New at Reason
reason Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey pans Ben Stein's shoddy new documentary on evolution, intelligent design, and the supposed suppression of free inquiry.
Comments to "New at Reason":
Bingo | April 16, 2008, 12:06pm | #
Thank you! I was wondering when this was going to show up here. The movie sounds so bad that it's a must-see.Elemenope | April 16, 2008, 12:11pm | #
Darwinism has taken root, taken hold at every major intellectual institution around the world in Western Society, from Great Britain to the United States, you name it.LOL!
Darwinism, of course, does not permit for the existence of a supreme being, a higher power, or a God.
WTF?
ed | April 16, 2008, 12:12pm | #
My, my, where to begin? Let's just cut to the chase and declare that if god designed the world,he is either a sadist or a retard.
David | April 16, 2008, 12:14pm | #
For example, the younger the rocks in which fossils are found, the more closely they resemble species alive today, and the older the rocks, the less resemblance there is.That's because the devil was smart enough to arrange it that way when he conceived his whole "carbon-dating" scam.
Elemenope | April 16, 2008, 12:15pm | #
Let's just cut to the chase and declare that if god designed the world, he is either a sadist or a retard.I always thought the ancients (Greek, Hindu) were on to something when they declared the formation of the Earth as a committee project.
Perhaps we could do an episode of "Win Ben Stein's Money" with only questions on evolution. Poor Ben would quickly become...well, poor Ben.
J sub D | April 16, 2008, 12:20pm | #
Fucking pathetcic.NO, I haven't seen the movie.
NO, I'm not going to see the movie.
NO, I don't feel any obligation to refute such nonsense.
I feel much the same way about astrology, for the same reasons.
Hugh Akston | April 16, 2008, 12:21pm | #
Darwinism, of course, does not permit for the existence of a supreme being, a higher power, or a God.The hallmark of a successful species in natural selection is adaptability. The development of omniscience and omnipotence would certainly make one more able to adapt to the environment. I don't see a problem here at all.
shrike | April 16, 2008, 12:23pm | #
Darwinism does not allow for a literal interpretation of the Bible.Once that crack is breached, the fundies' case swiftly falls - apart as the Bible, including a physical resurrection, is deemed metaphorical in nature.
But much like the "originalist" view of the Constitution a firewall must be constructed so as to prevent Modernity from sticking its nose under the tent.
Bingo | April 16, 2008, 12:23pm | #
they plan to use the movie as part of a campaign to roll out legislation in states — so-called "freedom bills" — that would forbid anyone from "punishing" teachers and professors who question "Darwinism."Wonderful, can't wait for this.
Warren | April 16, 2008, 12:26pm | #
Ben Stein what a character. He was allowed to sit at the cool table but chose to be a giant douche anyway.It raises the question. Did anyone associated with the Nixon Administration not use their powers for evil?
Danny | April 16, 2008, 12:27pm | #
J sub D: I feel much the same way about astrology, for the same reasons.Wait, you don't believe in astrology?! What part of "Do something adventurous today--it will pay off!" is at all wishy-washy or ambiguous? Astrology is real dammit!
/Never read a horoscope in my life
the innominate one | April 16, 2008, 12:34pm | #
Darwinism, of course, does not permit for the existence of a supreme being, a higher power, or a God.Darwinism doesn't have anything to say about a supreme being, any more than does chemistry or physics. There may or may not be a god or gods, but in either case it is inappropriate to try to explain what you see in any sort of supernatural terms. "God did it" isn't a valid scientific explanation any more than "Satan did it" or "Santa did it".
joe | April 16, 2008, 12:37pm | #
Wah wah wah, teh elites iz pickin on me!Doesn't seem to be very good year for that message.
Naga Sadow | April 16, 2008, 12:39pm | #
I had a girlfriend once who checked her horrorscope daily. She would sit for roughly ten minutes attempting to ponder "the meaning of the stars". I thought it was stupid until I read some of them and realized I could help her "interpret" the meaning. Thats where the fun started.Guy Montag | April 16, 2008, 12:40pm | #
I am finding it difficult to pry my mind away from the old impression I had of Mr. Stein even as these new facts keep rushing in. Okay, RB's article is opinion, but when I watch Mr. Stein on the FOX money shows talking like an FDR Socialist I just want to turn the sound off and play his part from Ferris Beuler.stuartl | April 16, 2008, 12:45pm | #
Darwinism has taken root, taken hold at every major intellectual institution around the world in Western Society, from Great Britain to the United States, you name it.I've heard that geometry and algebra have taken root as well.
