Until the late 1980’s when the generic “President’s Day” became the official holiday that subsumed them, America used to celebrate the birthdays of both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.
As a result, “Darwin Day” has now supplanted Lincoln’s Birthday in the popular imagination; both men were born on February 12, 1809.
We think that that is a shame.
The title of Charles Darwin’s book is not “The Origin of The Species.” The full title seems shocking: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” That last half of the title, often overlooked, sounds like it could come straight out of a Ku Klux Klan manual - which is precisely why Big Science rarely quotes the full title (even though Darwin was not referring specifically to “man” in his use of the words “favoured races.”). Big Science is uncomfortable with even the suggestion that evolutionary theory might favor politically incorrect thinking.
Darwinian evolution theory is a viable scientific theory. Author of The God Delusion Richard Dawkins has stated that Darwin’s evolution theory has provided atheists with “intellectual fulfillment.” If you grant that, then you must also grant that it has given a great many racists “intellectual fulfillment,” too.
Here is how Darwin himself translated his own gloomy scientific theory into an even more disturbing worldview (from the Descent of Man)
‘At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropological apes… will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state…even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla’.
Now, before you protest the analogy, consider that Professor Dawkins himself understands full well the analogy – to the extent that he’d prefer to just side step it:
In his “The Ancestor’s Tale,” he posed the Welfare State as a challenge to Darwinism. When asked by an Austrian journalist in an interview (Die Presse -July 30, 2005) how he would justify that challenge?
Dawkins: “No self-respecting person would want to live in a Society that operates according to Darwinian laws. I am a passionate Darwinist, when it involves explaining the development of life. However, I am a passionate anti-Darwinist when it involves the kind of society in which we want to live. A Darwinian State would be a Fascist state.”
Or, in other words, “I really don’t want to think about it!”
The new film, ” EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed” does not presume to bury the theory of evolution… but it declines to praise it, either. As a worldview…no thinking person (certainly no moral person) can view a scientific theory of life based on an undirected, purposeless and random process as anything but pessimism. Certain people, and many scientists are drawn to pessimism, and thus pessimistic scientific theories. But that does not make their theories, or them, for that matter, any more attractive or intelligent.
Pessimism is a malady to be overcome, not encouraged – and it is certainly not a quality (or a theory) to be celebrated. As history teaches us – inherently pessimistic scientific theories, like all decadent theories (socialism, communism) eventually give way to those that actually work.
The sixteenth President of the United States believed what our country’s founders believed and that The Declaration of Independence so clearly stated – that all men were endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That’s a “theory” that works.
Choosing to believe in but one scientific theory that effectively negates the whole notion of an intrinsic intelligence, a higher power, an intelligent designer – is fine, if pessimism is what floats your boat.
But that is your choice – or at least it should be a “choice” - for there is ample scientific evidence accumulating under the theory of Intelligent Design that presents an equally compelling – and much more optimistic scientific perspective on life’s “origins.”
But currently, Big Science is still enamored with only the gloomy, 150-year old theory originally developed by Darwin, the man who believed that “superior” races would eventually wipe out the “inferior” races. The problem is…the scientific theory justifying that repugnant view is being forced on all of us, to the exclusion of any other scientific theories, in our nation’s public schools and taxpayer-funded government science institutions.
Abraham Lincoln ended slavery in America forever, to put to bed the whole notion of “inferior” races. And to be fair – the gentle Mr. Darwin himself did not favor slavery – even of those whom he described asbeing of the“savage races.”
Should the theory of Intelligent Design be allowed to be debated alongside Darwin’s depressing 150-year-old theory of Evolution? Should scientists who want to explore Intelligent Design Theory be shunned, ostracized and even fired from the teaching profession?
If you have to ask the questions – perhaps you don’t understand the difference between academic freedom… and the State-sponsored pessimism that is currently all but mandated by Big Science.
“EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed” is a new film that will open your eyes to the scientific evidence that challenges Darwin’s lurid theory of life. It reveals the distinctly non-scientific agenda that is driving Neo-Darwinism today. It also presents exciting new evidence accumulating behind the theory of intelligent design.
But most importantly - it will also remind you of the importance of maintaining the values of freedom and hope that Abraham Lincoln championed, and that some folks wish to deny us by fiat.
We stand squarely behind The Bill of Rights and our constitution’s First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech.
- The Producers of the film “EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed”
February 7th, 2008 at 3:23 am
Since this article makes no effort to refute evolution, there is no need to write a rebuttal, but a response is needed to the sensational claims made in this post.
Dawkins is thinking about the social implications of evolution. “Natural Selection” is part of evolution, but isn’t a good practice in the governing of people. Humans can organize a society that takes care of the less fortunate, whereas other creatures cannot.
The claim that the title of Darwin’s book “sounds like it could come straight out of a Ku Klux Klan manual” is very sensational. A Klan manual will have hateful remarks about a particular ethnicity, while “On the Origins of Species” doesn’t have the hate-filled ramblings. The only comparison is that the Klan manual hates a particular race and the Darwin book is about race, and even then, the term “race” holds a different meaning to each author. The term “race” to Darwin means the same as “variety”. It does not carry the meaning of ethnic divisions found in human societies.
The phrase “instead of now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla” is very much in poor taste, and I think that had Darwin realized how insensitive this comment is, he would have reworded it. I do not believe him to be a racist.
“We stand squarely behind The Bill of Rights and our constitution’s First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech.”
I must agree, but I do not agree with presenting arguments for intelligent design in the classroom. Evolution is a well vetted theory, whereas intelligent design is relatively new, not vetted and is competing against evolution. Intelligent design is a teleological argument for the existence of a god and if presented in a classroom it might infringe on a student’s freedom of religion. We must do our best to keep religion and government separate. If that means limiting the speech powers of government, then I stand in favor.
Good luck with your movie. You are going to need it.
February 7th, 2008 at 5:45 am
I am commenting to inform you that I will not watch your film, in part, due to this article.
Although I am very interested in the “intelligent design”/evolution debate, and had originally been rather interested in this film. Howeer, your blog posts have lead me to believe that your aim is simply to sensationalize the topic.
Your cries of “Darwin was a racist” or “Big Science is uncomfortable with even the suggestion that evolutionary theory might favor politically incorrect thinking” add absolutely nothing of substance to the debate concerning “intelligent design” as a true science.
Furthermore, the scientific method seeks knowledge and understanding, thus “pessimism”, gloominess and “optimism” are moot points in the search for truth.
I believe that scientists need to be more skeptical of themselves and the scientific process itself, perhaps there is room for an intelligent designer in the realms of its philosophy. While I will continue my involvement in the debate I am afraid to say that your film might do worse and simply push the conversation two steps back.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:19 am
Zygote Theory or Surrogate Theory combines the fossil record, phylogenetics (use of DNA to find related species) and probability - or should I say the IMPROBABILITY of functional genes forming and being ordered by pure chance. Natural selection explains the SURVIVAL of good genes but not their ARRIVAL. Check it out:
http://zygotetheory.wordpress.com/2007/09/02/zygote-theory/
February 7th, 2008 at 9:06 am
I am excited by the prospect of experiencing the upcoming film, “EXPELLED”. I’ve been a fan of Ben Stein’s for decades, and I thoroughly respect his intelligence.
Not surprisingly, Ben points out the connection between Darwinian “survival of the fittest” theory and human perpetration of genocide and arrogant racial superiority behaviors.
May I point out that nature demonstrates a frequent absence of altruism, compassion and/or charity? Being an animal lover myself, I agree that many individual instances of those qualities have been demonstrated, and have even taken place between species.
HOWEVER, whenever I watch a nature program about a pride of lions… and I witness an interloping male lion driving off or killing the weaker (and now former) male head of the household… and then deliberately seeking out and heartlessly killing every single little cub that was fathered by the other male so that he can quickly mate with all of his new “wives” (who submit to this, apparently…), I am reminded that nature is neither benevolent nor compassionate overall.
Our most human failing in attempting to decipher and comprehend the complexity of our universe is our persistent emotional need to attribute human characteristics to the intelligence which is ever evident in it.
This intelligence is not infallible (harmful mutations occur AT LEAST as frequently as beneficial ones) and it is most obviously NOT benevolent, since the cycle of life is inescapably founded on predation, death and consumption of other living things.
The Judeo-Christian Bible attributes both altruistic and horrific HUMAN characteristics to its obviously anthropomorphic “gods”… as do the other “holy books” created by mankind.
I should not need to enumerate every instance of awkward or unattractive design (platypusses and wart hogs come to mind…) and destructive, harmful, predatory species (ticks, mosquitos, heartworms, tapeworms, viruses, germs, and harmful bacteria come to mind).
So now… if we want to OBJECTIVELY discuss the probability that SOME sort of intelligence has always influenced the process of evolution WITHOUT also desperately trying to presume that it is some sort of ANTHROPOMORPHIC BENEVOLENT DEITY, I can agree.
.
February 7th, 2008 at 10:10 am
The producers of Expelled want us to believe that there is an evil conspiracy by “Big Science” to silence anyone who “dares” to believe in a higher intelligence while accepting Darwin’s theory of evolution.
The producers cite Dr. Francis S. Collins, a geneticist who directs the National Human Genome Research Institute and whose book, “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief” (Simon & Schuster, 2006), explains how he came to embrace his Christian faith. Dr. Collins separates his religious beliefs from his scientific work only because “he is toeing the party line,” Mr. Ruloff (producer of Expelled) said.
That’s “just ludicrous,” Dr. Collins said in a New York Times interview. While many of his scientific colleagues are not religious and some are “a bit puzzled” by his faith, he said, “they are generally very respectful.” He said that if the problem Mr. Ruloff describes existed, he is certain he would know about it.
Dr. Collins was not asked to participate in the film.
