory (as I call it), that God said it and "poof", we were there. To me, it does not matter if the evolutionary link is found that ties the whole hypothesis of evolution together or a whole new hypothesis is asked that suddenly holds more weight What's the difference? What's the point?
I think science is getting to a point today where the main goal of scientists is to disprove the hypothesis of God (or any intelligent designer). When in fact, it can't be disproven because it leaves no trace. There's no magic dust God leaves behind that would prove or disprove his existance.
What this movie fails to do is put out a theory of its own about a scientific beginning. It does a great job of making Mr. God Delusion, himself look somewhat loopy. It introduced that there were indeed other scientists whther theologically trained or not, that believe there were lots of holes in evolution. The movie did no better to explain this other than having the scientist from Paris saying that it was "Disorganized and full of elegant smoke". This would leave me to believe that this movie was not made to discredit darwinsim from a scientific stand point, but rather a moralistic one (which is the wrong way to go about it, in my opinion). The only other point the movie makes is that there is seemingly a lack of debate between two, credible scientists who are not of the theological schoolin 9which would give the debate more credibility from the perspective of someone like Scott).
In conclusion, the only thing that this movie "reveals" is that there is no beginning to Darwin's theory. Which is weird when you title your paper the ORIGIN of Species. This movie won't rock your world from a scientific stand point but does make you ask whether you believe in something because it's something you, yourself have researched or whther it's because you're listening to the general consensus.
I'm trying to get my wife to see Ironman. I like all those scientifically-created special effects. She might go, if she gets a very large bowl of popcorn and there isn't any thing else at our discount theater.
If I want to see a documentary, I can watch the Science Channel or the History Channel. When I need a dose of morals, I can watch EWTN with my fellow Catholics. When I go to the movies, I mostly want to be entertained. The History Channel had a well-made series on UFO Hunters. It was entertaining, but full of sloppy science and speculatiion.
I'll put "intelligent design" in the philosophy category. It's comforting to think that the hand of God had a part of making the universe. But I can't think of any experiment to figure out how many fingers God has.
I prefer to put a different spin on this science v. religion debate. It assumes various premises, and draws the logical conclusions.
I believe science is "supposed" to be about an objective search for truth. Truth may or may not contain "god". "God" as a being is one of two things - TRUE or FALSE.
Good science will point to one or the other of those. To say that science doesn't deal with "god" is to say that science doesn't pursue truth.
Our current state of science has decided that "god" is false. Therefore, every scientific theory depends on that premise.
However, if God = TRUE, then science (in its current state) will not be pursuing truth. Scientists will be fundamentally looking in the wrong direction... continually and blatently.
Science is a product of this. It has routinely come up with "theories" that depend on god not existing (big bang, evolution) and routinely fight against theories that allow for the existance of god (intelligent design, creation). If god = true, then science is doing all of us a dis-service by promoting non-truth. If science is truely objective, then theories that are premised on god=true should be given as much credibility as those that premise on god=false. Science is all about discovering truth after all - right?
The Roman Catholic Church supported Hitler. The Eastern Orthodox Church lead the Russian People to believe that the Czar was on the same level of god. By the time Communism had come in, the state was the one and only religion. North Koreans worship Kim Il Sung and his son Kim Jung Il. Islamic terrorists comit thier acts against moderate muslims and non-muslims for religious reasons.
Not one developed nation has ever faught a war that was not based on some forrm of religion. No nation on earth battles annother nation simply so that it can say that without a god that it was better. Wars are faught over differences of religious oppinion, even if it is with the same religion. (Protestant vs. Cathoic) (Suni vs. Shiaa) or just a simple belief that thier side is right and the other side is wrong.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2008-04-23 11:38:32
"Our current state of science has decided that "god" is false. Therefore, every scientific theory depends on that premise.
However, if God = TRUE, then science (in its current state) will not be pursuing truth. Scientists will be fundamentally looking in the wrong direction... continually and blatantly..."
Ummm... No. Science has and continues to demonstrate, that the god described in all religious books currently in vogue on planet earth are patently "false". Nowhere does science make the absolute assertion that there "is no god", only that the probability of such a "designer" is a number close to zero.
Science simply recognizes that filling in the blanks with an amorphous, indescribable entity with "magical" powers is no answer at all. Trying to insert this answer into the question is non-scientific and unproductive, which is what those opposed to "magic" in science classes have been trying to tell you all along.
I'll address Lloyd on a seperate article...to Scott, however:
You assume that God does not exist because of where science has led you. It is true that those who would argue against an Intelligent designer are on an uphill slope because the majority of humans on earth believe in a god of some form. That, and you really can't "disprove" God. I mean, if someone is really pulling the strings on this puppet show we call life, you really can't disprove it. From a scientific stand point, I can understand that can be frustrating for someone who is used to dealing with absolutes.