Darwinism, of course, does not permit for the existence of a supreme being, a higher power, or a God.
The problem for the early creationists was that most pre-Darwin biology required God for the origin of species, evolutionary theory does not. Modern creations have warped this to: Evolutionary theory does not require god, I believe in god, therefore evolutionary theory is wrong. That creationists use this level of argument gives a pretty good idea of their intellectual abilities.
stuartl | April 16, 2008, 12:47pm | #
Modern **creationists** have...Kwix | April 16, 2008, 12:48pm | #
Naga Sadow | April 16, 2008, 12:39pm | #Hehe, related story. My wife used to read Tarot cards and the vast majority of the people she read to came back to tell her how "right on" she was.
I had a girlfriend once who checked her horrorscope daily. She would sit for roughly ten minutes attempting to ponder "the meaning of the stars". I thought it was stupid until I read some of them and realized I could help her "interpret" the meaning. Thats where the fun started.
So we had this friend who was going through some personal shit and refused to listen to good advice from friends. One day she asks my wife for a Tarot reading and my wife seeing the opportunity to offer advice without personally offering advice did so. Magically, the cards told this friend the exact same thing all of her friends had said, only this time she heeded the advice since it was "divine". Aaah, good times.
What bugs me about this is the fact that Ben Stein is no "run of the mill" bible thumper. He is a relatively intelligent fellow. To take a hard tack position like this is very disconcerting. Makes me wonder what he has up his sleeve.
shrike | April 16, 2008, 12:54pm | #
The fact that Stein talks like an "FDR socialist" yet is an unabashed conservative strengthens the argument that the GOP has become predominately the domain of the religious right.I know that there is a right-wing bias among Libertarians but you people have been duped (and are still being duped).
After watching the justice department become completely politicized by Liberty U hacks and this constant Fox News bullshit about "originalist" SCOTUS appointees there can be little doubt about it now.
Face it, "liberalism" has become synonymous with Modernity.
The fundies don't like that shit!
Neil | April 16, 2008, 12:55pm | #
"Wah wah wah, teh elites iz pickin on me!Doesn't seem to be very good year for that message."
Hey Joe did you see that McCain is now ahead 10 points of Obama in PA? LOL pathetic. Guess the messege works after all.
Naga Sadow | April 16, 2008, 12:57pm | #
Kwix,Damn! I never thought about the Tarot card angle. The cards would have said "You should have your friend Rebecca join in next time you have sex with your boyfriend."
I have the best ideas only after the time to use them is long past . . . *sigh*
Elemenope | April 16, 2008, 1:00pm | #
Makes me wonder what he has up his sleeve.Money. A lot of it. Made primarily from shilling for pieces of crap like this.
Salvius | April 16, 2008, 1:01pm | #
I feel obligated here to plug my own entirely theological argument against Intelligent Design theory. Creationists don't seem to want to listen to scientific arguments, so let's see what they do if we start throwing Bible quotes at them, and explaining that by their very advocacy of ID, they are serving Satan.Warren | April 16, 2008, 1:01pm | #
I know that there is a right-wing bias among Libertarians but you people have been dupedSays who? Libertarians and conservatives once had a fair amount of common ground. But it was Nixon that necessitated the Libertarian break from the GOP. Reagan was a fusionist, but really it was Reagan who first rode into office on a wave of libertarian rhetoric and promptly fucked us once his ass hit the chair. Since then things have only gotten worse. To the point where what now needs to be conserved are the those New Deal policies conservatives once opposed. I for one, and I'm not alone, have equal contempt for the left and the right.
Shirley Knott | April 16, 2008, 1:04pm | #
Interesting to note that the victim complaint is being raised by the victimizers (extracted from The Panda's Thumb):Posting the list of who is really being beaten up, threatened, fired, attempted to be fired, and killed. Not surprisingly, it is scientists and science supporters by Death Cultists.
I’ve discovered that this list really bothers fundies. Truth to them is like a cross to a vampire.
There is a serious reign of terror by Xian fundie terrorists directed against the reality based academic community, specifically acceptors of evolution. I’m keeping a running informal tally, listed below. They include death threats, firings, attempted firings, assaults, and general persecution directed against at least 11 people. The Expelled Liars have totally ignored the ugly truth of just who is persecuting who.
If anyone has more info add it. Also feel free to borrow or steal the list.