The thing that I am pessimistic about is that “Expelled” will show any validity to the concept of intelligent design, (according to several early reviews, it certainly does not), a premise that time after time has been clearly shown to be scientifically vacuous, unprovable, and unusable as anything but a public relations effort to introduce thinly veiled creationism into the public schools.
Funny how the producers deem this to be a constitutional freedom issue, but at the core, they seek to subvert our constitutional right to freedom of religion.
February 7th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Genesis 1:1
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”
Hebrews 4:2
“For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith.”
Hebrews 11:6
“And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek him.”
If we do not combine what we hear through the Bible with faith, then it is of no value to us. But if we believe what it says, then everything changes because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes.
Romans 1:20-22
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities — His eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools…”
Psalm 14:1a
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
2 Corinthians 2:16
“To the one we are the smell of death; to the other, the fragrance of life.”
1 John 5:6
“This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.”
February 7th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Pursuant to the genius of research, I am thrilled to discover this project. In the history of ontological dialog, the Catholic Church was the first oppressor… Now, it is acadamia. How funny. In the FREE marketplace of ideas, thank you for this project and the dialog that will result. The truly intelligent have nothing to fear… but truth, and maybe that is the real threat.
Thanks for this documentary. I will call all to think, and then speak… rather than CENSOR and DEFEND.
February 7th, 2008 at 11:51 am
I have a question, if we (supposedly) are so closely related to apes, why aren’t we using their orgins for transplants into homo sapiens? IF, our DNA is so close, we should be growing apes like corn to harvest everything from their hearts to kidneys. The key word is IF. What a great business to have, unless….it will not work. Hummmmm? Then again, it would be too cruel to purposely kill our (supposedly) nearest realitive in the animal kingdom to promote the health of undeserving mankind. Darwin has a great THEORY but that is all.
February 7th, 2008 at 11:54 am
I have a question, if we (supposedly) are so closely related to apes, why aren’t we using their orgins for transplants into homo sapiens? IF, our DNA is so close, we should be growing apes like corn to harvest everything from their hearts to kidneys. The key word is IF. What a great business to have, unless….it will not work. Hummmmm? Then again, it would be too cruel to purposely kill our (supposedly) nearest realitive in the animal kingdom to promote the health of undeserving mankind. Darwin has a great THEORY but that is all.
February 7th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
“Abraham Lincoln ended slavery in America forever, to put to bed the whole notion of “inferior” races”
Liar.
Here’s a quote from one of his debate speaches:
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”
February 7th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
I’m new to this whole debate. Please forgive my confusion, but how does teaching intelligent design as a possible reason for existance subverting anyone’s right to freedom of religion? Perhaps at the truth of this statement is a fear that you simply don’t want people to think.
From what little I have read, some from Mr. Dawkins, his words drip with a pompous arrogance towards intelligent design. Perhaps there is room for some to say it is being persecuted as a theory.
In the end, a state government that is forced to deny the possibility of a god (any god be it… Christian, Krishna or Allah) is subverting people’s freedom of religion. By teaching evolution as the only way, the government is implying a religion of atheism.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting a complete pendulum swing in the other direction, just a search for balance. I am grateful for Darwin and his thoughts on evolution…I mean without evolution we wouldn’t have had the Dinosaurs?! Can you imagine a world without “Denver the Last Dinosaur” or “That Disney fantasia scene with the battling dinosaurs?” I know I don’t want to.
So I’ll watch the movie and hopefully it will provide a launching pad into further discussions.
February 7th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
To declare that “Big Science” is attempting to suppress ID is to declare yourself a paranoid fool. There is no conspiracy, ID simply does not rise to the level of being a coherent or useful theory. Also, this is not a Constitutional free speech issue. Proof of that is the fact that this movie is being made without government interference.
People are free to talk about ID all they want, they are free to argue for it however best they see fit, and they are free to do any research they need to try and prove ID’s merits. What they are not free to do is inject bad science into science class through misinformation and legislation. Stop it “Big Religion,” because what you’re trying to do is infringe on my right to tell you that ID makes no sense.
February 7th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
“James C. Says:
February 7th, 2008 at 3:23 am
Since this article makes no effort to refute evolution, there is no need to write a rebuttal, but a response is needed to the sensational claims made in this post.
Dawkins is thinking about the social implications of evolution. “Natural Selection” is part of evolution, but isn’t a good practice in the governing of people.”
Why not? If it brought life from ooz to thumans, just think of the marvelous creatures our progeny could become!
“ Humans can organize a society that takes care of the less fortunate, whereas other creatures cannot.”
But why should we? If we have evolved and indeed are evolving, why not hasten our state to an inevitably more glorious one? Why shun the mechanism that has brought life so far?
“The claim that the title of Darwin’s book “sounds like it could come straight out of a Ku Klux Klan manual” is very sensational.”
The book itself was “very sensational” in it’s time and sadly, this book has been and is currenly being used to promote raciest ideas in many white supremacist groups.
“A Klan manual will have hateful remarks about a particular ethnicity, while “On the Origins of Species” doesn’t have the hate-filled ramblings.”
One does not have to hate a race to believe it’s inferior.
“The only comparison is that the Klan manual hates a particular race and the Darwin book is about race, and even then, the term “race” holds a different meaning to each author.”
Right, Darwin denounces only the race that does not survive so get crackin so yours isn’t the one that’s wiped out!
“The term “race” to Darwin means the same as “variety”.”
I respectfully disagree, Darwin was intelligent enough to have chosen another word if he didn’t mean to say “race” in its normally defined form. Additionally, the context o the word does not lend itself to the conclusion you are asserting.
“It does not carry the meaning of ethnic divisions found in human societies.”
In the context of his book it was probably ment to be applied to the physical and apparent intelligence of human populations of the time whose primary distinguishing factor would be color.
“The phrase “instead of now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla” is very much in poor taste, and I think that had Darwin realized how insensitive this comment is, he would have reworded it.”
But why should he, he was only speaking scientificly.
“I do not believe him to be a racist.”
Of course not, hw as a scientist and they are above reproach.
““We stand squarely behind The Bill of Rights and our constitution’s First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech.”
I must agree, but I do not agree with presenting arguments for intelligent design in the classroom. Evolution is a well vetted theory, whereas intelligent design is relatively new, not vetted and is competing against evolution.”
At present I agree, however, because of the fanatic resistance to intelligent design that exists, no other theory in history shall be as well vetted as ID.
“Intelligent design is a teleological argument for the existence of a god and if presented in a classroom it might infringe on a student’s freedom of religion.”
You must be reading the evo scare journal. ID is the theory that design can be empirically detected. It says nothing about what or how anything was designed. It just asserts that a structure was designed.
“We must do our best to keep religion and government separate.”
Well then, you better not elect religious people to the government. I mean really, right now the government is filled with people who believe in God not a very good division if you ask me.
“If that means limiting the speech powers of government, then I stand in favor.”
France is waiting for you my friend, have a nice trip.
“Good luck with your movie. You are going to need it.”
O the movie will do just fine; it has picked a topic that polarizes people. Even if it turns out to be crap it will doe very well.
February 7th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Earlier in this thread I clicked the link to:
http://zygotetheory.wordpress.com/2007/09/02/zygote-theory/#comment-40
And read their premise RE: Xygote Theory.
The basic premise they’ve presented makes some sense — that complex genetic structures, including the original one-celled organisms, are extremely unlikely to have occurred completely by chance, without some form of intelligence orchestrating their development.
Unfortunately, the concept as they’ve presented it is hampered by their cultural and conditioned adherance to ancient Judeo-Christian religious precepts which were developed thousands of years ago by men who were ignorant of the very nature of our solar system… much less cognizant of basic biology.
If they could think outside the “box” which contains their Bible and open their minds to the idea that the intelligence orchestrating the universe is not likely to be the anthropomorphic, paternalistic “god” of Abraham, they might consider the idea that perhaps every living thing is (metaphorically speaking) one droplet in an eternal ocean of intelligence that is constantly inventing and reinventing itself into various life forms.
Look into “The Afterlife Experiments” by Dr. Gary Weiss, and “Children Who Remember Past Lives”, by Dr. Ian Stevenson… and all the research done into Near Death Experiences by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, George Ritchie, P.M.H. Atwater, and Raymond Moody Jr.
I’m afraid, however, that entrenched belief in The Bible and its ancient, narrow-minded warnings about delving into the metaphysical, the afterlife, and/or reincarnation… and its attribution of any such information to the influence of a mythological “devil” will prevent them from approaching any such information with an open mind.
Many well-documented instances of such things have been turning up for decades, but the religious community is as stubborn as the scientific community about considering any probability of our consciousness being both indestructible and eternal… and possibly all part of the entire intelligence responsible for the ever-changing universe.
In considering this one has to eliminate any presumption that this aggregate intelligence is either infallible OR benevolent. Observable Nature and the cycle of life on this planet indicates otherwise.
“Ockham’s razor” recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities.
Any assumption that the ancient God of Abraham equals the intelligence behind the universe presumes from one to three entities, all male, all anthropomorphic, and all invented by imaginative and ignorant human beings who lived thousands of years ago.
I believe it makes relative sense to conceive of an all-encompassing intelligence taking numerous forms throughout the universe. But I think they bring it down to the level of nonsense when they attempt to shoehorn this concept into the Judeo-Christian “Shoes of the Fisherman”.
.
February 7th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
1. “Skip Tracer Says:
February 7th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
“Abraham Lincoln ended slavery in America forever, to put to bed the whole notion of “inferior” races”
Liar.
Here’s a quote from one of his debate speaches:
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.””
Weather intentional or not, Lincoln ended the brutality of slavery and made the way for equality. Quote mining is all well and good, but in this case, I’m afraid you’ll find no footing.
