Ben Stein’s Commencement Day Off
by Andrew LeighLet me start by laying my cards on the table: I have no personal beef with evolution. I believe evolutionary theory can be perfectly compatible with religion. And I sincerely (if perhaps naively) hope this doesn’t devolve (get it?) into a debate over evolution.
Having said all that: Does anybody else find it supremely ironic that Ben Stein made a documentary about academia’s intolerance toward those who question evolutionary theory — and then a university effectively rescinded an invitation to speak? Seems to me that nothing in Ben Stein’s Expelled is more compelling evidence of the truth of his thesis than that.
Incidentally, after a cursory search I discovered that the 2006 University of Vermont commencement featured Gustavo Esteva. From Vermont’s own press release: “A strong voice for indigenous people, campesinos, and urban migrants, the core of Esteva’s thought is a challenge to the validity of social systems that subordinate traditional community values and institutions to the priorities of the global marketplace.”
Hmm, traditional community values. You mean, like creationism? Funny how traditional values are cool with academics if they’re swathed in exotic otherness. But put a Western face on them, and they become unacceptable.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
87 Comments
Amen. (No pun intended…Ok, maybe a little bit)
The problem with teaching creationism as science is that creationism can’t be scientifically proven. That’s why religion is based on faith and science on facts and evidence.
Demanding that creationism be given the same prominance with evolutionary theory is one of the single most misguided salvos in the modern culture wars of the right.
Shall we also teach in geology classes that carbon dating is just a “theory” and give the Young Earth interpretation equal footing as well?
If Ben Stein was a guy who put out a documentary that the worthiness of phrenology be debated in psychology classes, not only would he not be invited to speak on college campuses, chances are that conservative websites wouldn’t be rallying around him.
So who have they asked to replace Stein? Ahmadinejad?
There are two competing lines of thought in the “Origins” debate:
1. God as creator and sustainer of the universe.
2. Evolution by natural selection.
Those who cannot reconcile these two lines of thought tend to accept one or the other as the truth, and the other as a “fairy tale”.
Lots of reading, questioning, reflection, and prayer enabled me to reconcile the two, a reconciliation that has blessed me with a heightened appreciation of God, the natural world, religion and science. While I have no use for either ID or for scientists who think that Darwinism supports atheism, I really don’t see any more harm in having Stein speak on a college campus than I would in having Richard Dawkins speak. While Dawkins is a respected scientist, his only use for science in the past decade or so has been to attempt to use it as a stick to beat religion, a subject about which he has very little demonstrated knowledge – his next solid argument against religion will be his first.
Honestly, couldn’t scientists (Dawkins, Dennett, Stenger, et. al.) just stick to science without making ill-informed theological proclamations, and theologians stick to theology without resorting to scientifically specious theories that have the effect of casting God as a tiresome tinkerer (the ID crowd)?
So, should we also demand that pschology classes teach phrenology? How about demanding geology classes debate the Young Earth theory that says that the earth is only 6,000 years old. How about we demand that astronomy classes teach the theory that the sun revolves around the earth.
Intelligent design isn’t science, it’s philosophy. Believe it or not, but a person can believe in a higher power AND the evolutionary process.
This whole ID nonsense is one of the reasons that people think that culture-war conservatives are zealots.
Yeah man. I hate it when those culture-war conservatives are Zealots. Just like those who push all that latitude on us for muslims for their antiquated and violent beliefs. Oooo and what about those Scientologists. I think the best example of culture war in recent history came from hijacked airplanes killing Americans. Why doesn’t anybody get that. The evolution argument pales in comparison.
BTW I am a Frizbeetarian. I believe when you die your soul lands on the neighbor’s roof and you can never get it down.
So, what you’re saying is that Muslims and Scientologists are demanding that their religious beliefs be inserted into science classes just like evangelical Christians are? If you are going to demand that God and creationism be discussed in science classes, why exactly is Ben Stein and the ID crowd restricting it to just the Christian version of God?
Frankly, the intensity to which the ID crowd tries to push this might easily make people wonder just what other aspects of life will be evangelized? As a Catholic, I’ve seen quite clearly just how intolerant *some* of this bible-beating nutters are.
“university effectively rescinded an invitation to speak?” First story I heard: Stein offered his withdrawal without being asked to, when he first became aware there was any controversy.
Not to get to picky but Dennett is a philosophy professor, not a scientist. Unfortunately his philosophic arguments aren’t very good, cf. _The Last Superstition_ by Edward Feser.
Notice on which side the name calling and intolerance lies in this forum alone?
What is clear is that none of the name callers have seen this movies at all. Stein does not push the “Christian version of God”, indeed, he is a Jew. What becomes clear, is that with a lack of compelling argument, the evolution establishment becomes belligerent. Also noteworthy is that these people are very anti-religion, no matter how they try to condescend and mask.
What is obvious is that which ever side you choose (I HOPE we are still able to do that), it is a matter of what you put your faith in. Evolution is the religion of man, and if science shuts out discussion, they merely prove the religious zealotry of evolutionists.
Considering how wrong science has been, and how politically manipulated it currently is, I will choose God.
I like Ben Stein and find his writings amusing and even moving at times.
But this whole anti-evolution thing is absurd. It is the equivalent of expecting people to “tolerate” astrology as a valid alternative to astronomy, or alchemy as a valid alternative to chemistry.
We don’t need the action of whatever university this was to “prove” Ben Stein’s accusation of intolerance. It is a duty of learning institutions to be intolerant of this kind of thing.