I thought I’d post all the firings of professors and state officials for teaching or accepting evolution.
2 professors fired, Bitterman (SW CC Iowa) and Bolyanatz (Wheaton)
1 persecuted unmercifully Richard Colling (Olivet)
1 attempted firing Murphy (Fuller Theological by Phillip Johnson IDist)
1 successful death threats, assaults harrasment Gwen Pearson (UT Permian)
1 state official fired Chris Comer (Texas)
1 assault, fired from dept. Chair Paul Mirecki (U. of Kansas)
1 killed, Rudi Boa, Biomedical Student (Scotland)
Death Threats Eric Pianka UT Austin and the Texas Academy of Science engineered by a hostile, bizarre IDist named Bill Dembski
Death Threats Michael Korn, fugitive from justice, towards the UC Boulder biology department and miscellaneous evolutionary biologists.
Death Threats Judge Jones Dover trial. He was under federal marshall protection for a while
Up to 11 with little effort. Probably there are more. I turned up a new one with a simple internet search. Haven’t even gotten to the secondary science school teachers.
And the Liars of Expelled have the nerve to scream persecution. On body counts the creos are way ahead.
no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott
shrike | April 16, 2008, 1:05pm | #
"equal contempt for the left and the right."I respect that, Warren.
My post dealt with those who hang on to the conservative bias.
Wait a minute. The text teaser above calls it a "shoddy new documentary" while the main text of the article describes it as an "anti-science propaganda film". Which is it? Isn't all film propaganda? Won't it be delicious irony when Michael Moore blasts it as "propaganda"?
Warren | April 16, 2008, 1:10pm | #
when I watch Mr. Stein on the FOX money shows talking like an FDR Socialist I just want to turn the sound off and play his part from Ferris Beuler.Good call. If I remember correctly he was lecturing about the folly of Smoot-Hawley. Too bad he was such a dry boring schmuck. If those kids had been paying attention, we might not be where we are today.
Ska | April 16, 2008, 1:16pm | #
Darwinism has taken root, taken hold at every major intellectual institution around the world in Western Society, from Great Britain to the United States, you name it.Unless he left the UK and headed east, this is one of the stupidest things I have read in a while.
Les | April 16, 2008, 1:23pm | #
He is a relatively intelligent fellow.I haven't seen any evidence for this. He's relatively knowledgeable a variety of subjects, as we saw on his game-show, but that's got nothing to do with intelligence. He's always been a partisan loyalist, and few things interfere with intelligence more than a devotion to loyalism.
GILMORE | April 16, 2008, 1:32pm | #
Neil | April 16, 2008, 12:55pm | #"Wah wah wah, teh elites iz pickin on me!
"elites" = people with capacity for reason
poor baby
Ethan | April 16, 2008, 1:34pm | #
our planet is exquisitely fit not only to support life, but also gives us the best view of the universe...I've always felt that our view would be a bit better were the Earth slightly higher.
"The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built."
And a diet that entered my body through my navel was one of the bedrock principles of my early development, but that doesn't mean I can't now flourish on mouth-food.
GILMORE | April 16, 2008, 1:36pm | #
I am profoundly disappointed at a lack of some form of disclosure here. Ron... why....why!!! We needs it.Soda | April 16, 2008, 1:43pm | #
Here's a good retort to the people trying to tie Darwinism with Nazism.The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled
Basically, social Darwinism is really a horrible version of selective breeding. Selective breeding (artificial selection) had been practiced by humans for ages. Darwin's insight is that selection also happens naturally, albeit very slowly.
D.A. Ridgely | April 16, 2008, 1:49pm | #
Will Mr. Stein's next movie try to help me cling to my guns?GOD | April 16, 2008, 1:49pm | #
Oy Vey! How much more evidence in favor of evolution and science in general can I give you people? I want you to succeed on your own, you poor schmucks! Please, please, stop using me as a crutch!Oh, and I should let you know: I had nothing to do with the writing of the Bible. A bunch of Old Jews got together and wrote it. Deal.
Kolohe | April 16, 2008, 2:04pm | #
It raises the question. Did anyone associated with the Nixon Administration not use their powers for evil?William Safire?
Loupeznik | April 16, 2008, 2:05pm | #
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQwAnyone here seen this video about Expelled?
I am not sure where the author stands but it is funny!