February 7th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
I find it interesting that when I typed in “proof of evolution” in the google search bar, I had to go threw two web pages full of creationist and ID sites to find anything pretending to be pro evolution. The macroevolutionists have already lost the battle because they are unwilling to allow the conversation. ID has been catapulted to an undeserved position because it has been treated with such distain. It seems to be human nature that when an Idea is apposed vehemently, that the idea is embraced readily. The idea of evolution benefited from this tendency. The irony is that instead of the church repressing science, science is repressing science because it might turn out to support religion. The hypocrisy lies in that when religion accepts what science says, everything is all well and good, but when it looks like science might be able to accept what religion says the ist hits the fan. I say teach it ALL! Speak every idea and let every thought be herd! What is true, honorable and good will be self-evident. If Science is right about macroevolution then all of the peaces will eventually fall into place and religious nuts will be shown to be the imbecile’s macroevolutionists claim them to be. If the ID theory is correct then evidence will mount as the idea is investigated and all will come to know that life on this earth was designed. In the end when we all sluf off this mortal coil and are accepted as food for the worms we will know what the truth is. What does it hurt a macroevoulutionist to let a person believe in a fantasy if it makes them feel better about life and death? And what does it hurt a religiouse person if a macroevolutionists burns in hell for all eternity? Why not investigate all of the possibilities? What is honorable, truthful and good is self evident and a quest for truth will not end wanting. Why should we fear, hate or shun any idea regardless of it’s type. ID might very well turn out to be a footnote in the history of science but how does that hurt anyone? If anything teaching ID will solidify macroevolution in the mind because it will have a possible alternative. Naturally, since macroevolution is scientific fact, it will be logically chosen over ID and life will progress. If macroevolution is factual then there is nothing to fear. All opposing to ID does is demonstrate a perceived weakness within the theory of macroevolution. Otherwise, no reason to appose ID would exist. One might argue that it’s not good to teach faithless to our children but it is a common practice to teach parietals to children. They teach morals and principles, why not use ID to teach the absolution of macroevolution? Macroevolutionists will never allow this of course. They are right in all respects and cannot be questioned, which is why the downfall of the idea of macroevolution is inevitable. Keep up the good work evos, the more you struggle the more useless your efforts become.
February 7th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
@Gerald Pait:
“I have a question, if we (supposedly) are so closely related to apes, why aren’t we using their orgins for transplants into homo sapiens? ”
OK, so, apes must either be so closely related to humans that they are virtually interchangeable, or evolution is disproved?
Thanks you for demonstrating so clearly the kind of l flawed logic that creationists (and religious people in general) so often rely on to shore up their views.
You know, I had a very religious friend, and he refused to debate about it. He would say, “You want proof from me, but I don’t have any proof. And that doesn’t bother me. It’s FAITH.” I had nothing but respect from his views. But you people who need to use flawed logic or pseudoscience to try and justify your views to others (and to yourselves,) perhaps you need to examine your beliefs more closely.
@Ben Stein:
Elsewhere on this site you complain about people being ridiculed for supporting creationism. Well, that’s because espousing stupidity is worthy of ridicule.
In the comments for this blog post alone we see many instances of people pointing out your factual inaccuracies. You should be ashamed of yourself. How could such a smart man be so stupid?
February 7th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Oh, great! Wow, Skip. Thanks for beginning this next thread of replies to Ben’s posts with the same pathetic atheist/evolutionist saw. First sidestep the content of the article, especially the facts at its heart and cry:
LIAR! LIAR! LIAR!
I can’t wait for BobC to show up and call everyone who demonstrates a greater grasp of English and reason than he can muster a “flat-earther, magic worshipper!”
To my MIND, there is nothing more magical than the wishful thinking I demonstrated when I embraced as fact the constantly mutating Theory of Evolution.
Creationist: “God did it.”
IDer: “I don’t know who did it, but evolution couldn’t have.”
Evolutionist: “You social & mental retard! Punctuated equilibrium did!”
Talk about magic.
February 7th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
@Ben Stein:
After I posted the above, I watched the trailer for “Expelled”. I want to say that in that 6 1/2 minutes, my opinion of you changed.
I used to think you were a very intelligent man, a man with whom I disagreed on a great many points but nonetheless possessing integrity and worthy of respect. In the last 6 1/2 minutes, you managed to change that.
You are a sensationalist and a fraud, right down to outright claiming that people will lose their friends, lose their jobs, simply by watching your film. This is so hyperbolic it’s insulting to me as a viewer.
I have also seen on your website where you criticize others for commenting critically on your film when they have not seen it. Well, this trailer alone seems to shore up their statements. You present half-truths, and even lies, to try and appeal to peoples’ emotions rather than their intellect in order to make your point. You are no better than any of the tabloid journalists or “reality tv” bottom feeders who thrive on scandal and to that end will generate it themselves if necessary.
I am never happy when someone I respected turns out not to have been worthy of it. But nonetheless I am glad I saw this trailer and website, for the truth they reveal - about you.
There is no conspiracy against creationism. It’s simply mankind’s ingrained tendency to react negatively towards fallacious thinking.
February 7th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
The social ramifications of Darwinian “survival of the fittest” has played out to be the nightmare that Darwin envisioned - it brought about the eugenics movement and Margaret Sanger whose goal was to abort away all of the “inferior races”, and her legacy kills on today and is defended blindly and with no reason just as evolution is blindly adhered to. Darwinism is the big lie on which all the modern death philosophers built their world view of despair, culminating in Marxism and Nazism which sought to exterminate all of those that were not of the master race, or at the very least enslave them. Micro evolution within species is well documented. Macro evolution where one species evolves into another has virtually no fossil proof. Evolutionary scientists have been unable to explain this so they came up with the theory of “punctuated equilibrium” where somehow by chance rapid changes occur in a very short period of time. Why that sounds like creation doesn’t it? When are evolutionary scientists and the world at large going to throw off this archaic religious belief in Darwinian evolution? It is a curse upon mankind.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
I read one of these responses that said, “To declare that “Big Science” is attempting to suppress ID is to declare yourself a paranoid fool.” First of all this logic is completely flawed and insulting, and secondly this is a very ignorant comment. This shows that you are not even willing to look into the possibility that it might be happening. There is nothing that bothers me more than when people let their biases influence their search for the truth. They would rather believe something that is untrue than be proved wrong.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
I would also like to comment on “Bill’s” comment. Ben Stein is not saying we are going to be fired or persecuted for watching this movie, this is obvious. He is simply trying to emphasize what may be happening to other people. Do not be so quick to jump to conclusions. Think of the other persons argument before you let your anger form your rebuttal.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
I have enjoyed the discourse on these Ben Stein blogs, but the comments of the producers have been utter foolishness. Darwinian evolution has been exposed as a fraud based on scientific knowledge, math and common sense - not “pessimism” or race-baiting. Thank you for giving us a voice to be heard, but PLEASE do not speak for us!
February 7th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
I guess I somone should have told Darwin that we should be keeping species from being extinct.
Another thing is this article was not about refuting evolution as much as was to show what the original theory was about.
Another thing is, the prediction of the extermination of the savage species didn’t happen, so what happen to its predictive success.
Here’s another look, Natural selection is not a prediction of the theory either, its used as part of the thoery of how white Europeans were going exterminate the “savage races” Natural selection was know before Darwin. Isn’t that funny you use Religion to support your “scientific theory”, not scientific facts. Natural selection or mutations are not evolution.
February 7th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Mainstream scientists are finally starting to openly admit that their theories of random chance creation of life present hopelessly impossible odds even with ridiculously generous precepts. We have already had to hold our noses through “punctuated equilibrium” and the “scaffolding theory”, now we need to endure “eternal inflation” and “infinite multiverses”. At least they finally admit that “natural selection” as defined by “random chance mutation” combined with “survival of the fittest” is a failed model as an explanation for evolution. Wasn’t that bad enough?
If one must call out the possibility of infinite universes to conclude that their theory is correct, don’t all theories, evidence and observations become moot? Isn’t that just another invocation of magic?
What goes on in sister universes aside, is there anyone in THIS Universe willing to honestly discuss what the evidence is REALLY telling us?
Random chance genetics? Genetic codes represent a most amazingly NON-random information system which is directing all of what forms living things.
Survival of the fittest? Only a meaningless percentage of living things die because an offspring formed a genetic “advantage”. Even when it does happen, it is a subtractive filter which only makes the impossible odds worse, not better.
Just as plants generate limbs that nearly always instinctively reach out for water, sunlight or mineral nutrients, mutated body formations are nearly always beneficial, rarely harmful or vestigial.
There are things going on inside living things that defy all attempts at explanation so far. Perpetual replication, protein processing, encoded information, translation, antibodies, organelle movement during cell division, irreducible complexity, the origin of species, the origin of life… These questions and many more are still wide open. Darwinism has pulled us in the wrong direction for too long.
Some force(s) or agent(s) of some kind is CAUSING molecules to cooperate with each other against all known laws of nature in a way that perpetuates life.
That is a chilling but increasingly undeniable statement.
February 7th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
I find it enlightening that very few evolutionists seem capable of discussing the subject of origins without resorting to personal attacks and name calling. Makes one tempted to think they are making up with insults what their position is lacking in truth.
February 7th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Holy Smoke is Right!
Some Folks?
Check this out for an - argument against - Creation?
WARNING: This is (supposed to be) an Anti-Creation website..
http://www.holysmoke.org/quiz-answers.htm
But it would seem -
They Acknowledge I. D., or a Great Designer?
Please Note Questions: 31, 37 and 46…
They are telling their selfs - There is a Creator.
But they won’t even hear their own FACTS!
31 True: Life is too complex to have happened by chance.
37 True: Life appears to have been designed by a Great Designer.
46 False: Humans evolved from monkeys
Beware - of folks that talk out both sides of their mouth.
Mixing a little truth with a lie to make it more believable.
Willful Darkness is like a sickness, it seeks to infect all it comes in contact with.
Misery loves company!