Oh, Dave..so I’m a “Darwinist”, eh? You couldn’t be any more wrong. Darwin’s theory of macroevolution remains a theory because a) it can’t be scientifically observed and b) some of his natural selection ideas have some holes in them. The neo-Darwinists aren’t as all-encompassing as Darwin himself tried to be, and not every evolutionary scientist uses it as a tool to push atheism.
I also think that it’s somewhat foolish to conflate evolution with cosmology.
HOWEVER, the ID debate is still idiotic in regards to SCIENCE class because of your correct observation that Biblical creation can’t be proven due to the lack of actual hard evidence and not merely philosophical speculation.
So, Dave. Two questions for you.
1. Why exactly is the ID debate seemingly restricted to just the Judeo-Christian worldview being the one “discussed” in science class? Should we teach Hindu Creationism as well? Or other religions view on the Origin of Species, like the religion that begins with an “I”?
2. If I got a whole lot of people to believe that the universe was created by a one-eyed talking banana, should that theory also be taught in science class?
The point, Dave, is that science is science, religion is faith. One can neither physically prove or disprove the existence of God. We all get to find out when we die who was right, no? Can’t you guys be content with your own personal beliefs and/or Pascal’s Gamble and let science teachers actually teach science?
That design is scientific is evidenced every time you watch CSI.
Question: What’s the first thing the police try to determine when they find a dead body? Answer: Whether the death was natural or by design.
But if you want to ask about science, remember that science ought to be able to make predictions that can be tested. But you cannot predict future outcomes of organisms because you do not necessarily know which factors are relevant in determining which species will survive and which will go extinct. In fact, that’s part of Stephen Jay Gould’s argument (back when he was alive) that you can’t rewind life’s tape and predict which species would survive the mass extinctions. In any case, regardless of which species survives, the Darwinist will claim (truthfully) that it’s because of Natural Selection. (I say “truthfully” because in this sense Natural Selection becomes tautological, and is equally valid for a die hard fundamentalist Creationist–who as far as I can tell only exist in the minds of Darwinists–as it would be for, say, Dawkins.) In other words, you can’t falsify Natural Selection…which is kinda tricky if you’re one of those people who believes science requires theories be falsifiable.
James Drake:
Yup, you’re right, my bad….got distracted by letter-of-intent signing updates for the ol’ alma mater….
Dennett has dabbled in science writing in such “interdisciplinary” books as “Consciousness Explained” and “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea”, but he is a philosophy professor. His forays into theological waters, especially his laughable “Breaking the Spell” book, show him to be rather shallow on the subject.
Pete said:
—
The point, Dave, is that science is science, religion is faith.
—
No, science is a method of investigation which requires a controlling philosophy. Philosophies need both a metaphysic and an epistemological method, and the scientific method is just an epistemological method.
The problem for you, Pete, is that most scientists these days are philosohpical materialists and/or naturalists. That is, their metaphysic requires them to believe that there can be no supernatural explanations for anything. But this metaphysic is established apart from their epistemological reasoning, which is the scientific method.
As soon as you realize this, however, you’ll have to note that a metaphysic cannot be proven by your epistemological method. You have to assume it true. That assumption is no different than faith that your view is right.
Science does not exist as a fully formed philosophy because it lacks a metaphysic. It is simply hypotheses followed by observation. Interpreting the significance of those observations requires a metaphysic above and beyond your epistemology.
Thus, there is no such thing as “science qua science.” There is only science in the service of a worldview.
Pete,
You are right- science cannot “prove” a Creator. But it CAN DISprove evolution. Evolution violates about a gazillion laws of chemistry, physics, biology and so forth, including the Hierarchy of Design Complexity.
Having researched and written a screenplay on this topic, it’s a subject I know very well.
2 questions for you:
1. According to the laws of chemistry it takes protein to make DNA. Also according to the laws of chemistry, it takes DNA to make protein. So…if evolution is true…WHICH CAME FIRST?
2. What do you do with Kalam’s cosmological argument?
Maybe we cannot empirically “prove” a Creator, but we can certainly look at the evidence objectively and see which direction it points.
This is, by the way, what faith is really about. Faith is not, nor should it be, blind. Faith is a reasonable inference based on evidence.
Origins belongs to philosophy, maybe religion and maybe even history. (Some people say they’ve read the source documents anyway.)
Origins can’t be subjected to the scientific method and neither can atheism. “Scientists” shouldn’t be messing about with either.
No, Faith is believe without requiring any evidence at all. It’s belief in stories that have no real basis in our physical reality whatsoever.
Geez –
The lack of humility exhibited by some here is truly staggering.
Newbiewan — No. Faith is believing that our physical reality is ALL THERE IS.
Without assuming what anyone’s belief system is, suffice to say I believe agnosticism is a reasonable position given the evidence and lack thereof. Atheism involves a narcissism that’s awe-inspiring.
Anyone who has done real science and is comfortable with their work would not be threatened by a conversation about an alternate view of the world and how it came to be.
No one here witnessed the creation of the world, so it is conjecture on all our parts. Darwin had his theory which most of us like alot.
Stein’s film simply points out the there is NO ROOM for any conversation at the university level but evolution. He is not saying it should be taught per say, but discussed.
How is this a problem for academics? Why is he “controversial.” Is this any less scientific than most of the entire field of the social scientists?
Hey, I should know. I am a social scientist and academic. Believe me, there is very little academic freedom in academia.
Frankly, the intensity to which the ID crowd tries to push this might easily make people wonder just what other aspects of life will be evangelized?
Why wonder, when you can just read some history books?
Well, science says anthropological global warming is absolutely, undeniably fact even though the globe is experiencing unusually deep freeze; does this mean science is faith?