However, the reason why the debate continues is because no one can explain with absolute certainty how the first celled organism came to be and how that evolved into the first species. Creationists have many real, scientific questions (which they can't answer), about this.
It would have been less of an issue has Darwin titled his piece something else. But he titled it The Origin of Species. When in fact, his hypothesis revolved around something that was already there.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2008-04-23 12:38:13
"You assume that God does not exist because of where science has led you."
Ummm, no. I assume there is no god because logic tells me that it is so.
The same "apparent" logic that leads many to a "creator" as an answer to the riddle defines my answer. The "something from nothing" argument.
If you have nothing, you can't then suddenly have "everything" preceding something. In other words, from nothing, you can't say that a creator was created, so powerful he could then go on and create everything.
You would have to ask the logical question "what created the all powerful creator"... You are then left with... well... nothing helpful or significant.
I cannot (and science agrees with me), fathom the beginning. I can, however, and with very little thought actually, tell you that every attempt humans have made to define "god" is untrue, silly, atavistic and detrimental to the growth of human knowledge.
From Mormon's to Jews, to Christians, Hindus and Muslims, and on to other less known religions, they are ALL faulty declarations of knowledge, followed by deluded people who prefer the delusion to the "truth".
In America, in this day and age, to have our politicians chosen on the basis of this delusion is both scary and profoundly sad.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2008-04-23 12:48:50
"It is true that those who would argue against an Intelligent designer are on an uphill slope because the majority of humans on earth believe in a god of some form."
One can easily take this statement and use it to explain why religiousity occurs, but it does not have anything to do with "truth" or knowledge". History, as you know, is rife with examples of a majority holding a deluded view.
What this really does is move the conversation into anthropological and psychological realms. A simple study of humans spread out across the globe will reveal a STRONG PROPENSITY to believe in various and bizarre supernatural things. CHristians are not alone in their delusion. It is a human frailty-- the need to be comforted by a whacky belief-- and it is extant in all societies.
THAT DOES NOT MAKE THE BELIEFS TRUE. It only makes them understandable.
Th amazing thing is that humans have made an end around past these delusions and created something called the scientific method, which has released us from these go nowhere thoughts and put us on an orbit around Saturn as well as opened up the structure of cells. I applaud all efforts of those who want to keep science pure from "magic", as "magic" never led us anywhere, except down avenues full of corpses and tortured minds...
Logic tells you not to believe in God? How is God not logical? Ok. Forgetting the fact that Creationists have this "poof" theory, lets take a look at how perfectly the universe has existed for all of these years. How perfectly the earth has existed and how exquisite the DNA of a singular human being is...let alone a single human cell! Logic tells me that none of this could have come about by "random" event. That's not a scientific statement, obviously but you equated logic to science. When in actuality it is only one facet of it.
I can't prove or disprove God and I certainly have no explanation for as how God, "got here". But for someone who is taking the scientific high ground, can you at least give fault to the Darwin for not scientifically coming up for how the first cell came about? Of course you can't. Because he didn't have the means to test it and no one probably will. How do you go from saying that you can't fathom a beginning to verbally assaulting people of religious faith as those who "stunt" logic? I mean, lets forget that Newton, Copernicus and Mendel all believed in God. Oh...wait...you already did.
To your second post: I made that point, not to say that "majority is correct". I voted for Ron Paul and believe in his political values. That should debunk that notion. I am much read up on history and understand the important fact that history is written by the winners..
People practice superstition, religion and other such faiths that would, indeed, prove that humans are a frail bunch. And we are in many ways. But if you say that you understand how people can believe in such "nonsense" why do you continue to attack those who hold those beliefs? Doesn't that show a lack of understanding? Obviously or you would keep the debate to ID vs. Evolution instead of Religion vs. everything else.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2008-04-23 13:58:15
"But if you say that you understand how people can believe in such "nonsense" why do you continue to attack those who hold those beliefs? Doesn't that show a lack of understanding? Obviously or you would keep the debate to ID vs. Evolution instead of Religion vs. everything else."
If you turn on the TV and watch "the news", you will notice that religious figures are given high value interviews regarding the "elections". What do any of these so called "Rev's have to do with structurally or pragmatically maintaining government?
If you watch how people vote, you will notice that religiousity has the biggest influence over who gets elected in America. What do delusions have to do with practical, everyday management of governmental functions?
A country led by delusion will inevitably make horrific decisions. This needs to be opposed.
How is god not logical? Simple. What is described as god is too complex to have been derived out of nothing. And a simpler god would not have been able to do as was described. Logic insinuates that something complex did not arrive out of nothing before something less complex. God is actually the most complex of answers for the riddle, and does not answer the riddle when evoked.