Wake-up Call,
In Christ,
Pastor ~ http://www.FullGrace.com
February 8th, 2008 at 12:07 am
QUITE SOMETHIN’…for nothin’
atheistic(religious) evolutionists think and ‘believe’:
nothing, by itself, given enough time, eventually, ends up on quite an uncanny and unique, spinning sphere among spheres, bristling with life, orbiting a massive ball of fiery gases, gazing heavenward in awe at the sequin splashed velvet, scratching its bone clad mass of the most marvelous matter in the universe and wondering “how in the cosmos did i do this? why on earth, for heavens sake, would i? after all, it is totally meaningless, completely pointless, and there is no purpose, rhyme or reason for it! i guess i must be unintelligent, foolish or both.”
cheer up, matter heaven awaits! finally, after a long and drawn out heat death resulting in chaotic particles of useless heat energy dispersed throughout space, you can rest in pieces; no more nonsensical struggling to survive for who knows what.
“toothless”
February 8th, 2008 at 12:27 am
Gerald Pait Said:
“I have a question, if we (supposedly) are so closely related to apes, why aren’t we using their orgins for transplants into homo sapiens? IF, our DNA is so close, we should be growing apes like corn to harvest everything from their hearts to kidneys. The key word is IF. What a great business to have, unless….it will not work. Hummmmm? Then again, it would be too cruel to purposely kill our (supposedly) nearest realitive in the animal kingdom to promote the health of undeserving mankind. Darwin has a great THEORY but that is all.”
By Gerald Pait’s logic, humans aren’t so closely related to each other. After all, getting a blood transfusion of the wrong blood type can kill us. And as for organ transplants, why doesn’t any old organ do? I mean, why do we have to match tissues of prospective donors so carefully? Even after that, why do transplant patients have to take special drugs to stop their immune systems from rejecting a donor organ– from a fellow human?
And what about rh negative blood? If an Rh-negative mother becomes pregnant with an rh-positive child, her immune system makes antibodies that can attack and kill her own unborn child. Fortunately, these days we can prevent this situation from happening. But who would design such a cruel thing?
February 8th, 2008 at 4:27 am
yoyoyo,
I stand by my original statement. There is no “Big Science” machine whose leaders sit in smoke-filled back rooms wondering how best to suppress a theory that makes them scared. This isn’t the X-files, and Richard Dawkins isn’t the “smoking man.” My post may have been insulting, but exactly where is the logic flawed?
February 8th, 2008 at 7:38 am
Hi. I want to share a few thoughts about this upcoming film and the issues of academic freedom from my perspective as a scientist doing research at a university. I also happen to be a person of faith, though not a Christian, so I’m not bound by the theological constraints imposed by the Bible in addressing the science/religion issue. My background is in theoretical physics specializing in gravitation and cosmology as described by Einstein’s theory of general relativity (GR), so while I’m not expert in matters concerning Darwinian evolution, I do work on projects that speak ultimately to fundamental issues on creation, and my own training as a scientist provides some substance for understanding the challenges put forward by those who support intelligent design (ID).
While I categorically state my own belief in God as a creative agent for life on Earth and possibly elsewhere in the Universe, I don’t actually hold a position in favour or against ID as currently posed, simply because I don’t know enough to comment about it. What I can say as a general rule, however, is that all scientific theories break down at some level. Exactly where and under what conditions they do break down is a legitimate matter of opinion, but based on the progress of GR and quantum mechanics (QM), it’s obvious that limitations exist in both theories, so I can’t see why natural selection should be exempt from a similar breakdown. For instance, the singularity theorems discovered by Hawking and Penrose predict that Big Bang cosmology started off with a singularity, which is actually infinite gravitational field strength predicted by the mathematics of GR. This makes no sense physically and indicates a lack of predictive power in GR near the singularity. This is a big motivation for why physicists do research into discovering quantum gravity, where GR and/or QM may need to be modified to correctly describe the physics in this instance. When exploring the limits of scientific theories, Darwinian natural selection is no different in this respect for this type of scrutiny.
I’m deeply worried about the suggestions raised in the trailer for the Expelled film about the lack of academic freedom to honestly explore the limitations of Darwinian natural selection. Let me be clear that I DO NOT support the belief in “young Earth creationism” whatsoever and fully support the belief that biological systems evolve over time. This is obvious. In fact, I would advocate belief in a “principle of evolution” over a “theory of evolution” (which I feel is a stronger and more encompassing statement than the latter) because it speaks to the dynamic nature of the cosmos and all contained within it, while not being to restrictive in how the details of the evolutionary principle are described. It seems the questions are whether natural selection is both “necessary and sufficient” to explain the diversity of life on Earth, and whether there is any “purpose” behind it. While I don’t think that such a question can ever be answered definitively, since that is ultimately a matter of faith to infer or deny the existence of God, I do believe that people should have the right to raise the questions without fear of being persecuted by others who control the means to their livelihood. For me, the relevant issue is the conflict between fundamentalism (religious or atheistic) over moderation, and how those who hold the levers of power exercise that power over others. Do we want a return to a McCarthy-like era where this time scientists are publicly threatened with being labeled the equivalent of being “communists” for advocating ID or questioning Darwinian evolution? It doesn’t surprise me at all why such scientists would be fearful of publicly speaking on the topic with colleagues or the public. For this reason alone, I intend to watch this film and hope that many others will do the same.
In a way, there is an interesting parallel developing in physics with the support for string theory and its implications for cosmology and particle physics. While I support the right of researchers to explore string theory, there are many who question whether it even qualifies as a legitimate scientific theory because it hasn’t produced a shred of experimental evidence to support it after 30+ years of work with only multiple layers of mathematics to guide its direction. Furthermore, it looks unlikely that it will ever be “testable” within the next several generations or make any meaningful predictions to falsify it. I personally feel that string theory fails the same tests used to argue against ID, and yet there is no effort made to suppress string theorists from exploring the idea. In fact, Lee Smolin’s excellent and fair-minded book, “The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science and What Comes Next” very clearly documents some disturbing issues on the topic, particularly where it concerns this “groupthink” mentality of many string theorists with impertinent attitudes towards non-string theorists, who would rather promote changing the definition of science than to accept the possibility that it may be wrong. This cannot be good for the progress of science if a dominant group like the string theory community overwhelms other approaches to similar goals by way of dominating research grants, publications, faculty positions, and other channels that suppress other legitimate and equally speculative expressions of scientific inquiry.
Finally, I want to share an unfortunate experience I had with a leading young professor I met at a recent conference. (As a disturbing sidenote, I got to see first-hand some openly hostile attitudes towards religion expressed by physicists at this same conference, which speaks to the basic premise of the Expelled film.) My comments are a bit technical, so please bear with me. This professor is an advocate of the majority view that the universe is composed of about 10% known dust/stellar matter, 20% “dark matter” of unknown origin, and 70% “dark energy” within the standard Big Bang model. (By the way, the first proponent of the Big Bang model in the 1920s or 1930s was Georges Lemaitre, a Jesuit priest!) While there is reliable evidence for the existence of dark matter, the support for dark energy is more tenuous, since it can only be inferred from trying to fit known universe expansion data to a very specialized Big Bang model. Furthermore, the best theoretical model for dark energy is 100 orders of magnitude larger than the value predicted by cosmology! This point suggests to others and myself that perhaps dark energy may not really exist, and that maybe more sophisticated cosmological models can accommodate the expansion data without requiring dark energy. However, when I put forward this suggestion to the professor I met, he was unwilling to even entertain the idea, and had the gall to say that I should just adopt the majority opinion on the basis of their “authority,” rather than respond to the merits of the scientific questions raised. Unfortunately, I now have a very low opinion of this person and that it’s a waste of time to talk with him again, since his opinions are clearly driven more by ideology, attachment, and human prejudice than objective reason. The point here is that scientific dogmatism exists, irrespective of whether there is a religious dimension involved, and closed mindedness is a trait of human nature independent of science or religion.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:46 am
hey beaglelady,
haven’t you noticed that things tend to go from good to bad? you will never know why things are the way they are unless you realize that something must have gone terribly amiss. there is a ‘BOOK’ wherein the AUTHOR, who claims to be the CREATOR of the universe and all that is in it, explains the ‘why’ for what we see.
we were given fair warning, when all was well and good, not to mess with evil(the destructive power), but we went and did it anyway. now, as we view and suffer the consequences for ‘our’ wrongful actions, we complain at HIM!
there is a remedy, but you’ll have to read the ‘BOOK’.
“toothless”
February 8th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Formerevolutionist said: “Oh, great! Wow, Skip. Thanks for beginning this next thread of replies to Ben’s posts with the same pathetic atheist/evolutionist saw.”
I don’t get it. This was true, it happened, Lincoln said it, I believe it.
I googled for this, and found it in several places, so it’s not a lie.
Lincoln was prepared to free the slaves, it was morally repugnant and wrong. However, he didn’t believe the black man was equal to the white man.
Ben’s quote (or whatever flack writes that drek) said “Abraham Lincoln ended slavery in America forever, to put to bed the whole notion of “inferior” races.”
Lincoln said blacks were not superior to whites, nor their equal. Therefore, they were an “inferior” race.
So Ben lied.
Deny it if you will, but it’s there in black and white.
February 8th, 2008 at 10:56 am
YOYOYO-
You said - “This shows that you are not even willing to look into the possibility that it might be happening. There is nothing that bothers me more than when people let their biases influence their search for the truth. They would rather believe something that is untrue than be proved wrong.”
I have been looking into this matter for several months now, and while this movie bloviates about “the ‘Big Science’ conspiracy to expell smart new ideas from the classroom”, and that “freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions”, it has completely failed to show any proof that-
1- there is such as thing as “Big Science”
2- there is any conspiracy going on
3- The concept of intelligent design is a “smart new idea”
4- the plights of Guillermo Gonzalez, Richard von Sternberg, and Caroline Crocker were nothing more than academician pissing matches, not conspiracy. (By the way, none of these “martyrs” were fired, Gonzalez was merely not granted tenure, as were several other candidates at ISU, Sternberg continues in his position with NIH, and Crocker was simply not re-hired after her contract expired for her part-time biology instructor position at GMU.)