Nice try, there, but no — *science* is saying no such thing. The Left, a religion is its own right. Don’t be confusing the two… the Left and religion have far more in common than either of them do with science.
Without assuming what anyone’s belief system is, suffice to say I believe agnosticism is a reasonable position given the evidence and lack thereof. Atheism involves a narcissism that’s awe-inspiring.
This is a common falsehood. Atheism is the expression of the default position that in the absence of evidence for proposition X, X is rejected as arbitrary. Possibility is an earned status; it is not granted willy-nilly to made-up things that happen to lack evidence against.
Being unable to distinguish between the arbitrary and the possible destroys the ability of the mind to filter out the genuine possibilities that warrant investigation from the miasma of made-up BS that any idiot can manufacture on the spot. (Old made-up BS is still made-up BS.)
The resulting intellectual state, of a mind paralyzed by the inability to filter the made-up noise of fantasy from the signal of reality, is known as “agnosticism”.
The whole point of Stein’s movie wasn’t to assert Creationism. He was addressing the downright hostility to any challenging of the evolution orthodoxy.
Judging by the response of the university, his point is made.
What about the “round earth” orthodoxy? Is Stein going to be documenting the downright hostility directed against Flat Earthers?
“Well, science says anthropological global warming is absolutely, undeniably fact even though the globe is experiencing unusually deep freeze; does this mean science is faith?” Be careful, don’t smoke near that strawman.
I strongly suggest reading David Stove’s book “Darwinian Fairytales,” in which he dismantles Darwinism piece by piece, until there is nothing left. The author, by the way, is not in the slightest bit religious, and admires Charles Darwin as a thinker. It is purely on logical, empirical, scientific grounds that he destroys what’s left of this exhausted nineteenth-century theory. He takes special aim at the pseudo-science known as neo-Darwinism, leaving Dawkins as naked as the day he was born. Stove also shows how Darwinism has become a latter-day religion, completely impervious to science and rational thought. Not to be missed.
“Science” is about one person expressing a hypothesis, testing it, and presenting observations that can be repeated and checked to ascertain the validity of his/her conclusions based on those observed tests. cf.: Galileo.
“Religious orthodoxy” is when a cabal of yammering nitwits want to burn at the stake anyone who challenges their long-held assumptions. cf.: the group of blathering boobs who dragged Galileo before the Pope.
Now, in the current tempest in a teacup, which party made a prior plea for a discussion of what may be observed and demonstrated, and which parties were last heard to utter the phrase “Somebody get a rope!”??
QED
Ben Stein called this one beautifully.
There is nothing so predictable as liberal orthodoxy, and its chief tenet is that there is no God. Evolution (large “E”) is as much a religious faith as Roman Catholicism or Zen Buddhism is. It is a yawning chasm of unsupportable assumptions and presumptions, produced in service of a core belief which can neither be demonstrated as true based on actual evidence, nor repeated to verify the hypotheses.
That’s not science, it’s SCIENCISM. cf.: Religion; also listed under “anthropogenic global warming,” and “kneejerk Liberal Dogma.”
I believe God made the universe including the earth. How He did it, I will leave to others to argue about.
I am quite amazed at the ignorance of the pro-evolution crowd.
Remember that for hundreds of years it was a “proven scientific fact” that spontaneous generation fully explained the origins of life.
You were considered a complete moron if you questioned spontaneous generation.
Then came Darwin who believed characteristics passed from parent to offspring by the environment. This was called “Acquired Characteristics” and was undebatably considered truth. You remember the old experiments where they would cut off the tails of mice for several generations believing that eventually the mice would be born without tails.
Then the science of genetics came along and totally disproved yet another “proven scientific fact”. Now you believe that we evolved through random genetic mutations. We are still looking for an example of even one positive genetic mutation, but you believe that countless billions and billions of them have taken place.
The more we learn about the complexity of DNA the more it looks like your latest “proven scientific fact” will fall by the wayside.
But this time you are completely sure that there are no holes in your theory.
Fine, believe what ever you want, but don’t stand in the way of those that actually want to seek the truth. And if it happens to lead to “Intelligent Design” or even “Creationism” so be it.
==Evolution is science…==
Speculative Science. It’s STILL a THEORY of evolution.
By the way…
If life on Earth began with one cell, why doesn’t life in the womb begin with one cell?
Chris – February 5th, 2009 at 4:52 am
Ignorance of the pro-evolution crowd? What next, are you going to revisit gravity as some form of ‘intelligent falling’ where it’s actually God pushing things back to earth?
Hey Chris–Read your Einstein. Actually, he asserts that gravity IS A PUSH, although he does not ascribe it to God pushing back. He also posits it as a theory, not fact.
Basic Einstein my friend. Those so-called laws of physics change fairly frequently it seems.
Again, Ben’s movie is really not about evolution but about the academic cult of ” we already know and will villify anything else crowd.”
What is amusing is that in academia, you can assert the moral basis of terrorism with a straight face and it will be all fine and dandy. Bring up a politically incorect idea and you are toast.
Ask Larry Summers, he can tell you all about it. Posit a notion in jest, get fired.
“Atheism is the expression of the default position that in the absence of evidence for proposition X, X is rejected as arbitrary. Possibility is an earned status; it is not granted willy-nilly to made-up things that happen to lack evidence against.
Being unable to distinguish between the arbitrary and the possible destroys the ability of the mind to filter out the genuine possibilities that warrant investigation from the miasma of made-up BS that any idiot can manufacture on the spot. (Old made-up BS is still made-up BS.)”