Ilya G. | April 16, 2008, 2:10pm | #
This is an excellent observation. I have noticed the same thing both on the liberal left and the conservative right. It appears that their approach to science is ass backwards. They start with the conclusion and then try to prove it, and if the observable facts contradict their conclusions then too bad for the facts.I don’t know if Benny really believes this stuff or maybe he just wants to be liked - but he is way off on this one. I don’t think that most people want to deny his freedom to believe in what ever he wants, but what about our freedom to be taught science when we take science class instead of silly superstitions and old mythologies.
J sub D | April 16, 2008, 2:11pm | #
our planet is exquisitely fit not only to support life, but also gives us the best view of the universe...I've always felt that our view would be a bit better were the Earth slightly higher.If we were located outside of the galactic plane, cosmology would have been much easier, wouldn't it? Nonsense like that only impresses the rubes.
Kwix | April 16, 2008, 2:11pm | #
I for one, and I'm not alone, have equal contempt for the left and the right.Aye, count me in that group laddie.
Kwix | April 16, 2008, 2:14pm | #
Won't it be delicious irony when Michael Moore blasts it as "propaganda"?Delicious, no. Predictable, oh yeah. I haven't spent a dime towards any of Moore's efforts and I sure as hell am not spending a dime towards this piece of crap.
madmikefisk | April 16, 2008, 2:42pm | #
Sounds like Stein tried a bit too hard with coming up with "gotcha" moments and trying to imitate Moore than actually trying to tie together some loose ends, i.e. the argument being advanced that Darwinian evolution disproves the existence of a higher power (it doesn't), the notion of Darwinian evolution being completely proven (it never will be, and neither will ID, but many underlying concepts appear to be true, while others have their issues), and that there is no room for debate on the subject (of course there is).I am an evangelical Christian, but I feel as though there are some serious holes with trying to pass Intelligent Design as a serious scientific endeavour at present. The proponents of ID are best served trying to objectively investigate and challenge current evolutionary science rather than trying to strike an argument on theology, just as those who support the theory of evolution as it is currently stated scientifically should back off of a claim that it disproves the existence of God, as neither side is making any headway (or sounding particularly insightful) when straying off of the path of science.
Russell | April 16, 2008, 2:42pm | #
Poor Ben- seems the PA of his second banana in the flick has been caught on video at an honest-to-God neo-Nazi rallyhttp://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2008/04/sticks-nix-hick.html
Did Andrew Jackson read Darwin? Did Cortez? Torquemada? What about Gengis Khan? I'm sure someone can check the historical record and sort out just how it was that Darwin influenced their bloodthirsty ways.
Aresen | April 16, 2008, 2:58pm | #
I wish this film weren't getting so much the publicity.Now every time I argue with a Creationist*, I will have to refute it in detail.
Ron, I know you mean well, but now that you'v given this stuff a hearing, I am going to have to SEE the stupid thing in order to discuss it.
*As a rule, I can see a Creationist coming and run the other way. Sometimes, however, I'm spoiling for a verbal donnybrook.
Windypundit | April 16, 2008, 2:58pm | #
"If we were located outside of the galactic plane, cosmology would have been much easier, wouldn't it? Nonsense like that only impresses the rubes."That was the first thing I thought of when I read that "gives us the best view of the universe" nonsense. We can't even see the core of our own galaxy in visible light, for God's sake! That's just bad planning...
Soda | April 16, 2008, 2:59pm | #
the argument being advanced that Darwinian evolution disproves the existence of a higher power (it doesn't)Agreed.
the notion of Darwinian evolution being completely proven (it never will be,
What do you mean by "completely" proven? Evolution itself is an observable fact. The theory of evolution is Natural Selection and that has been corroborated in many different ways. How much evidence is needed to completely prove anything?
and that there is no room for debate on the subject (of course there is).
Well, there is certainly room for debate on how evolution happens. But debating whether evolution happens is a waste of time.
just as those who support the theory of evolution as it is currently stated scientifically should back off of a claim that it disproves the existence of God
I'm sorry, but who exactly is making this claim (other than, ironically, IDers themselves)?
Jim Walsh | April 16, 2008, 3:12pm | #
I knew we were in trouble when I saw the trailer, in which Stein poses the question, "but where did life come from in the first place?" (We then see the strawman "Darwinist" professor turn away in a huff)...Hello...the theory of evolution is not designed to address that question; it's about how life developed once it got here. How it got here is, pun intended, a whole different kettle of fish.