.
What I really object to is the core issue - which is the way the Discovery Intstitute is using public relations effort, as evidenced by this movie, and legal obfuscation to push it’s thinly veiled religious agenda into school systems.
A noted biologist said-
“I want to make the observation that is: advocates of intelligent design like to paint themselves as the lone heroes fighting against scientific dogma. They got a really revolutionary idea, and they’re gonna convince everybody in science; give ‘em a couple of decades. And you know, maybe they will. Maybe they will. And they cite the Big Bang as an example of an idea that was once regarded with suspicion, or as heresy, and gradually won over. But the interesting thing is not the question as to whether or not revolutionary ideas occasionally win out in science. The interesting idea, the interesting question, is “how” do revolutionary ideas win out. And the Big Bang won out because of scientific research, because Arto & Penzious found the background radiation to the Big Bang. They completed the theory. They stitched it together. It was a predictive theory, that says you ought to go out and find this in nature.
Now the curious thing is the advocates of that theory did not try to get themselves injected into curricula. They didn’t produce pamphlets on how you could get the Big Bang taught in your school district and avoid the constitutional questions. They did the research, they won the scientific battle. That’s how science actually works. And for all the high-minded statements about design, about the philosophy of Aristotle, about fairness, and about the implicit theological assumptions of evolution, the straightforward and simple matter, is that science works, and it is particularly good at predicting stuff that isn’t true. If intelligent design has the facts of nature on its side, it’ll win out. And I don’t see any particular reason to fight this legal route, unless, unless, the battle you are fighting is primarily political, cultural, social, and religious, and not scientific. And in this case, to use a nice lawyer term, res ipse loquitor, the facts speak for themselves.”
.
.
Show me proof that this “vast conspiracy” exists. I have looked into the possibility of it happening, but as of yet, I haven’t been proved wrong.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
I find it enlightening that very few IDers and creationists seem capable of discussing the subject of origins without resorting to personal attacks and name calling. Makes one tempted to think they are making up with insults what their position is lacking in truth.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
“Survival of the fittest? Only a meaningless percentage of living things die because an offspring formed a genetic “advantage”. Even when it does happen, it is a subtractive filter which only makes the impossible odds worse, not better.”
I don’t understand your reasoning.
If the offspring of an animal have a survival advantage, then more of that gene will appear in the next generation, and more the following, until the advantage covers most of the animals born. Maybe it’s a small advantage, but, statistally, it’s there.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Beaglelady,
“And what about rh negative blood .. .But who would design such a cruel thing?”
In the above post, you raise a problem that arises in nature/creation to refute the notion that a loving God would not be responsible for such a cruel phenomenon.
If one reads the first chapters of Genesis, the explanation is that God created a perfect world, but that when mankind chose to violate His expressed will, sin and death entered our planet. The book of Romans in the NT declares that creation has been subjugated to disorder and ruin through the introduction of sin into the world, and groans, waiting for the redemption of the sons of God, at which time a glorious new heaven and new earth will be revealed where there will be no more tears and sorrow, sickness and disease, and corruption.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
bill Says:
February 7th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
“I watched the trailer for “Expelled”. I want to say that in that 6 1/2 minutes, my opinion of you changed.”
“I used to think you were a very intelligent man, a man with whom I disagreed on a great many points but nonetheless possessing integrity and worthy of respect. In the last 6 1/2 minutes, you managed to change that”.
Philip says:
I know its mindboggling to you that intelligent people refute evolution with intelligent reasoning. Your immediate reaction to to turn a very respected intellectual such as Ben Stein into an idiot within 6 1/2 minutes of inquiry, reflects a deeply rooted threat and challenge to your current belief system. This condition eliminates you from ever retaining objectivity to follow the evidence where ever it may lead!
You are now simply one of the indoctrinated!
.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
philip said: You are now simply one of the indoctrinated!
And you have always been indoctrinated. There’s nothing we can do for you.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
“God created a perfect world…”
But apparently not a strong one, if a few people could upset the ‘grand plan’.
But of course, this is all off-topic. ID has nothing to do with religion! (snicker).
February 8th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Quick analogy: Scientology DVD “Psychiatry: An Industry of Death”
*Attacks original centuries-old theories, while ignoring all following research.
[Psychiatrists have made mistakes. Darwin did to. Nobody’s actually arguing to the contrary]
*Hypocritically uses later research to ATTACK the original theories [In both cases eugenics experiments, etc. But this makes no sense because once again nobody was really arguing any of it in the first place]
*Falsely ties an entire group to a negative (Psychiatrists to Nazis, ‘Darwinists’ to KKK)
*Suggests a pseudo-religious solution based on apologetic arguments rather than observation.
*Auditory, visual, and semantic sensationalism
Which of these commenters is an expert in on any relevant topic? Please, for your own sake, consider where you’re getting your information. If it’s a special-interest group using TACTICS like mentioned above, perhaps it would be prudent to read arguments on the other side of the fence.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
(Supposedly) Thinking Man said in post 35:
“I find it enlightening that very few IDers and creationists seem capable of discussing the subject of origins without resorting to personal attacks and name calling. Makes one tempted to think they are making up with insults what their position is lacking in truth.”
I say:
You have got to be kidding! And since there are 95 posts by someone calling himself “Thinking Man” on the following page, you are dishonest, in addition to being inaccurate:
http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/10/31/darwinism-the-imperialism-of-biology/
Didn’t you read the hundreds of ad hominem attacks that surround your own posts and those of your fellow “enlightened” evolutionists? BobC, for one, is a raving lunatic who rarely offers anything substantive, but always has an insult. And he is certainly not the only one. Your own post 680 comes pretty close to an unfounded insult, where you compare the religious and those who doubt evolution’s veracity to bigots and racists. Or in post 1144 where you flat out call someone a “narrow-minded bigot. Or 1152 where you use a quote from Ethan Allen to call those who disagree with evolution and you “barbarous and ignorant.” Or in 1187 where without any support you deem any biologist who disagrees with evolution incompetent. Then, to top it off, you affirm all of the mindless insults hurled by BobC in your post 1828, saying that each insult is “Worth repeating.” Should I go on? Or is “one” like you now sufficiently “enlightened”?
After reading thousands of posts here, rarely — very R-A-R-E-L-Y — has anyone opposed to evolution or who questions its scientific validity resorted to name calling. On the contrary, it simply isn’t necessary, though with people like BobC and Thinking Man posting here, it is extremely tempting.
As for me, I came close when I called him an ignoramus, which by definition, he is as someone who continually and willfully ignores unwelcome evidence and is therefore guilty of displaying his ignorance. (Even if BobC thinks he understands evolution, and as a self-proclaimed atheist needs it, he ignores its myriad flaws and the names and proofs of legitimate scientists who disagree with the conclusions of modern evolution — not Darwinism, Thinking Man.)
But I shouldn’t be surprised that an evolutionist like Thinking Man would so dishonestly hand-pick the evidence and draw a conclusion that fits his a priori assumptions. It is par for the course.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
” very respected intellectual such as Ben Stein…”
Huh? He was a writer for a couple of presidents, appeared in a movie and had some TV shows. It doesn’t take an intellectual giant to do that!
Where are his degrees? How much has he published?
February 8th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
“science is repressing science because it might turn out to support religion.”
No, science is ignoring something that claims to be a theory, but doesn’t play by the same rules.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
INTELLIGENT DESIGN: A BALANCED, RESPECTFUL and RATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
The veiled agenda of Intelligent Design bleeds through its empty rhetoric like a gushing chest wound staining a freshly bleached T-shirt. ID is a fascist politico-religious movement that masquerades as science and attempts to force a wedge between the scientific community and the wider culture. The ultimate goal of this wedgie is to establish a theocracy in which the Bible becomes federal law and the Biblical creation account in the book of Guinness is taught as fact.
Although most of the details about evolution remain to be worked out, there is no debate among real scientists about the fundamentalist facts of evolution. Real scientists have neither the time nor inclination to be bothered with evidence of Intelligent Design, nor the stomach to dialog with its vile practitioners. Evolution is as well established a fact as global warming and the CIA plot to assassinate Kennedy. The accumulated evidence for evolution is more overwhelming than vigorously chewing a mouthful of Altoids, and to reject or challenge it is not just to abjure science but to place society at a risk more grave than a sarin nerve gas baloon drifting towards a porcupine. Many diseases, including disjunctive conjunctivitis and neuromuscular arachnophobia, are the result of natural selection in action, and those who minimize or question evolution are, like medieval plague-rat breeders, endangering public health and, in all likelihood, are already complicit in the deaths of countless people.
I therefore urges all genuine scientists to use all legal means to oppose and overthrow this creationist pseudoscience that, unlike us Darwinists, refuses to listen to all sides of the issue. Some Intelligent Design practitioners have advanced degrees in the sciences. In every known case they obtain these advanced degrees for the express purpose of injecting themselves into the academic and scientific communities like heroin into the veins of an innocent virgin.
Similar to an Salvation Army member with a ringing bell in one hand and a hand gun in the other, proponents of ID have only one goal: take our grant money and make us all go to church. They seek to substitute supernatural causes for natural causes and thereby destroy science and, like an intellectual equivalent to a pillaging army of Genghis Khan, taking over society at any cost. They should not be considered genuine scientists in any sense of the word. Nor should their work be interpreted as facilitating the proper understanding of science. Their transparent agenda is a frontal attack on the methods and outcomes of science over the last several hundred years. Their work, their snide demeanor, their personal hygiene, and, indeed, their very presence among real scientists are so offensive and disturbing to the progress of science that only one solution remains: SCIENTIFIC CLEANSING.
Yes, science must be cleansed from the oozing cancerous tumor of Intelligent Design. Like amputating a leg infected with festering gangrene, only radical surgery will do. The BRITES therefore calls on the scientific, academic, and professional communities to institute the following emergency policies.