Dead wrong Seerak. Atheism is an assertion of truth — ‘there is no God.’ It is an affirmative belief. Not, ‘there is no evidence for God’, thus I don’t have the information — that’s agnosticism. Atheists do not have the humility to say “I don’t know”, they say “I know”.
Atheists ignore any truth to religion and the religious worldview. Can a poem, a song, etc. illustrate a larger truth about human nature, the world in which we live? I say absolutely. But, these are not empirical, scientific truths. They are non-quantifiable using calculators, computers, slide rules, or abacuses.
The collective experience of billions; the “God” impulse; human behavior, consciousness; human artistry, etc. are all chemical impulses to you. None of this could make some sort of a supranatural consciousness, some sort of a “God” even a possibility?
Biological determinism, is it? Nothing to this world that can never be explained scientifically. That, my friend, is hubris. That is willful blindness to possibility, driven by ego.
AESOP:
You wrote:
——————
“Science” is about one person expressing a hypothesis, testing it, and presenting observations that can be repeated and checked to ascertain the validity of his/her conclusions based on those observed tests. cf.: Galileo.
“Religious orthodoxy” is when a cabal of yammering nitwits want to burn at the stake anyone who challenges their long-held assumptions. cf.: the group of blathering boobs who dragged Galileo before the Pope.
——————
Sadly, this seems to be the modern myth about Galileo. In reality, even Thomas Huxley (”Darwin’s Bulldog”), a 19th century fierce agnostic and certainly no admirer of the Catholic Church, examined all the evidence of the Galileo case and concluded that “the Church had the better argument.” Also in reality, Galileo was not censured and forced to recant because of his theories, but because he managed to insult and alienate both foes and supporters alike.
Galileo’s theories had first been published by Nicholae Copernicus, a Polish priest, a century earlier in a work he had dedicated to the Pope. The work was published at the earnest solicitation of two distinguished churchmen, Cardinal Schomberg and Tiedemann Giese, Bishop of Culm. It was dedicated by permission to Pope Paul III in order, as Copernicus explained, that it might be thus protected from the attacks which it was sure to encounter on the part of the “mathematicians” (i.e. philosophers). Copernicus died soon after its publication, and his ideas were widely ridiculed, though not by the Church but by philosophers and even other scientists. When Galileo advanced his theories, he was still alive, healthy, and teaching at a university (the Church had founded and ran most of the universities). His theories caused much debate, but the Church authorities stayed out of it. However, there would arise in the controversy three major factions connected with the Church: those who supported Galileo and his theories, those who opposed him and his theories, and those who supported him but disagreed with his theories. Galileo managed to make enemies of all three.
Those who supported Galileo and his theories were the Jesuits, a new order less than a century old. The Jesuits were really into Astronomy, and had quite a few distinguished scientists of their own. The Jesuits agreed with Galileo’s heliocentric theory, but pointed out (rightly, as it turns out) the weaknesses of some of his theories. Not one to engage in mild debate, Galileo publicly insulted the order and their most prominent astronomers. So there went his primary support.
Those who opposed him were the Dominicans, a very old order that had been the order of St. Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas’ great contribution to the Church had been the harmonizing of works of Aristotle, Plato, etc. and their systematic reason with Catholic theology, and his works of philosophy. Like the philosophers of ancient Greece, Aquinas incorporated the Ptolemic cosmology into his arguments, and the Dominicans were very much champions and defenders of such philosophy, and as a result, cosmology. Adhering to this philosophy and cosmology, they declared heliocentrism to “contradict Scripture”. It would have been more accurate for them to declare that it “contradicted their understanding of certain passages of Scripture”, but thoughtfulness and cool-headedness were increasingly in short supply, as the Dominicans (the Establishment) were engaged in a rather nasty turf war with the Jesuits (the new kids) over which order would dominate certain spheres of influence. Galileo, not one to respond with thoughtfulness and cool-headedness, replied that Scripture was wrong (rather than the more reasonable “your understanding of certain passages of Scripture is wrong”). As mistaken as the Dominicans were in their statement, in light of the fact that the Reformation and Counter-Reformation were in full swing, this was incredibly reckless thing for Galileo to say. The Church had the Protestants saying the Church was un-Scriptural; the last thing they needed was someone giving the Protestants ammunition: a Catholic scientist at a Catholic university declaring that Scripture was wrong.
Galileo backed off from his “Scripture is wrong” statement, and tried to explain himself in a 1615 letter to the Grand Duchess of Tuscany. The letter contained his scientific views supporting Copernicus, and also his related biblical views. The letter got published, and the simmering pot boiled over. The Reformation was introducing all sorts of new “revelations” born of non-authoritative group and even individual new interpretations of Scripture. In the midst of identifying and challenging new and (to the Catholic) heretical Scripture interpretations, along comes Galileo and an apparent Scriptural re-interpretation by a layman, who was also challenging the established science of the day. The Pope and certain influential Cardinals, all of whom disagreed with his theories but supported Galileo, sought to deflate the controversy, to “move it off the front page”, so to speak.
Galileo appeared before the Inquisition in 1616, who proceeded to order Galileo that he could not teach his theories as proven fact, due to the fact that his theories could not be proven (the instruments of the time were not powerful enough) and that Galileo could not prove the theories mathematically – indeed, he was wrong about quite a number of things, things that Kepler would later be able to work out. He was neither jailed nor tortured, despite legends to the contrary. However, in a really dumb move by the Congregation of the Index, they followed the sentence by issuing a decree prohibiting various “heretical” works, to which were added many (though not nearly all) works advocating the Copernican system; however, it contained no mention of Galileo or of any of his works.