But THIS debate is about ID vs. Evolution. It has nothing to do with creationism. Everyone simply wants to make it about creationsim because it's easy to pick on. Stein wasn't arguing for creationism and he wasn't even arguing against evolution. His only two points were that there were morale flaws to Darwinism and that proponents of ID in the scientific world sometimes get shafted.
Yes, religious leaders (like that black guy on CNN whose name escapes me), are given the ultimate power to tell everyone who to vote for...and because they are inheriently "perfect", those mindless followers of Christ see that he's a "man of God" and think to themselves: "Oh my goodness! That preacher told me to vote Obama so I'm gonna do it"! The sad part is, I'm sure there are a handful of people out there who do. But is it any different from someone like Al Gore, telling you that man made global warming is real when he has to use pictures from movies and leave out the fact that the earth has been cooling for 10 years?
It's not just religion, folks. Everyone does it. It's time to stop blaming religion for the act of the individual. Isn't that what libertarianism is all about?
Scott of Oregon, I agree completely about Ben Stein. His tactics in this movie were absolutely deplorable. He plainly misprepresents many of the main premises of evolution and twists the facts whenever necessary. In all of his personal anecdotes (the many sob stories he brought up), the facts don't even exist - they're taking the tiniest amount of evidence and then attaching it to a pack of lies.
I'd go into it point-by-point, but that's already been done by an excellent commentary; the aforementioned http://www.expelledexposed.com/ .
" Ben Stein is a great Centrist Republic economist and a smart man, but he really should have stayed in economics and policy review rather than try to make money endorcing his own (possible) personal beliefs. " - Jim
I'd contest both of those points, but contesting the latter point would be largely useless without actually meeting him. However, I won't hesistate to criticize his economic opinions. While he does have a good grasp of finance and market knowledge, his conclusions are often ridiculous - and definitely cast shadows on his Republicanism. I point to the current recession. Ben Stein has offered a wealth of advice regarding the current recession and far too much of it is along the lines of increased regulation and federal involvement. That doesn't sound very Republican to me, and it definitely doesn't sound economically sensible. (I'd go into more depth, but that's off topic)
Religion. I am a firm believer in the establishment clause and the exclusion of religion from science. It should be noted that I am an atheist. This obviously has some influence on my views. However, even in my days as a Catholic, I was a secularist and believed that science should remain free from religion.
Now, when I say that science should be free from religion, what I mean is that theories in science should have the burden of proof - lack of disproof is not remotely evidence of God or a designer. Holes in evolution theory (most of which aren't actually holes) do not consistitute evidence for intelligent design. There must be demonstrable evidence of a designer and testable hypotheses related to this designer before I'd allow creationism and intelligent design into science.
Creationism and Intelligent Design currently lack both of these requirements, and until they gain them, they cannot be considered science. Until they are considered science, they have no place in the science classes. Since they have little basis in fact and are largely based on opinion, their close connections to creationism clearly demonstrate that they have no place in our schools under the establishment clause.
So, if you want Intelligent Design to be taught, I challenge you to clearly prove that Intelligent Design is true through empirical evidence (not to prove that evolution is false).
However, I don't necessarily agree with Scott from Oregon's harsh views on religion. While I personally disagree with religion and find it distasteful, I respect peoples' rights to believe in whatever they want to believe, no matter how hare-brained it seems to me. In addition, I can see some positives in religion, though it can inhibit flexibility in learning and thought, it also imposes a clear-easy to follow moral code for its followers to heed. Some people find these moral codes valuable, and a necessary foundation for their lives - and I respect that decision if it makes them a better person.
I do wish that religion had less bearing on our nation. I especially wish that we abided by the establishment clause more closely, too many of our laws and actions have a clear Christian agenda behind them. An obvious one, we fund the Boy Scouts of America despite the fact that they exclude gays and atheists from their ranks. This kind of influence is the main contention that I have with religion in this nation.
So while I do not believe in God and do not think that believing God plays a valuable role in our society, I do see some benefit in religion and I respect the right to believe - except when religion tries to get itself into the government. And that's what it's trying far too hard to do.
Posted By: Jerry Richardson
Date: 2008-04-24 17:41:18
Scott of Oregon, you have missed the main point in Ben Stein's movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.
The main point in the movie is about suppression of free thought and free speech in science. And the suppression was not from science in general, it was from individuals that usually are public advocates of neo-Darwinism (ND).
The suppression, documented in the film, was implemented through acts of intimidation, ad hominem attacks, withholding of tenure, threats of career damage or loss, and outright dismissal from employment. No small matter, unless you are one of the arrogant individuals on the giving end of the suppression.