(1) RE-EDUCATION: Any scientist caught sympathizing with Intelligent Design needs to either take part in intensive re-education workshops on the nature of science and the evidence for evolution, or be forced to repetitively listen to selected passages of Richard Dawkins audio books. Like clean processed sewer water discharged into a lake used for pure clear drinking water, successfully re-educated scientists may be re-integrated into the scientific community. If re-education is unsuccessful or is refused outright, the only recourse is ..
(2) EXCOMMUNICATION: Scientists who remain recalcitrant and refuse to be re-integrated into the community of real scientists must by all legal means be removed from that community like a stubborn rotting tooth yanked from an otherwise healthy mouth. Untenured professors must not be granted tenure. Tenured professors must be socially shunned, encouraged to seek employment elsewhere (e.g., at a Bible college or Burger King), and be assigned undesirable parking spaces. Funding institutions (e.g., the National Foundation for Science and the NIH) must as a matter of policy refuse to fund the research of Intelligent Design sympathizers.
(3) ACCREDITATION: Academic institutions that employ Intelligent Design sympathizers that in any way give Intelligent Design legitimacy (e.g., present it in a favorable light in the science curriculum or even go so far as to set up committees, think-tanks, centers, or institutes to weight its “merits”) must have their accreditation revoked more quickly that the driver’s licence of a blind man on his fifth DUI conviction. Accrediting bodies need to ensure that only real science, like Darwinian evolution, ozone depletion and the environmental impact of SUV’s, is taught at accredited institutions.
Academic freedom of professors does not apply to ID because, as scientists who are smarter than everyone else, we know that ID is wrong.
(4) VETTING: Persons with degrees in the sciences and seeking employment need to be carefully vetted more closely than a 5 foot 400 pound man claiming to suffer from anorexia. A thorough search of all their past writings must be made. Any associations with Intelligent Design practitioners need to be scrutinized more closely than an irregularly shaped bleeding mole on a frequently sunburned nose. Which Intelligent Design supporters do they know personally? Do they have any friends that support Intelligent Design or regularly attend a Bible believing church? What books and articles have they read about Intelligent Design?
Some might conclude these are gestapo tactics. They are not. This has nothing to do with the Jews.
(5) DEFERENCE: The mark of real science is to respect the principles of absolute truths without which advancement in science would be impossible.
Evolution has now become the universal governing principle of science. Scientists need to be scrupulous about giving evolution proper credit. Scientists whose writings betray less than full enthusiasm for evolution need to be reprimanded like a school boy caught free basing cocaine behind the barn.
We must take immediate action to stop this infestation before it slips through our fingers like a smooth hot Russet potato in a lard barrel.
February 8th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Thinking Man wrote in post 35:
“I find it enlightening that very few IDers and creationists seem capable of discussing the subject of origins without resorting to personal attacks and name calling. Makes one tempted to think they are making up with insults what their position is lacking in truth.”
After reading thousands of posts, especially those following Stein’s “Darwinism: The Imperialism of Biology,” only very rarely have I seen a post that resorts to name calling from someone who disagrees with evolution on logical and scientific grounds. On the contrary, most are polite and offer well-reasoned replies and posts.
However, it is evolutionist posters like BobC and Thinking Man who resort to name-calling and ad hominem attacks:
Thinking Man, post 680: compares religious people to “bigots and racists.” (http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/10/31/darwinism-the-imperialism-of-biology/)
Thinking Man, post 1144 : calls someone a “narrow-minded bigot.”
Thinking Man, post 1152: by way of a quote calls those who disagree with evolution “barbarous and ignorant.”
Thinking Man, post 1187 : suggests biologists who disagree with evolution are incompetent based solely on their disagreement (which is based on their reading of the evidence — and which often puts their jobs at risk).
Thinking Man, post 1712: says that “creationists” cannot “think.”
Thinking Man, post 1751: calls someone “stupid.”
Thinking Man, post 1752: or the topper where on the very same blog where you call others names you make the same dishonest claim you have here, that IDers alone resort to name-calling.
Or is the topper when Thinking man affirms all of BobC’s thoughtless name-calling as “worth repeating” in post 1828?
Or maybe the topper comes after, when you call IDers “cretinists” in post 2673?
Should I go on revealing your dishonesty and hypocrisy, “Thinking Man”?
But in fairness, it is tempting to resort to name-calling. I came close myself when I referred to BobC as an “ignoramus” — which he is by definition as one who continually ignores proofs and salient points which refute the soundness of modern evolutionary theory — which I did in response to being called names by BobC.
But my calling BobC an ignoramus is as true, by definition, as me referring to Thinking Man as dishonest and hypocritical, which he clearly is.
It is all quite telling. But I shouldn’t be surprised by an evolutionist dishonestly hand-picking the evidence and drawing a priori conclusions. That is par for the course in modern evolutionary thinking. After all, it was Thinking Man who shed the greatest light on which comes first when he wrote “The idea of evolution is unquestioned, the details ARE questioned.” And that, my friends, is the definition of an “a priori assumption.” (See his post 2258.)
February 8th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
I understand completely all the medical ramifications of transplant science, RH factor, etc, etc. My point, it is the missing 4% of DNA which separates us from apes. The missing 4% has allowed human beings to grow tall, remain short, have black, brown, green, or blue eyes, to think, to invent, to be human. According to Darwin’s theories, once man evolved, the rest of the animal kingdom stopped. I cannot accept his theory for anything but a THEORY. Monkeys use tools, birds use tools, and otters use tools. But, they are still animals and mammals. Whales of various types work together to round up food to eat, but they are still where they were thousands of years ago. It is that extra 4% God gave us so we would be different. We have the ability to save the animal kingdom or destroy it. We also have the ability to live in peace or destroy each other. If any species has evolved and continued to evolve, it is man. The main difference, we started as man. I have an extensive background in science and have found that scientist usually find simple solutions to explain the unexplainable. I will leave you with this; what makes carbon 14 dating accurate? A number picked by a scientists to come up with an answer he/she can agree with based upon a THEORY. Carbon 14 dating is by no means an exact science. Tweak the “constant” until you get the answer you are looking for…….
February 8th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
RE: Galapagos Finch, Post #45
RESPONSE:
Your post #45 is either (1) a brilliant spoof upon the warped views of EVOS, or (2) one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read. If not a spoof, at least it would be fitting that was written by a bird (Finch) brain.
February 8th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
The producers of “expelled” claim that any and all investigation of intelligent design is being suppressed and ignored.
There was a symposium held in June 2007 where virtually all of the top guns of ID (Behe, Gonzalez, von Sternberg, Dembski, Meyer, Axe, Marks, Minnich, Nelson, and others) expounded thier views.
Here is a recap of that conference-
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/02/id-intelligent.html#more
.
That this conference could even be held clearly disproves the allegation that ID research is being “suppressed”. Why it is being “ignored” is pretty well summed up by Daniel R. Brooks. Dr. Brooks is a professor in the Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology at the University of Toronto who attended the conference. He said-
“ID dooms itself. In their own words at this conference, IDers espouse a program in which the scope and power of the Designer is restricted to purely human dimensions, in which the effects of the Designer on biological diversity have left no discernible trace that can be detected scientifically, in which the effects of Darwinian processes are the only biological phenomena that can be studied scientifically, and in which Darwinian processes are overwhelmingly more powerful than those of the Designer (because they inevitably cause the Designer’s creations to degenerate). For example, it must be evil Darwinian processes that produce emerging infectious diseases, otherwise each pathogen would remain associated only with the host for which it was designed. This is all just too silly.
So, there is no question that ID is not science, even though many adherents are, or at least were trained as, scientists. In addition, ID does not represent a real challenge between science and religion.”
.
He concludes-
“Modern science educators have an explicit mandate to pass on the marvels of scientific discovery to each new generation while being neutral with respect to the faith-based beliefs of their students. Presenting ID in science classrooms, much less taking it seriously at all, violates that mandate.”
.
.
I encourage everyone reading this blog to read the entire recap of the conference. It is lengthy, but incredibly informative about both ID and evolution. If you really want to speak about the issues intelligently, at least be informed.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Wow, do you guys troll much? Could you have possibly been more insulting and utterly wrong in your article? Do you (and Ben) want to know the REAL reason ID is kicked out of the science halls? It’s really simple: ID is not science. ID is Faith. Faith and Science are anathema to one another. Faith looks for “truth” whereas Science looks for “fact.” IS has no facts to back it up, but a bunch of people saying “Well, we don’t know how all this came into being, therefore it was God.” That’s not Science, that’s a cop-out. When you get some empirically testable results or theories on your side, we’ll talk; but until then, keep your blathering ill-informed opinions where they belong–in the houses of worship from which you came.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
“Thinking Man”, you say you are confused by my post regarding the insignifance of survival of the fittest as an active agent in evolution.
You say: “If the offspring of an animal have a survival advantage, then more of that gene will appear in the next generation, and more the following, until the advantage covers most of the animals born. Maybe it’s a small advantage, but, statistally, it’s there.”
First of all, it is dominant genes that proliferate, not minute “advantages”. Sorry, but that is proven fact. The point is that it is not a SURVIVAL issue if a beneficial trait is aquired. There is a huge difference between an acquired trait that is a make-or-break for survival and a trait that is merely beneficial.
Rarely is any genetic upgrade related to survival or the lack thereof. It is only a survival-related upgrade if the pre-existing gene pool is so deficient that they no longer live long enough to precreate. Yet why were they surviving just fine BEFORE the genetic mutation?
If survival of the fittest is such an exacting surgical tool for correcting supposedly “random” mutations, why is there so much evolution taking place that is not related to “survival” in any way?
Survival of the fittest (SOTF) in no way explains the absence of vestigial organs (other than those that are remnants of previously beneficial traits). Vestigial tissues are neither a benefit nor a harm to the creature. If SOTF is the only “selector”, then vestigial tissues would abound.