That the producers chose to ignore that inconvenient little fact shows they're either woefully misinformed or intellectually dishonest. I vote for the latter...
the innominate one | April 16, 2008, 3:12pm | #
Most evolutionary biologists use Popperian philosophical approach to their science, and therefore are not attempting to prove anything, but seek to advance knowledge by disproving null hypotheses. In this view, only mathematics has absolute proofs, because math proofs can be based in pure logic.Nonetheless, evolution is a fact (that is, it exists), and natural selection is one of a few different mechanisms that can result in evolutionary change, although speciation is not always the result. (Many people conflate evolution with speciation. Evolution can lead to speciation, but does not always do so.)
Aresen | April 16, 2008, 3:17pm | #
SodaIf one makes the claim that God's existence is proved by the Bible and asserts further that the Bible is His/Her/Its literal and infallible word, then an argument for the existence of God based solely on the Bible collapses. In that limited respect, one could say that Darwinism - and Newton, Galileo, Erasthenes and any other researcher whose work does not agree with the bible - disproves the existence of God.
However, as we are all aware, it is impossible to disprove the existence of God in a generic sense*, so Stein's argument is, as you suggest, a straw man.
(*Does Walmart sell Generic Gods? /snark)
modd | April 16, 2008, 3:28pm | #
Religion & politics is the arena where even the brightest minds disappoint.Soda | April 16, 2008, 3:31pm | #
If one makes the claim that God's existence is proved by the Bible and asserts further that the Bible is His/Her/Its literal and infallible word, then an argument for the existence of God based solely on the Bible collapses. In that limited respect, one could say that Darwinism - and Newton, Galileo, Erasthenes and any other researcher whose work does not agree with the bible - disproves the existence of God.However, as we are all aware, it is impossible to disprove the existence of God in a generic sense*, so Stein's argument is, as you suggest, a straw man.
Agreed. One key element here, and this is what I think really pisses IDers off, is that the theory of natural selection makes God (even a generic God) optional. You can always tack God on evolution after the fact (sophisticated religious people do this) and say "Well, that's just how God does his work." But I think deep down IDers know that that opens a philosophical door they want closed.
Soda | April 16, 2008, 3:43pm | #
Hello...the theory of evolution is not designed to address that question; it's about how life developed once it got here. How it got here is, pun intended, a whole different kettle of fish.Actually, I'm not sure that's necessarily true. Now, it may very well be the case that the origin of life is a phenomenom apart from evolution. We certainly don't have an explanation now for the origin of life, sure.
But I think a lot of the mistery of the origin of life arises from our definition of what life is. When talking about this subject people seem to gravitate toward the idea that the moment life began was an instant (life is not there, now *poof* life is here). I have a feeling though (biologists please correct me if I'm wrong) that the set things that are alive is actually fuzzy (is a virus "alive"?)
I think once you agree that the set of things that are alive is fuzzy, then gradual evolution by natural selection could explain how life emerged. It doesn't necessarily mean it's the correct explanation of course, but the possibility seems to be there.
Andrew Murphy | April 16, 2008, 3:44pm | #
This is indeed their "wedge" attempt to put creationism into school. What Ben Stein leaves off of course is most Christian paleobiologists and mainstream Christian churches denounce not only creationism and ID. Stein et la wants everybody to think that Richard Dawkins is the finally say on religion and evolutionists when in fact Simon Conway Morris, a leading paleobiologist in Britain is not only a devout Christian but a Darwinist. Stein don't mention that the offical stance of the Roman Catholic church is that Darwin is not threat to Christianity, never has and never will be to intelligent Christians.Atheist Libertarian Thug | April 16, 2008, 3:47pm | #
Please comment on this kook libertarian Creationist Article here: http://www.nolanchart.com/article3015.htmlThanks
stuartl | April 16, 2008, 3:51pm | #
...just as those who support the theory of evolution as it is currently stated scientifically should back off of a claim that it disproves the existence of God,...madmike, who are you arguing with? Can you provide an example of a scientist saying evolution disproves the existence of God? Evolution does not require God (no real science relies on the supernatural), but that is very different from disproving God's existence.
shrike | April 16, 2008, 3:52pm | #
From Townhall -- (their agenda),"One of the biggest obstacles to people coming to Christ in Western culture is the impression that science has disproved the Bible and Christianity," he said. "ID therefore helps to correct this false impression by showing that our best science supports belief in a higher intelligence responsible for life. ID does not give you the Christian God as such, but it puts you in the right ballpark." - Dembski, who was featured in the film.