The movie only briefly addresses how Intelligent Design (ID) or ND provides explanation for some of the most difficult features of life, such as how life began. ND provides no answers, other than just-so stories on how life began. In the film, Richard Dawkins brags about how ‘evolution’ explains everything. Then when confronted with the question: "How did life begin”, Dawkinsmakes it very clear that he has “no idea” how life began. In other words, ND only deals with transformation in life forms, NOT with beginnings.
ID, on the other hand, has advocated, from its beginning, the study of information, at the microcellular level, and the relation of information to life (arrangements of subunits of DNA). ID is predicated on the idea that information is a feature of design in all areas of experience in life. And at least, ID ask the question: How did the information arise?
Scott of Oregon says: “Here we are, a leading nation in the twenty first century, and we have a vague majority population that eschews the scientific method which brought us here, so that "magic" can be perpetuated as a scientific theory for the origins of everything.” This statement illustrates your arrogance toward and your ignorance of ID. Reputable ID scientist (such as Michael Behe, or William Dembski) are constantly engaged in the use, and analysis, of the scientific method; furthermore there is no ‘magic’ associated with their theories.
Of course, in order to agree with the completely non-supernatural universe that you advocate, but cannot prove, one must accept a total worldview of naturalism. However, if a person wants to brag about using only science, there is a big problem. The problem: Naturalism is a metaphysical concept and cannot be proven or disproven by science. And despite your obvious preferences metaphysical naturalism does not equal science.
The good news is that the movie opened to near universally bad reviews and despite millions spent promoting the movie, in its first week it has sold less than $4 million dollars worth of tickets. Ben Stein and his backers are not making money on this turkey.
Jerry, your statement "reputable ID scientist (such as Michael Behe, or William Dembski) are constantly engaged in the use, and analysis, of the scientific method; " gave me a real chuckle. Thank you.
Your Michael Behe admitted following under oath:
"Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design to justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard on Tuesday.
Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of “theory” was so broad it would also include astrology."
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2008-04-24 18:08:32
The ID argument in a nutshell is-- "it seems too complicated and "perfect" to happen by chance, therefore a magical being made it all".
I am open to evidence that this is the case, but we all know there is none. All we have are places and events in nature still beyond our understanding that IDers push forth as "evidence" of a designer.
"I can't explain this therefore god" has been around for a long long long time. It isn't an argment, it is a cop out.
You are correct. The government funding issue was never raised during Dale v. BSA. Instead, it was ruled that the Boy Scouts of America were a private club and thus able to set their own rules for membership. I see a severe incongruity in this fact - how can a "private club" that receives government funding be considered a private club? If it receives funding, it is by definition, a public accomodation since it is being assisted by taxpayer dollars and therefore should have equal access to those of any religious and sexual orientation.
Now, I'll clarify my earlier statement. To say that it receives goverment funding is a bit of a misnomer - I have no concrete evidence that the government directly funds the Boy Scouts of America (however, I have little doubt that I could find pork barrel spending for it). However, there is evidence for government funding of Christian churchs, who often host and sponser Scout gatherings. More importantly, the government does sponser the BSA, giving it preferential treatment for park use - and it allows the state and local governments to do the same. Essentially, this means that a portion of the tax dollars from all Americans (or at least, the tax dollars from some states and localities) are being spent on a "private club".
So, that means that as an atheist, I cannot join an organization which my taxes help pay for. Even if I wasn't an atheist, or only homosexuals were barred, I would still oppose this practice on a fundamental level. If someone is forced to pay taxes for this organization, I should hope that they are allowed the possibility of joining it! The fact that this never became an issue in Dale v. BSA shocks me.
Jerry,
I first of all point you to Expelled Exposed. As I've said before, it provides an in depth commentary on Ben Stein's that I cannot hope to replicate.
If you choose not to read it, I will sum it up for you. Ben Stein's many anecdotal examples which you mentioned in your post have been summarily disproven. Ben Stein and the alleged victims of the scientific took severe liberties with the truth in this film. Many of the incidents were exaggerated, twisted, and given out of context. Many of the 'punishments' described did not occur or occured for far different reasons. Almost unanimously, the allegation that the victims reputations were destroyed was false as many continued to practice in science after their allege 'punishments'. I would not hesistate to say that some of his anecdotes were outright falsehoods.
While ID's search for the source of information in life is a valid one, that is not to say that the Neo-Darwinists are not also searching for such an answer. However, the Neo-Darwinists have currently been unable to find a hypothesis for the origin of information that is validated by empirical evidence. Thus, they admit that they have no idea how this information came to be - acknowledging that they plan to find out in the future (assuming that we are mentally able to comprehend the emergence of this information, which is an interesting philosophical question - for another topic).
If ID advocates were pursuing a similar route - that they were searching for the origin of information and looking for empirical evidence that proved this, then they would not be in conflict with the scientific community and they would be engaging in sensible research. Instead, many have sought to prove Intelligent Design by disproving evolution - which is a logical fallacy. In addition, their hypotheses have not passed the tests of scientific rigor and empirical testing; they cannot be regarded as factual.