SOTF does not account for the fact that previously beneficial (but no longer needed) traits DE-volve. Leg bones in the whale and tailbones in humans are examples of this evidence that SOTF has nothing to do with evolution. Mutations appear to be need-based, not survival-based.
If you want to call it a “small” advantage, fine, but we need to shrink the importance given to the overplayed concept of survival of the fittest and its offshoot “natural selection”. Biologists foolishly talk about “selection” as if it is a uniform predictable mechanism despite the fact that nearly all known deaths in the history of living things had nothing whatsoever to do with failing to gain these genetic “advantages”.
Darwinists use SOTF as their catch-all “explanation” for the obvious complexity of living things. Even in those few cases where SOTF actually is a minor factor in an extinction, it still does not explain complexity of life. SOTF is a subtractive filter that in no way improves the chances of unguided complexity.
Even those heritable traits that are considered a “small” advantage are perplexing if trying to explain it as unguided luck. Moreover, as each new “small” advantage comes along, it becomes harder and harder to consider it luck or random chance mutation. If it is random chance, guided only by survival (which isn’t a factor), then there should average out to be as many mutations going backward as forward.
In short, SOTF and the ridicuously overblown “natural selection” model have little to do with evolution at all.
February 8th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
FormerEvolutionist Says:
February 8th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
After reading thousands of posts, especially those following Stein’s “Darwinism: The Imperialism of Biology,” only very rarely have I seen a post that resorts to name calling from someone who disagrees with evolution on logical and scientific grounds. On the contrary, most are polite and offer well-reasoned replies and posts.
However, it is evolutionist posters like BobC and Thinking Man who resort to name-calling and ad hominem attacks:
Philip says:
Thats because they are actually the same person writing under 2 different pen names, which means we have to endure twice the idiocy.
.
.
.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:15 am
You don’t have to look very far to find that there are, indeed, a vast number of “empirically testable results” that show, at the least, that current Darwinian based theories are horribly flawed. Above that they certainly show that there almost certainly had to be ID from somewhere - whether it be a God or some other source. Of course, these theories are militantly criticized, hushed and “expelled” by the Darwinian and secular theorists at the level of Faith rather than science. Darwinian theory is just that - theory. There is no proof. The cult following it carries is, therefore as much - if not more - of a religion than is ID.
February 9th, 2008 at 2:56 am
This is one of the most irrelevant criticisms of evolutionary theory I’ve ever seen. If you knew anything about evolution you would know that “favored races” refers to the fittest species, hence “survival of the fittest”, a phrase which is not meant as some kind of mission for humanity but rather which describes the mechanism by which life on Earth evolved.
Anyway, evolutionary theory is not all about Darwin. Also, alleging that Darwin was a racist, a wife-beater, a homosexual, or any other irrelevant accusation you want to throw at him doesn’t do anything to support Intelligent Design.
February 9th, 2008 at 5:25 am
I am looking forward to the movie coming out. I cant wait to see it! I just did an article about it on my blog and I hardly ever represent anything but myself online.
I think that if this movie is as good as the previews show it that it should be played out in every school across America!
tonysview.wordpress.com/
February 9th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Post 50, dude-one Says:
“Could you have possibly been more insulting and utterly wrong in your article? Do you (and Ben) want to know the REAL reason ID is kicked out of the science halls? It’s really simple: ID is not science. Faith looks for “truth” whereas Science looks for “fact.” ID is Faith. Faith and Science are anathema to one another. [ID’s] not Science, that’s a cop-out. When you get some empirically testable results or theories on your side, we’ll talk…”
I say:
You have described evolution to a T, including the charge of being insulting.
Nothing in evolutionary theory has EVER gotten beyond conjecture nor the endless quest for proof of an a priori assumption. Nothing in evolution has been successfully tested without doctoring and control tinkering to yield the desired results. No evidence has ever been found for the origin of species, let alone life itself.
As for the absurd assertion that faith and science are anathema, most every great scientific mind prior to the 20th Century, and many well after, has been found in religious people, whether Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, or whatever pale of deistic faith. All — A-L-L — scientists look for truth, not facts as facts are the equivalent of data and so are neutral. Conclusions are drawn by scientists in order to bring about information, and all scientists run facts/data through a human filter which is prone to subjective processing, as modern evolutionary theory clearly proves. For example, when a scientist unearths a fossilized fragment of a tiny mammal skull, that is fact. When he deduces that it is the first true mammal and from it all other mammals have descended, he has become a storyteller for his faith. A fact has become his truth, and such leaps in logic are embraced by his fellow practitioners, not because they are founded on inherent fact, but because they fit in with evolution’s a priori BELIEFS.
Evolutionary biologists, especially paleontologists, must process the facts, and do so cavalierly, often drawing the most farfetched and far-reaching conclusions aimed at supporting the theory they zealously heel to. For example, they find hominid fragments miles apart, piece them together into one sorely incomplete specimen and declare not only that it walked upright, but that it used tools and so on. That is nothing but self-serving conjecture, and anything but science. I’ve seen better science and soundness of reasoning practiced by crackpot UFOlogists who would be laughed out of our universities.
I return to Thinking Man for the insights of an avowed atheist and evolutionist:
“The idea of evolution is unquestioned, the details ARE questioned.” As I read that I was astounded by the blindness of this pronouncement, as well as its unscientific nature. That is a statement of faith, plain and simple. But unfortunately it fully defines the perspectives of the vast majority of evolutionists and those here who have trusted their self-proclaimed objectivity.
Holding fast to a theory that for 150 years has been continually proven to be both unprovable and unfounded is neither science, nor a quest for “fact.” It is a blind adherence to what they believe to be truth based on a priori assumptions, and often displaying an obvious vested interest in supporting their own beliefs, i.e. naturalism and/or atheism. And that is not “the REAL reason” ID is kicked out; it is the REAL reason that ID has never been allowed in!
While ID may often be faith-borne, it has a valuable side-effect: it reveals more and more foundational problems with both Darwinism and modern evolution, and has served to reveal whose position is often the more emotional, assumption-based, and fascistic in its attempts to ensure its own survival.
February 9th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Re; Tony in #53; “there are, indeed, a vast number of “empirically testable results” that show, at the least, that current Darwinian based theories are horribly flawed.”
I’m really interested; please tell me where and I’ll look them up. Thanks.
February 9th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
The Declaration of Independence is the founding document that states “We hold these truths to be self evidence…” That quote is not found in the Bill of Rights amended to the United States Constitution.
February 9th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
James Wren Says in post 54:
“This is one of the most irrelevant criticisms of evolutionary theory I’ve ever seen. If you knew anything about evolution you would know that ‘favored races’ refers to the fittest species, hence ’survival of the fittest’, a phrase which is not meant as some kind of mission for humanity but rather which describes the mechanism by which life on Earth evolved.”
I say:
Then you apparently have not read Darwin’s books, Mr. Wren, as he extends his theory into the right behavior of Mankind. His seminal work was not his last book, by any stretch. No, by extension, Darwin imagined that the “civilized”and “superior” “favored” white race would eventually wipe out the “inferior” “negro” and “aboriginal” races. (Talk about science introducing beliefs into its “fact” based deductions!)
And, while Darwin’s racism may be irrelevant to evo theory, the focus of Stein’s post here isn’t to criticize the science, but rather to criticize the cult of personality surrounding Darwin, someone whose ideas have been not only debunked by modern science, but are admitted to have been debunked even by modern evolutionists. (Have you not read Thinking Man’s myriad posts delineating between “Darwinism” and modern evolution”?)
At any rate, while you may not use “race” to refer to the superficial differences between peoples from different geographical regions, Mr. Darwin did, and with clear intention. He was not as embarrassed by his political views as you rightly are. But your embarrassment doesn’t erase his racist writings or that modern evolutionists want us all to celebrate him.
However, your uninformed denials and unfounded assertions do serve to embarrass someone.
February 9th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
[…] producers delve a bit more into the subject matter: Darwinian evolution theory is a viable scientific theory. Author of The […]
February 9th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
There was a thinker before Galileo who was one of the great men in the breech between the Middle Ages/Renaissance and our era. Giordano Bruno was his name. He was fascinated with both science and spirituality, even mysticism & was burnt at the stake by the Roman Church in 1600 for many reasons - including suggesting that the earth went around the sun. He would be spinning in his grave, if he had one, if he saw the contents of just the preview of this film. Don’t we humans ever learn anything? Science has gone full circle - from being the underdog to being the big boss of the intellectual world.. and it is persecuting its heretics just as the church did! AND intellectuals & atheists tell us how righteous,humane and open minded they are - they are just as bad as Bellarmine when he sat and sentenced Bruno to death & Galileo to house arrest - whats worse 10 minutes of pain on your own funeral pyre or losing your job and economic security?) (Both destroy!)
I have always been a very spiritual/religious person - and an enthusiast concerning science - for me the universe holds infinite possibility and complexity - and spirituality is just part of the natural order, some aspect of God & nature we don’t yet understand.. and something to explore.
Science is going setting up its own fall, a discrediting of massive proportions - just as the church did when it announced that the earth could not orbit the sun. What about staying humble enough to know that you may be wrong?
NO ONE SHOULD EVER THINK that asking questions and exploring possibilities is wrong, evil or destructive. Better ideas than Darwinism are on the garbage heap of history … I would add, also that darwinism may be scientificly true, I personally believe it is, - but it needs to find a way to “live and let live” with opposing viewpoints - and it also needs to see a simple truth - while evolution seems to have happened it doesn’t mean there isn’t some intelligence or first consciousness… what Bruno would have called ‘the ONE’ behind the first spark of consciousness.
That is the mistake the Church made in 1600 - all it needed to do is allow science exist and leave scientists alone - understand that it could not rule the hearts and minds of every single man and woman in Europe! But it couldn’t - science scared it - just as religion/spirituality scares modern intellectuals. Like you said certain, comfortable people don’t silence dissent.. uncomfortable, scared people do.