Galileo agreed to this sentence, and for a while everything was cool. Cardinal Bellarmine, a most influential Cardinal who has been cast as the “heavy” in many recountings of the Galileo story, summarized the Church’s position thusly:
“I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be false which is demonstrated.”
This was perfectly consistent with a similar passage written by Aquinas a couple of centuries earlier, which the Dominicans opposed to Galileo seemed to have forgotten.
Pope Urban VIII was rather magnanimous toward Galileo. In 1624, he approached Galileo with the proposition of authoring a book together: the Pope would argue the geocentric view (which he held) and Galileo would argue the heliocentric view. The two views would be published in a single volume. Though Galileo agreed to this, he instead wrote and published his own work in 1632 declaring heliocentrism to be proven fact (violating his sentence), his argument being in dialogue form against “Simplicus”, a defender of geocentrism and somewhat of an oaf. The character of “Simplicus” displayed many of the mannerisms of Urban VIII, and was readily identified as him; as the work was disseminated, the Pope was embarrassed, then furious.
This got Galileo another date with the Inquisition. The issue at hand, and for which he was ultimately sentenced, was not Galileo’s science; it was the violation of his earlier agreement. That he was forced to recant his scientific views was likely more of an exercise in humiliating him, as he had made enemies of pretty much everyone at this point. As von Gebler, Galileo’s Protestant biographer admits:
“The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office [i.e. the Inquistion] never mean ‘the Church’ [i.e. the Pope and the Magisterium].
Again, while in Rome, Galileo was never imprisoned or tortured. He lived in comfortable chambers with servants, and he spent the rest of his life under “house arrest” in his own home in the Italian countryside, and remained a devout Catholic.
I hope my fellow commenters have benefited from the above information. As for myself, I am searching for some way to be sentenced to live the rest of my life in a house in the Italian countryside.
There’s intelligent design and “Intelligent Design”. The first is simply a re-statement of one of St. Thomas Aquinas’ five proofs for the existence of God – there is order in the world; order requires an intelligence to establish and maintain it; therefore such an intelligence exists and this intelligence is God. Note, however, that this “proof” offers nothing to justify a belief in a specific God, such as that of the hebraic scriptures, Jesus, Allah, Buddha, or Thor. Note also that the nub of the proof/argument lies in the assertion that order requires an intelligence to establish and maintain it.
The scientific method presupposes some kind of order discernible to the human mind. If such an order does not exist, the predictive quality of the scientific method itself evaporates. It is certainly reasonable to believe that this order is imposed by some kind of intelligence, but it is not necessary. Science – or the scientific method – is an investigation of that order, however, not the source or origin of that order.
In the discussion of origins within science, it is appropriately honest to point out both of these options which should take no more than 5 minutes. After that, you may remand the debate to the philosophy department and proceed with investigating the order itself. So much for intelligent design.
Then there is Intelligent Design, which is a rather militant attempt to Christianize the science lab. If you want to Christianize the science lab, do it at a Christian school.
Atheism isn’t a creature of intellect, rather of the Will.
I’m reading the Fabric of Reality by David Deutsch and aside from any of his conclusions, early on he makes the point that science cannot prove anything. It really made me think about a lot about current public debate on science. How it’s important to those who are politicizing science on the left to know science cannot prove anything, but for those on the right to know that the lack of eventual proof does not negate the power of a working explanation. Of course I use the left and the right loosely as there are a myriad of point of views. For instance I’m on the right generally speaking though I think too that evolution is compatible with religion but am skeptical on man made global warming.
[...] gift to Ben Stein By datechguy I think Big Hollywood nails it: Does anybody else find it supremely ironic that Ben Stein made a documentary about academia’s [...]
Agreed. Science doesn’t PROVE anything, but it can expertly measure and manipulate things. All that we can observe and measure exists with us in this moment, and what the archeologists unearth in this moment is the only clue we get to past eras.
The question today is where and how you place your faith, once the supply of hard proveable facts runs out.
For all the presumptive weight that evolution and natural selection get, at the end of the day you have to hinge the conclusions on the hypothesis that things achieved higher order and organization from lower order and less organization. You have to enter the closed loop that since things sprung from the evolution process, then things are evolving. The prime presumption is that God is obviously a fallacy.
Intelligent design doesn’t really present a different way to box in and shut off debate, it wants to throw off the weight of the evolution presumption, and follow other lines of inquiry. That sounds like a philosophical examination of why we even need to DO science, to me.
Belief in God has been preordained to be an act of TOTAL faith; if we are created beings, then we have been created in a way that prevents our ever finding a way to prove the existence of God by ANY of our five senses. This would be the act of a God that decided to make humans utterly and totally free.
In terms of logic, presuming God closes off inquiry, and thus presuming NO God also closes doors that some don’t want to have opened. All that Intelligent Design does is to examine the microscopic molecular points where the forces of the universe operate, and consider that some designing force has assembled and set into motion the clockwork that surrounds us today.
Maybe, maybe not. But we should be free to ask either way.
There is hostility to non-leftist thought in Academia. On that would have hung a great documentary. Unfortunately, Ben Stein and the producers of EXPELLED decided to make their documentary revolve around hostility to ID and Creationism on campus.
Why? There is hostility to ID and Creationism right here. It’s a controversial topic–one on which the sides hold to their beliefs with a faith so strong they cannot recognise their own excesses.
Here. And there are people on both sides who are consevative.
I could engender a similar reaction in almost any group of people. The movie was a waste of time. It does not show what it purports to show–hostility to ‘conservative ideas’–it shows the uproar people can get into when they have a bit of power and their beliefs are questioned on a controversial subject.
They throw their weight around.