Despite this, Intelligent Design advocates have tried to bypass scientists by appealing directly to the public. It is this tactic that most aggravates the scientific community and which leads credence to the suspicion that the ID community is really creationism in disguise. ID has yet to find a basis in fact, yet it is pushed in school boards across the nation as a legitimate, rational alternative to evolution. It is those examples of intellectual dishonesty that have angered mainstream scientists. It is true that there is a stigma against ID in the scientific community (but much less of one than Ben Stein would suggest), this stigma is entirely the result of the ID advocacy's actions.
"Of course, in order to agree with the completely non-supernatural universe that you advocate, but cannot prove, one must accept a total worldview of naturalism." - Jerry
This statement is logically untrue. In the scientific world of empiricism, the burden of evidence is placed on the hypothesis. Until you prove that something is true through fact and experiments, then scientists regard the area in question as void of truth. Essentially, until you conclusively prove that God exists, it is assumed that no God exists. The same statement was used in the past for evolution, until it was proven that evolution existed. Thus, until you prove that the supernatural exists and are able to replicate the supernatural through experiment, then the supernatural has no place in science. This philosophy is important - if evolution is disproven tommorow, that will not lead the scientific community to endorse Intelligent Design. Instead, they will say that they don't know how and why life transitions until they find a new theorem that can be proven empirically.
Posted By: Jerry Richardson
Date: 2008-04-24 20:04:07
RickSp,
Below is an excerpt from the actual court transcript of the trial you referenced. The actual conversation sounds quite a bit different when it is not taken out of context.
If a person agrees that there are or have been theories that are not accepted by many scientists, then Behe’s answer is not unreasonable.
And if a person believes as Behe does that metaphysical naturalism is not a mandatory feature of science, then his classification of ID as a scientific theory is reasonable, despite the judge’s and your bias in favor of science being defined as requiring metaphysical naturalism.
Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?
Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.
Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?
Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.
I understand your connection to the fact that there is "possibly" a conection, but that is hearsay or speculation on your behalf without evidence. However, it doesn't mean that "if" there were funds derived from the government in support of the Boy Scouts, a private organization, that you would be incorrect in your assumption.
Government should not be involved in the funding of religion in any fashion IMO, and I'm a Christian. Government should not be funding abortions via Planned Parenthood, have armed forces in 130 nations while leaving our borders unprotected, fighting undeclared wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and blah, blah, blah.
We don't always get what we want from our government eh?
Yo Jerry, Bethe admitted that using the standards by which he defines science, in order to make his claims about ID scientific, then astrology and fortune telling could be considered science.
"But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
Cased closed. ID reduces science and even basic concepts, such as what constitutes a theory, to a meaningless jumble. No wonder the case was a slam dunk victory for the parents who want their kids taught science and not Bethe's poorly disguised creationism.
Posted By: Jerry Richardson
Date: 2008-04-25 14:45:13
Aez,
” However, the Neo-Darwinists have currently been unable to find a hypothesis for the origin of information that is validated by empirical evidence. Thus, they admit that they have no idea how this information came to be...” – Aez
Bingo! This is precisely the argument for exploring intelligent design (ID).
If neo-Darwinists have no idea how information came to be, how do they rule out intelligent design (ID)?
Answer: Neo-Darwinists rule out ID on the basis of their worldview assumptions, NOT on the basis of science. In the case of most neo-Darwinists this worldview contains the belief that the only existing reality is materialistic, i.e., naturalism. But naturalism is a metaphysical assumption NOT science.
” Instead, many have sought to prove Intelligent Design by disproving evolution - which is a logical fallacy.” - Aez
Both neo-darwinism (ND) and ID are attempts to explain a common set of facts: life, how it started, and how it changes. ID proponents are attempting and will continue to attempt to show that ID provides a better explanation for the common set of facts than does ND.
This is nowhere near the notion of trying to prove ID by disproving ND, which of course would be a logical fallacy. In case you have forgotten that this sort of thing happens in science, review the paradigm clash between Newton’s and Einstein’s physics.
Posted By: Jerry Richardson
Date: 2008-04-25 16:25:13
RickSp,
”Cased closed. ID reduces science and even basic concepts, such as what constitutes a theory, to a meaningless jumble. No wonder the case was a slam dunk victory for the parents who want their kids taught science and not Bethe's poorly disguised creationism.” – RickSp
I take your position to be that you believe that truth and falsity in science can be decided in a court of law.
I also take your position to be that you believe that there is an absolutely correct definition of scientific theory, and furthermore that no significant scientific truth can be discovered unless this definition is accepted.
I claim that the case is not closed on these issues. I claim that truth in science is not based upon these issues.