If left alone we humans explore, ask questions, wonder about how things work, imagine possibilities, make things … NO idea,concept, religion or science should be persecuted and silenced unless it is just too violent, hateful and destructive to the human race, as a whole. (i.e. Nazism, communism,cannibalism,abuse of children -that sort of thing.)
February 9th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Hi. I just want to follow up my posting #31 with another comment I think is worth considering. Right now, I’m reading “Against Method,” a well-known book on the progress of science written by the late Paul Feyerabend, philosophy of science professor from the University of California, Berkeley. In this book, Feyerabend makes the argument on historical grounds that it is meaningless to define a strict methodology for evaluating what qualifies as “science.” In particular, he points to historical evidence showing that progress in science often requires ad hoc assumptions and “hypotheses that contradict well-confirmed theories and/or well-established experimental results.” In particular, Feyerabend states the following:
“The consistency condition which demands that new hypotheses agree with accepted theories is unreasonable because it preserves the older theory, and not the better theory. Hypotheses contradicting well-confirmed theories give us evidence that cannot be obtained in any other way. Proliferation of theories is beneficial for science, while uniformity impairs its critical power. Uniformity also endangers the free development of the individual. . . . There is no idea, however ancient and absurd, that is not capable of improving our knowledge. The whole history of thought is absorbed into science and is used for improving every single theory. Nor is political interference rejected. It may be needed to overcome the chauvinism of science that resists alternatives to the status quo.” (Against Method, p. 5)
I’m not sure if I agree with every claim that Feyerabend makes here, particularly where it concerns “political interference,” but I do think he makes some valid points worth examining in greater detail. I’m especially in favour of the “proliferation of theories” argument because I agree in the necessity of alternative theories to gain scientific insight in ways where the dominant theory cannot provide any information. For example, alternative theories of gravity are proposed to give predictions that help to test the validity of GR. An example of an “ad hoc assumption” in physics is “renormalization” in quantum field theory (QFT) during the 1950’s before it gained firmer theoretical understanding decades afterwards. (Paul Dirac, Nobel laureate and co-founder of quantum mechanics strongly objected to renormalization theory as “nonsensical,” despite being enormously successful in explaining the data.)
In similar ways, the existence of ID can serve to improve Darwinian natural selection theory by forcing the latter to address its perceived limitations. It may be that Michael Behe’s concept of “irreducible complexity” is misguided, or it may yet prove over time to lead to greater insight about the evolution of species that is unreachable using natural selection theory alone as a framework of understanding. It may even lead to a workable model in place of “random mutation” as a mechanism for evolution. Also, I think it is a perfectly legitimate exercise as a scientist to critique a dominant theory like natural selection without having a ready-made alternative available. Indeed, progress from classical physics to modern physics occurred from 1900 to around 1930 through the same type of mechanisms identified by Feyerabend, Thomas Kuhn, and others. As well, active research is done right now on various developments of QM, such as the “multiverse” concept, without a necessarily coherent understanding of all its complexities and without a shred of observational evidence to support this belief. If Feyerabend were alive today, I think he would be strongly defending the right for ID proponents to put forward their ideas, call it legitimate science, and suggest they should be given a fair chance to make their case with the free exchange of ideas.
This leads me to my final point. I’m not sure if posting #45 was intended to be satirical or serious, but it well demonstrates the climate of fear claimed by ID proponents and identified by the Expelled film. I agree with the underlying implied sentiment that crackpots exist, and I’ve received unsolicited e-mails from people who propose totally wrongheaded ideas and claim that a “conspiracy” exists to prevent them from being taken seriously. At the same time, my own unfiltered examination of ID suggests that while it should not be taught in high schools as a theory to rival Darwinian evolution, the questions it raises have scientific grounding to them and deserve a fair hearing within a university setting. The comments of posting #45 remind me of Ben Stein’s quotation in the super trailer: “In my experience, people who are confident in their ideas are not afraid of criticism. So that tells me that the Darwinists are afraid. They’re hiding something.”
It is one thing to suggest that ID is not science because the proponents cannot publish on the basis of scientific merit. It is something entirely different to make that claim on that pretense if their submissions get screened out a priori by prejudicial editorial staff and referees, irrespective of scientific merit. After all, journal editors and referees are human beings who are capable of exercising all sorts of prejudicial attitudes against rivals who disagree with them. (I have seen this happen numerous times on topics that have no religious implications whatsoever.) If this second interpretation bears itself out upon investigation, then there is genuine reason for everyone to be fearful of this attitude and their implications for society.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
I find this whole discussion to be fascinating. It’s getting rather brutal in here, don’t you all think?
I will be the first to admit that I’m no authority on either standpoint. I’ll put all my (relevant) cards on the table right now: I am a Christian. I am an Engineering/Science major. I find biology to be an icky science that I’ll gladly leave to those who don’t mind thinking about how messy life is. I also find myself raising an eyebrow to all three standpoints I’ve seen here.
As a Christian, I’m expected to be a standard creationist. I am not. Oh, I believe that God made everything all right. I believe that he made man. I also believe that there’s a bit of metaphor in the Bible, particularly in Genesis. You have to remember, Genesis was written thousands of years before Christ. Things may not have been very clear to Moses when God told him what to write, so he wrote it as he could best understand it. Take Genesis 3:19 (The Message Bible) for example. “You started out as dirt, and you’ll end up as dirt.” Now, that may be a little out of context, not something I usually practice. But look, that practically screams of metaphor. Granted, all things are possible with God, but don’t you think God would prefer to run things by the rules he set up for the universe? I do. It makes sense. God’s men were concieved in the usual way (I’m excepting Jesus here, seeing how he was not simply a man). Elijah’s mom and dad had sex, and lo, Elijah was born, and he’s considered to be among the greatest prophets. As I perceive it, God works according to his own rules, though he can and will break them if need be. I happen to think that life is an old thing. Dinosaurs existed. A day to God is a long time to us. And the order that he made things is pretty consistent with how macroevolutionists seem to belive: Universe, Earth, land, plants, day/night, fish, land animals, Man, Man’s Domain. And then the rest– a long time when nothing big happened.
Intelligent Design: Okay, I laud the folks that are tryingto be diplomatic about this, but it strikes me as cowardly to say “Well, maybe God exists, maybe he doesn’t, but we aren’t an accident!” It’s sitting on the fence, denying God in a roundabout way. That said, they have some nice points: Yes, it does seem that humans (and other things) are made with something in mind. Yes, some creationists and some evolutionists are unduly vehement about their beliefs. I don’t think that this is a matter of Heaven or Hell in and of itself, but it does have an impact on what you think of God. So if you believe in Intelligent Design, just stand up and say that you believe in creation. It’s much more honest.
Evolution: A few years ago, I said “God made evolution!” I still think so. I don’t even think that Darwin was entirely wrong about things like natural selection. I can see that with my own eyes. And my mom won’t like this, but I really believe that we are descended from ape-like creatures. This is something that I can see for myself. But who’s to say that Adam was man as we know it? Maybe Adam was an early man, the kind that had a conception of nudity. After all, doesn’t the Bible say that until he ate of the Tree of Knowledge, he walked around naked? Maybe Adam wasn’t one man at all, but rather a metaphor for all men at his time, or the first of his species to realize that he was naked. The point of the story of Genesis 2 is that in the beginning of mankind, men and women were close to God and not very bright. The Tree of Knowledge was just that– it gave us enlightenment and a nasty curse. Why did God put it there in the first place, well, only God knows. We can only speculate.
Jesus used parables and stories to tell the truth. He said that we wouldn’t understand if he told it to us like it is, but only if we took it in small, easy-to-digest stories. Why should Genesis not be a small, easy-to-digest story about the truth?
That’s my opinion. I’ll be back later to see if and how others think of this, if I’m a rambling student that doesn’t know what she’s talking about or if I raised any valid points at all.
Cheers!
February 9th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Tony,
I am tired of such post as yours.
You don’t have to look very far to find that there are, indeed, a vast number of “empirically testable results” that show, at the least, that current Darwinian based theories are horribly flawed.
Really? Please cite them, as I would love to see them hold water against the thousands of studies published each year that demonstrate the strength of evolutionary theory.
Above that they certainly show that there almost certainly had to be ID from somewhere - whether it be a God or some other source.
No studies show any such thing. You speak of certainty as if it is something you can just assign by default. Were there any studies of ID that even come close to having the explanatory and predictive power that evolutionary theory has, they would be constantly mentioned here in posts. The fact that the only studies ID proponents cite are generally anomalous or patently false criticisms of evolutionary theory is telling. ID is not science. At best it is an assumption based on a logical system with undefinable and flawed premises.
Of course, these theories are militantly criticized, hushed and “expelled” by the Darwinian and secular theorists at the level of Faith rather than science.
In fact, ID is faith. All belief systems carry some level of faith attached to them. The difference is that those of us with faith in Darwinian evolutionary theory have had that faith rewarded time after time for 150 years with constantly building evidence for our position. ID is criticized as a faith based endeavor because there is no evidence for it. All it has is faith (and I’m not even talking about religious Faith here, as apparently ID doesn’t have enough of that to convince strict creationists either).
Darwinian theory is just that - theory. There is no proof. The cult following it carries is, therefore as much - if not more - of a religion than is ID.
You are attempting with this statement to change the meaning of the term “theory” in order that any crazy idea can be considered one. I have discussed this tactic on a previous blog and it does not work here any better than it did there. Theories are powerful, explanatory, and based on large quantities of real evidence. They are not just guesses that we have to sort through and decide upon by blind choice.
At some point, IDers are going to have to face the music. ID says nothing. It is a vacuous position, and is devoid of any ideas that can be considered truly explanatory or even relevant. In fact, it is odd that while I have heard much mention of Dr. Behe and his “irreducible complexity” in the comments on these blogs, I have seen William Dembski’s ideas mentioned very little. I only say this because, at least to me, Dembski’s design inference is probably the closest that any ID hypothesis h