As many in this thread are doing, albeit without ‘censor’ power.
hooo boy, this will be fun.
#1 The insistance that Creationists want creation taught in public schools is asinine. If you’ve ever actually read anything from groups such as Answers in Genesis you’ll see that want the origins debate to be removed from the classroom. Evolution is every bit as much about faith as Creationism.
#2 Stein’s movie is, as many others have stated, not about creation, or even so much about ID, its about intolerence in acedemia for anything that even questions Darwin’s theory.
#3 I used to be an evolutionist, until I studied the science. Evolution breaks the law of Biogenesis (life can only come from life), it breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Information increasing mutations (a must for evoultion) do not exist, The least complex creatures to have existed (either living today or in the fosil record) are so complex that, if borken into their constituant parts, would have no value (this is the notion of irreducible complexity, for further reading I recommend Darwin’s Black Box by Dr. Behe.), and many more issues (if you want more indepth research, http://www.answersingenesis.org is always good for finding the problems with darwinian evolution).
#4 Science is, by its very nature, about the study and experimentation with repeatable processes. The begining of life, either through Creation or evolution is a non-repeatable event. Thus neither event belongs in the science class room.
#5 Creationism and ID are two different movements. They have many differences, but agree in one basic idea. And that idea is that they aproach science from the standpoint that life was designed, and because it was designed, there is an order inherent in everything, and a purpose for everything, that we only have to find. For those who believe that this is ‘idiocy’ i recommend you talk to those engineers in the field of robotics that are designing robotic systems designed off of animals. We as humans have to make a machine that works half as well as many of the machines in nature.
#6 Science is about open debate. I recent wrote a research paper on the subject. The purpose of paper was to point out the stagnation and dange of scientific consensus. History is filled with scientific consesus’s that were horribly wrong. Flat Earth, the greak idea of ‘four elements’, geocentric universe, alchemy, eugenics (this direct offshoot of evolutionary theory led to the hollocaust), global cooling, DDT scare, etc. Any theory that refuses to hear any dissent is showing its weakness. If evolution is so strong, then men like Dawkins shouldn’t refuse to debate us. If global warming is fact, al gore shouldn’t state ‘the debate is over’ and refuse to debate us. Even amateur creationists and IDers are more then willing to go to bat for their beliefs, why then should such evolutionary icons like Dawkins refuse to debate us? If the theory is as solid as he claims, then he should have no fear of losing. Or is it that theory is empty, and holding up to rigorous scientific debate would ensure that the world would see that it is hollow?
#7 Some one mentioned flat earthers in conjunction with creationism. This is a laughable attack. Creationists bring legitimate and multiple criticisms about the accepted theory (law of Biogenesis, Laws of Thermodynamics, etc). If the Flat Earthers could bring any legitimate criticism of rond Earth to the debate then they should be debated, however, their arguments consist of “We haven’t seen any proof that its round, so its not round.” (and before some one responds with “thats all ID and creationists do”, no, its not. The law of Biogensis simply states that life cannot come from non-life. That rules out evolution from inorganic to organic. Life can only come from life.)
#8 If you want to experience the bias Stein talked about first hand, question an evolutionist professor when they use a fraudulent study as proof of evolution. I did this, got a D in the class, but didn’t fail any tests and turned in all work as requried. I did solid C+ B- work, yet got a D. The same thing happened in a history class when I dared to ask questions about interpretations from burial mounds, regarding the peacefulness of a tribe that we have no written record of. The professor insisted they were peaceful, I asked how do we know, she replied “we just know”, I responded with the fact that many headless bodies are found in the mounds, and they weren’t intrusions (buried at later date). headless bodies seem to me to point to violence of some kind. But there was to be no debate on the subject, Indians weren’t violent until the whiteman arrived.
I am sure that many of you will ignore, misrepresent, or mock me for my beliefs. I’m used to that, I do hope, however, that are some who are truely open to debate. I have a friend that is liberal and he is very reasonable. We debate these types of things all the time. He is truely open minded. If you’re that type of person, then, by all means, I’m happy to debate, argue, and discuss until the cows come home and then debate while bbq-ing.
The begining of life, either through Creation or evolution is a non-repeatable event. Thus neither event belongs in the science class room.==
Except that, if secularists — who share the same side as pro-choice=pro-abortion=wrong-choicers — believe that life on Earth began with one cell, they oughta believe that life in the womb begins with one cell — that is, conception.
By the way…
Conception is a repeatable event.
Ben Stein has done horrible things in this movie, saying belief in evolution leads to Nazism should be enough to make him a very bad choice for a commencment speech ( a “quip” he has repeated again and again ).
Expelled is anti-science and anti-education, it’s claims are laughable and about as supportable as “loose change’ and other conspiracy documentaries. A university should be about well thought out debate and respect for the learning process but not a place for loony thoughts.
He’s a bright guy with a very strange blind spot.
The conservative movement should stay away from the intelligent design wackos. Any politician who supports people who think man and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time will not get much support now and even less in the future. Intelligent design is creationism and creationism is religion. It belongs in religious studies not science.
BTW, there is no conflict between belief in a creator and evolution. A point most scientists agree on.
Jonah….
really!!!!!!
#1. creationists certainly want creationism taught in school, they are at work in many arenas trying to get creationism taught in schools. Orior tactics involved simply having religious teaching, that is not allowed, then a pseudo-scientific theory “ID” was developed to cloak creationism, this was shown for what it truly was and also kicked out, the latest theory is to teach the debate, to be open-minded, allow teachers to teach creationism alongside evolutionary theory as an equal IN SCIENCE CLASS.