Certainly the legal case is closed. Nobody argues that. However, if truth and falsity in science can be decided in a court of law, then multitudes of scientists are wasting much time and money. Just take the issue before a judge, and presto, we have truth. As Al Gore says about so-called ‘global warming’ “The debate is over”.
The primary reason that I quoted a large part of the testimony of Behe (not Bethe) is to make clear that there was a nuanced discussion on what constitutes a scientific theory. One of the implications from that discussion was the suggestion by Behe that theories may be considered proper at some given time, and then discarded later. The fact that Behe considered astrology to be (or to have been) a theory does not imply that he believed it to be truthful or useful.
Most neo-Darwinism (ND) advocates take great interest in this definitional game for the simple reason that they wish to define ID out of existence.
This is simple to do.
All you have to do is require naturalism as an essential part of science, and the trick is done. However, is it really your position that scientific truth can be determined primarily upon the basis of a look-up definition? Is it your position that no scientific truth was discovered in the past, even though the current definition of scientific theory is very recent?
Yes, the legal case is closed. However, the debate about whether ID or ND best explains a common set of facts about life has just begun. ND advocates have made it clear, as pointed out in Ben Stein’s movie, that they do not want a debate. One can only conclude that they are afraid of where the facts might lead.
”... poorly disguised creationism.” – RickSp
I will simply state for about the 1000th time that it has been spelled out: ID is not creationism. If you don’t yet know this, then you really know very little about ID or creationism.
William Dembski, PH.D (Mathematics) provides the following: “The fundamental claim of intelligent design is ... there exists natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural causes and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence.”
This is hardly creationism (biblical) since there are NO religious presuppositions involved. ID does not presume to declare what the intelligence might be or where it might come from. It is certainly true that some (not all) ID advocates believe that the Intelligence is God, however that notion is not essential to the precepts of ID.
"I will simply state for about the 1000th time that it has been spelled out: ID is not creationism. If you don’t yet know this, then you really know very little about ID or creationism. "
And you can deny the truth a thousand more times Jerry. It really doesn't change a thing. ID and creationism are untestable and therefore not scientific. They are religious doctrine. Your denials do absolutely nothing to change that.
And by the way, please figure out to format your posts.
Posted By: Jerry Richardson
Date: 2008-04-26 07:26:21
RickSp,
“And you can deny the truth a thousand more times Jerry. It really doesn't change a thing. ID and creationism are untestable and therefore not scientific. They are religious doctrine. Your denials do absolutely nothing to change that. “ - RickSp
Of course, no argument or facts will change your mind. This is typically the case with neo-Darwinism (ND) defenders. If ND were a science, as you say, what would qualify as a falsification?
What would qualify as a falsification of ID?
Consider: ND biologists have suggested testable scenarios for how the flagellum (of bacteria) could have been produced by Darwinian methods (i.e., multiple slight modifications). Behe used the flagellum as an illustration of “irreducibly complex molecular machines”. If ND biologists are correct (their correctness is disputed), would you agree that ID had been tested and found wanting?
What is your position on Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI)? Is it science? The motives and methods of SETI are similar to the motives and methods of ID. However, there is not a shred of evidence that extraterrestrial Intelligence exists (unless you believe UFI reports); yet SETI research is based upon sound science and methods of identifying intelligence, and was supported by NASA until 1993.
“They are religious doctrine.” - RickSp
Richard Dawkins has stated: “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” Since atheism is a doctrine related to religion (anti-religion: there is no God), does this make Darwinism a religious doctrine? An anti-religious doctrine?
What is your problem with formatting Jerry? Your posts are almost unreadable.
Evolution is the basis for all natural sciences these days. If you are that far behind the times, that is your problem, isn't it?
And again you quote Behe, the supporter of astrology and ID. His various assertions have been taken apart so many times and ways. Here is a page devoted to critiques of Behe's conjectures.
Specifically addressing Behe's flagellum, Ken Miller of Brown completely destroys Bethe's claims in his "The Flagellum Unspun - The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity".
"The very existence of the Type III Secretory System shows that the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. It also demonstrates, more generally, that the claim of "irreducible complexity" is scientifically meaningless, constructed as it is upon the flimsiest of foundations – the assertion that because science has not yet found selectable functions for the components of a certain structure, it never will. In the final analysis, as the claims of intelligent design fall by the wayside, its advocates are left with a single, remaining tool with which to battle against the rising tide of scientific evidence. That tool may be effective in some circles, of course, but the scientific community will be quick to recognize it for what it really is – the classic argument from ignorance, dressed up in the shiny cloth of biochemistry and information theory."
And Jerry, SETI is an exercise in data collection not a Discovery Institute Wedge project scam like ID. Likewise, Darwin developed a biological theory. Your attempt to claim that it is religious is silly and not a little dishonest.
Posted By: Jerry Richardson
Date: 2008-04-26 13:10:30
RickSp,
Rick, I’m not sure what’s happening with the format. Everything looks ok on my screen. Perhaps I am using a font that doesn’t work on your machine. So, I’m copying your font (I think) and using it.
“Evolution is the basis for all natural sciences these days.” – RickSp
Well, of course, that is the published opinion of the National Academy of Science (NAS). However, from an ID prospective there are problems with this statement:
1) All ID proponents accept the fact that evolution (change) occurs. But, when neo-Darwinism (ND) advocates equivocate by attempting to make ‘evolution’ a synonym for ND, ID proponents properly object. As you well know, or should, ND addresses the issue of species, their origin and development from a single LIVING organism. ND has NOTHING to say about how LIFE came about in the first place. ND does not equal Evolution.
2) Even if the statement is accepted without the objection raised in (1), what does it mean to say “the basis for all natural sciences”? Does it mean that all scientific principals are derived from evolution? Or does it simply mean that all natural sciences must accommodate and deal with change. True, but trivial. Other than in this trivial case, if Evolution is “the basis for all natural sciences”, who has demonstrated this? And in what way?
3) As is the case with Naturalism, the statement that any one thing, Evolution, is “the basis for all natural sciences” is nothing more than an unproven and unprovable metaphysical statement.
"The very existence of the Type III Secretory System shows that the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex.” - RickSp [quote by Miller]
”...the contention that the flagellum must be fully-assembled before any of its component parts can be useful is obviously incorrect.” - Kenneth R. Miller
These statements illustrate perfectly the continued misunderstanding and misrepresentation of an ID position. Behe and others do not contend that a component part of an irreducible complex (IC) item could not be useful as a stand-alone part, or as part of some other item. The definition of IC simply states that ALL the parts (sub pieces) of an item that is IC must be in place for the item to perform its function. If one of the parts is missing (regardless of the separate functional ability of that part) then the item either will NOT perform its normal function, or the item is NOT irreducible complex.
“...A system is irreducibly complex in Behe's sense if all its parts are indispensable to preserving the system's basic function. That an irreducibly complex system may have subsystems that have functions of their own (functions distinct from that of the original system) is therefore allowed in the definition - William Dembski
Miller's whole argument that the bacterial flagellum evolved by Darwinian means rests on the existence of the type III secretory system (TTSS). – William Dembski
“Accordingly, the TTSS may be thought of as a possible subsystem of the flagellum that performs a function distinct from the flagellum. Nevertheless, finding a subsystem of a functional system that performs some other function is hardly an argument for the original system evolving from that other system. One might just as well say that because the motor of a motorcycle can be used as a blender, therefore the motor evolved into the motorcycle. Perhaps, but not without intelligent design. Indeed, multipart, tightly integrated functional systems almost invariably contain multipart subsystems that serve some different function. - William Dembski
“There's another problem here. The whole point of bringing up the TTSS was to posit it as an evolutionary precursor to the bacterial flagellum. The best current molecular evidence, however, points to the TTSS as evolving from the flagellum and not vice versa (Nguyen et al. 2000).” - William Dembski
“...SETI is an exercise in data collection...” - RickSp
I’m not talking about the data collection effort, of which SETI@Home is a part. I’m talking about the underlying and scientific questions that have to be addressed apart from the data collection effort. For example, the SETI Institute http://www.seti.org/ states:
“The mission of the SETI Institute is to explore, understand and explain the origin, nature and prevalence of life in the universe.”
This mission necessitates being able to recognize when and if intelligent life is responsible for certain signals (surely no one expect them to send Morse code). In other words, are the signals we have received designed (how do we determine that), or are they simply generated by something like a distant radio star.
The study of the same problem of how intelligence puts it mark on anything is a major part of the ID effort.
And as you point out all reputable scientific organizations reject ID as not scientific.
Your claim that the statement "evolution is the basis for all natural sciences " is "unproven and unprovable metaphysical statement" is more of your wishful thinking. The fact is that all of modern natural science is built on Darwinian and related theories. Rejecting Darwin's work is a rejection of all modern biology. Your denial of the obvious doesn't change these facts.
Your defense of Bethe is flat wrong. Miller destroys his specific claims about bacterial flagellum. Miller is only one example of Bethe's work being revealed as fundamentally flawed by a myriad of scientists.
Have you seen the statement displayed on Lehigh University's Biology Department website making it clear what they think of Behe's position?
"The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific. "
Of course unlike SETI, which is science, albeit speculative, ID is nothing more than a wedge strategy scam by the Discovery Institute.
Basically, what you are arguing is that the entire scientific community is wrong and only the Discovery Institute and the creationist fundamentalist Christians who support it are right. Given that you don't have the science to support your rather silly claims, the best you can do is to engage in dishonest public relations like Ben Stein's execrable little movie.