You can’t escape two facts,
first: creationism is not science
and second: there are many creation myths but the creationists only want the judeo/christion/islamic one. Why not scientology, why not hindu, why not the Mormon origin of the races, why not the various native creation myths???? Why is it only the christian 6 day creation myth?????
If we are to be fair, why does the hindu kid have to hear about Darwin and Noah but no Vishnu??? No big turtle holding up the earth? No Earth mother stuff for the natives ( a myth added to native lore since the white man came btw) Why no space clams stories for the Cruise kids?
Jonah,
#2, the movie is about expecting universities to allow creationism to be taught as science. It simply isn’t. It also misrepresents how the victims were treated. All the victims are employed, most in acedemia, that they didn’t get exactly what they wanted , exactly where they wanted and exactly when they wanted it … well, life is tough sometimes, getting PhDs and papers published can be brutal ( should be actually ). Especially in the SCIENCES!!!!!
btw, those that are interested, go to expelled exposed why all this whining is debunked.
Jonah
#3, where to begin, Biogenesis, a theory that says, life must come from other life, that is, life can’t come from non-life … this was a theory developed before germs and cells were understood, in those days disease was often thought to arise spontaneously or be from some form of demon and bad humor … all archaic concepts … this idea ( now archaic as well ) helped explain how infections arose on were spread. It has nothing to do with how organisms change over time which is what evolutionary theory is all about. And BTW, you are aware that evolutionary theory says nothing about the origins of life or anything else, right????
Thermodymanic laws have to do with conservation of energy, and Jonah, nothing we know of contradicts that. If you believe that evolution contradicts evolutionary theory, then you have to believe a growing tree or baby also does because each of those things is becoming more complex over time. I assume you’ve noticed these things growing. The energy is conserved, it is captured by the organism through it’s metabolic systems and will eventually be released, all without violating any law of physics.
As for the argument about increasing mutations??? It’s always hard to know what a creationist means with his line of argument. Mutations happen all the time, some are incompatible with life, those ones are lost sine the organism dies. Some are harmless, they will persist, and we are full of these. Others create advantages but these advantages may not be noticed unless the organism is challenged, that’s where the selection happens. We have tones of functional genes that seem to be not used, perhaps they will be useful to a future generation, perhaps not. The organism benefits from the advantage and the gene/organism is selected.
The arguments about irreducibility have all been debunked. Excellent example of precursors to Behe’s examples keep being found.
That the fossil record doesn’t show a lot of billion year old bacteria and viruses is not surprising but proves nothing. What is interesting is there are now experiments where bacteria have developed new metabolic processes in the lab that involved multiple independant steps coming together to metabolize new food sources. So evolution has been observed in bacteria. New genes via mutation that gave the bacteria an advantage in a challenging environment. So mutation and selection … proven in the lab with genetic maps of each generation!
#4, science is only about testable facts, you better explain that to the theoretical physicists, Scientific research involves testable claims, the problem with ID is it offers to testable claims, it is 100% faith based.
the other problem is…..
#5, ID is creationism in drag, this is true and the ID proponents all know it, the Dover trial clearly showed the Christians behind the ID movement were fully aware of this and that ID was a tactic in the attempt to teach creationism. Shocking that they would be so dishonest, well, not really.
as for the creationists and the ID’rs disagree on many things but agree that there is a design …. hmmmmm …. if there is a design, then there is a designer ….. hmmmm …. would they both agree the designer is GOD!!!! … well , OK, as long as ID isn’t about religion
#6, I agree with you about consensus, As a doctor I am dismayed about how many times we are told about the consensus from a consensus conference about what the right thing to do is. The consensus changes with disconcerting speed too often ( and depending on the sponsorship as well).
Global warming consensus is the best known example of how this concept can be abused but in fact there never was a consensus, just a pretend consensus mocked up by bureaucrats after the scientists left the meeting.
As for evolution … it’s been 150 years, it was not a consensus at first, there were competing theories and complete disavowal of it initially. But, yes, it is not accepted that this is the best explanation for how line changes and adapts over time. Most importantly, no convincing alternate theory has been found or even suggested for a long time.
Only ID has been offered and ID is clearly religion and untestable.
BTW, offering up weaknesses in evolutionary theory doesn’t make your theory stronger. What makes your theory stronger is seeing if it fits what is observed and if claims or predictions can be borne out by it. Evolutionary theory has met these tests again and again.
ID always goes back to the designer ( God ) did it, that’s where all ID claims end up. That is not science, that is faith.
love to see your paper, can you post a link
Jonah,
#7, huh, non-sequitor, flat earthers, creationists, who cares, no flat earther said the earth is flat, god said so, and sailors always knew it was round, the flat earth thing is silly.
#8, so you too are a victim of conventional thinking, we’ll have to take your word for your work quality, etc. but since you don’t understand the theories you bring up here in support of your arguments ( biogensis, thermodymanics ) I’m going to have to remain skeptical about your version. As well, like it or not, you really do have to learn the material as taught. When you are a prof, you can set the course materials.
We’ve all had to occassionaly tow the line to get through courses, that’s life.
It doesn’t end after college!!!
Do you remember the fraudulent study the prof taught? I’m curious about that and how do you know it is fraudulent?
Many profs have politically based blind spots, and niavety about peaceful natives is one of them, but you are confusing issues there, social history is not science. Perhaps science is sometimes used to inform it but that doesn’t make it science.
Ken
(1) Having studied both sides, out of innate curiousity to see what the fuss is all about, I can testify that ID (the base version, ungussied up by so-called creationists) is trying to be a testable hypothesis. Look up Dembski’s writings on “irreducible complexity” for starters. The base ID proponents WANT the hypothesis to be testable.