Posted By: Jerry Richardson
Date: 2008-04-28 20:21:05
RickSp,
“And as you point out all reputable scientific organizations reject ID as not scientific.” - RickSp
Equating the NAS with ALL reputable scientific organizations is factually incorrect. See [link edited for length] for 30 categories of scientific organizations with multiple organizations listed under each category. Perhaps you claim that you know the position all of these organization take relative to ID, or even if they take a position.
Grant for argument sake that all these multiple scientific organizations have taken a position on ID, and that their position is identical to yours. Does that prove that ID is incorrect? Not even close. Scientific breakthroughs are NOT initiated by group consensus. You don’t vote on truth in science, except in your and the neo-Darwinism world.
When plate tectonics was first proposed, no one believed it was correct other than the author:
“Some truly revolutionary scientific theories may take years or decades to win general acceptance among scientists. This is certainly true of plate tectonics, one of the most important and far-ranging geological theories of all time; when first proposed, it was ridiculed, but steadily accumulating evidence finally prompted its acceptance, with immense consequences for geology, geophysics, oceanography, and paleontology. And the man who first proposed this theory was a brilliant interdisciplinary scientist, Alfred Wegener.
Reaction to Wegener's theory was almost uniformly hostile, and often exceptionally harsh and scathing; Dr. Rollin T. Chamberlin of the University of Chicago said, "Wegener's hypothesis in general is of the footloose type, in that it takes considerable liberty with our globe, and is less bound by restrictions or tied down by awkward, ugly facts than most of its rival theories." - [link edited for length]
Your comments plus the history of the science of plate tectonics illustrate and underscore the main point I made in my initial criticism of this article by Scott of Oregon:
“The movie is about suppression of free thought and free speech in science.” The movie correctly illustrates the emotional hostility directed against ID, and the attempts to suppress any and all discussion of ID. If ID is so completely incorrect; why all the hostility? Is it perhaps a religious issue? Naturalism must prevail at all cost? If there is no scientific substance involved in ID, then surely free and open academic debate will eventually bring this out.
“The fact is that all of modern natural science is built on Darwinian and related theories. – RickSp
All modern natural science IS NOT equivalent to modern biology. It is patently obvious, for example, that continental drift and plate tectonics is NOT based on neo-Darwinism, Big Bang cosmology is NOT based on neo-Darwinism; Einstein’s theory of relativity and gravitation is NOT based on neo-Darwinism.
“Rejecting Darwin's work is a rejection of all modern biology.” -RickSp
Modern molecular biology is discussed in detail in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [link edited for length]
It is pointed out in the article, Molecular Biology, that molecular biology “...mainly studies molecular mechanisms.” Nowhere in this article on molecular biology is evolution, Darwinism, or neo-Darwinism mentioned. Despite what you assert, a scholar could completely reject Darwin’s work and still embrace the fundamental mechanisms that are studied in molecular biology; such as the mechanism we have already discussed, bacterial flagellum (studied and discussed by Behe). Of course, such a scholar will likely find him/her self in the position of the scholars interviewed by Ben Stein.
OK, Jerry just to summarize - you argue that all scientists are wrong, except for the handful of ID proponents who define science so broadly that they include astrology and fortune telling. Amusing.
Both ID and your foolish little movie here are just another Discovery Institute wedge scam, whether or not you have the honesty to admit it.
True science is following the facts wherever they may lead. I certainly don't have a problem with science, carefully designed experiments proving a fact. I have a problem with making up things by taking huge leaps where there are no answers. Evolution is a belief system. It is saying that this is the only way to explain what we see by not including the supernatural. Those gaps are not even close to be being filled in. You would have to have millions upon millions of intermediate fossils showing the "in-between" organisms. We don't. True biblical Christianity, not religion never would condone killing and wars. All of this goes against the New Testament. Humanism/Atheism/Darwinism historically have done much worse for mankind. Stalin, Hitler had this type of belief system where the strong survive and Jews and black people weren't even human. All based on evolutionary beliefs. Questioning ALL possibilities is science. Not following what everyone else is forcing you to follow is True science. If you are a true liberal, then why don't you try being one.
LOL. BbtbotL. You creationists are so funny. You obviously do not have the even the most basic idea of what the scientific method is all about or prefer to ignore it. The rant about "intermediate fossils " is absurd. The intermediate fossils exist even if they will never meet your completely phony standards. And your idiotic linking of science in the form of evolution to Hitler and Stalin is way beyond stupid.
RickSp, typical response. Offer no answers yourself but mock and ridicule your opponent. That is what the humanist elite can only resort to. Go beyond your anger and think. Do you really believe everything around you came about by chance?!
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Scott from Oregon, all rights reserved.