(2) Evolution doesn’t even HAVE to be true to be what it is: a slammin’ model of reality that can be exploited to make predictions about biology, ecosystems, etc. Very useful. Statistics people like myself are often not interested in a model’s “truth,” as much as we are about its utility…
(3) That creationism is seen as the base of “ID” theory is most unfortunate. The same guys who were in charge of Bush’s PR Dept. must be in charge of the ID PR…
(4) Ben Stein is a funny and intelligent speaker, and any university who would not have him as a commencement speaker is poorer for it. Heck, my school will have him — and we are a mere K-12 school. Come to think of it, we could have him speak at a K-12 school and not have to worry about content or delivery… that says something…
==Scientific research involves testable claims, the problem with ID is it offers to testable claims, it is 100% faith based.==
Science, though, has not observed trans-species evolution, nor tested any chaims that there is such a thing and found them to be true. “Evolution” is a theory. That means, “guess, speculation.” Evolutionists claims amount to saying, “It’s true cuz it’s true.”
Mr. I.
true enough, in a way
keep in mind gravity can’t be seen or measured ( it’s effects can ), but a theory exists about what it is and how it should work if the theory is correct, and based on these theories we can send people to the moon, place sattelites in orbit and those little accelerometers in iPhones can be used to make nifty games.
The proof of a scientific theory often has do do with ideas like, if this theory is valid then one should be able to make useful/valid predictions.
so regarding gravity … if the theory is true if we fire a missile of a certain weight using a certain amount of force we can reliably predict it will land over there, not only that, even before the theory was developed the rule would work.
a surprising amount of science works this way, we do many practical things based on theory, nuclear bombs, atomic energy, nuclear medicine, etc all work based on the correctness of a theory but nobody has seen a nucleus
evolutionary theory and natural selection theories explain much of the natural world. You can make predictions based on it. Predictions were made about what we would find in the genetic code once we could map it, these have been found to be largely true and even more informative than expected. Predicitons could be made about various species that probably existed in the past, missing links and various dead end. these too have proved valid, and even more than expected. Much of medicine and other life sciences now rely on aspects of evolutionary theory. It is reliable enough to depend on in these arenas, just as gravity is reliable enough to send men to the moon.
Might evolution be superseded but a better and more complete theory in the future? That’s possible, but it won;t be superceded by ID. ID’s most basic theories keep falling apart, irreducible complexity, every example they have cited has already been dis proven by examples in life or the fossil record.
150 years is pretty solid for a scientific theory but the good ones stay good. Einsteins theories are about 100 years and make no mistake, they too are just theories, still solid and reliable. Newtons laws on gravity, still very useful, they have been added too but they are correct.
Some other theories have come and gone, stepping stones to better theories.
Darwin, Einstein, Newton, et al, would all be just as proud if their theory was a stepping stone towards a more complete understanding. They all also understand that these are explanations/understanding based on our limited view of the universe. Every scientist is aware that there is much more to be known than we already know.
ID say, god did it, think no more.
Al Gore says the debate is over.
neither is science, neither should be in any school
==keep in mind gravity can’t be seen or measured ( it’s effects can )…==
So can the effects of Creation and faith.
==… but a theory exists about what it is and how it should work if the theory is correct, and based on these theories we can send people to the moon, place sattelites in orbit and those little accelerometers in iPhones can be used to make nifty games.==
Same for Creation and faith.
==The proof of a scientific theory often has do do with ideas like, if this theory is valid then one should be able to make useful/valid predictions.==
Creation and faith work the same way.
==so regarding gravity … if the theory is true if we fire a missile of a certain weight using a certain amount of force we can reliably predict it will land over there, not only that, even before the theory was developed the rule would work.==
And, yet, we never see gravity, nor love, nor beauty, nor music. Still, secularists believe they exist cuz-a, as you say, "effects." And, still, they deny the effects of God and faith proving God and faith.
==a surprising amount of science works this way, we do many practical things based on theory, nuclear bombs, atomic energy, nuclear medicine, etc all work based on the correctness of a theory but nobody has seen a nucleus==
Again, secularists deny God and faith cuz, they say, they can't see them. And, yet, they believe in other things they cannot see. Interesting flexible empriicism there.
==evolutionary theory and natural selection theories explain much of the natural world…It is reliable enough…just as gravity is reliable enough to send men to the moon.==
those who have done the experiments regarding God and faith have found things, too, and that what God promised works. Secularists refuse to do the experiment. What kinda Science is THAT?
==Might evolution be superseded but a better and more complete theory in the future? That’s possible, but it won;t be superceded by ID.==
Secular humanists won't let it.
==ID’s most basic theories keep falling apart, irreducible complexity, every example they have cited has already been dis proven by examples in life or the fossil record. ==
That's cuz secular humanists use only what supports their view and/or what they wanna see in what they say is the "evidence."
==150 years is pretty solid for a scientific theory but the good ones stay good.==
Hard to fight selfish persistence.
== Einsteins theories are about 100 years and make no mistake, they too are just theories, still solid and reliable. Newtons laws on gravity, still very useful, they have been added too but they are correct.==
Those who have done the experiments on God and faith have found that what God promised also to be correct.
==Every scientist is aware that there is much more to be known than we already know.==
Theirs is a trace of a trace of a trace of a trace of a trace of a trace of a trace, and so on, of all the knowledge in the universe, and, still, the secular humansits say, as though they know, that there is no God.
==ID say, god did it, think no more.==
Scoffers like to portray the argument this way, and, this also says, "Think no more."
You must be logged in to post a comment.