Tranlation = "I can't change the Bible so I will change "science".'
Andrew Murphy | April 16, 2008, 3:56pm | #
I will check it Atheist Libertarian. ID and creationists are more of a threat to Christianity then Darwin or Richard Dawkins. Young earth creationist people make us look like ignoramus.TrickyVic | April 16, 2008, 4:36pm | #
What would they teach anyway? If i'm in a class talking about the posssiblity of an intelligent designer, I am asking the who, what, when, why, and how. You can't have a class based in attacking another theory, you have to have something to teach.It's a losing bet for christians too but they haven't figured it out. It's very easy to question the intelligence of a being that would only create one male, one female, then use incest to populate. It opens the possiblity that the IDer is not the one the bible claims.
At least for christians, evolution does not debate the existance of God as the creator of the universe, ID will. I'm not sure how that's suppose to promote the existance of God. Seems to me the religous folk are barking up a very dangerous tree. Teaching ID may be against the 10 Commmandments since it would consider the existance of other gods.
madmikefisk | April 16, 2008, 4:37pm | #
Andrew Murphy: Spot on. To use the ancient analogy of God as watchmaker, a divine presence could wind the clock however it saw fit, including evolution. The argument to try to come up with a "new Earth" explanation is pretty much destroyed by scientific evidence, but the discerning scientist would have to also admit that Dawkins' proclamations on religion are almost equally absurd (and, even if directed panspermia were the cause of life on Earth, where did the aliens come from?).We may be getting a pretty good grasp on the "how" of life, but the "why" is something that seems perpetually elusive.
Yes, Sir, a Utah Man I Am | April 16, 2008, 4:47pm | #
FWIW, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints does not have a problem with evolution.But they also think that God cares about what kind of underwear you wear and that BYU deserved to win the 1984 national championship.
Soda | April 16, 2008, 5:03pm | #
but the discerning scientist would have to also admit that Dawkins' proclamations on religion are almost equally absurdI have to aks again. What Dawkins' proclamations are "equally absurd"
(and, even if directed panspermia were the cause of life on Earth, where did the aliens come from?).
You do realize Dawkins was trying to put forth the best possible scenario for ID and that he doesn't believe in panspermia himself right?
Incidentally that same exact issue of "infinite regress" is brought up by Dawkins' himself when talking about not just exogenesis but also when addressing the concept of a pre-existing complex entity creating the universe.
TheCurseofLono | April 16, 2008, 5:16pm | #
That was a fantastic takedown by Bailey. I loved the plumbers argument for design. It's the best takedown of a religious argument since Russell's teapot. Also illuminating is the link about dostoyevsky's fear.What I dislike most of christian whining about being "persecuted" in America is that it is almost the exact opposite of what is true. Just look at congress. There is exactly one "non-believer" (Pete Stark) in the bunch, and even he is some sort of unitarian.
J sub D | April 16, 2008, 5:17pm | #
We certainly don't have an explanation now for the origin of life, sure.We are getting there though. I confidently predict the origin of life riddle will be essentially soved in < 50 years. These biology guys and gals are friggin smart cookies.
J sub D | April 16, 2008, 5:23pm | #
Please comment on this kook libertarian Creationist Article here: http://www.nolanchart.com/article3015.htmlThanks
I'm shocked, shocked to find that kooks are in the libertarian party.
Andrew Murphy | April 16, 2008, 5:27pm | #
Soda,My probelm with Dawkins as well as with Sam Harris is that they are way to sanguine about the death of God.
Friedrich Nietzsche and Albert Camus were more honest when they admitted that nihilism is all that can come about from the lack of God.
Dawkins is a great scientist and terrific author. He and the creationists are similar but on different ends. Creationists claim Darwinism is atheism and Dawkins claims "yes, indeed"
Whereas, Darwin himself was not so cocky and was an agnostic.
I don’t know if Benny really believes this stuff or maybe he just wants to be liked
Barry | April 16, 2008, 5:42pm | #
Stuff like this makes me wanna side with the Left.Then I remember that with the Left, "Pro-Trade+Anti-Affirmative Action = 'RACIST!! FACIST!!'"
edna | April 16, 2008, 5:43pm | #
damn tubes ate my comment.maybe, just maybe, ben stein (love the initials) made the movie because he knows his target audience and likes the idea of making money.
i sure would.
John C. Randolph | April 16, 2008, 5:59pm | #
There's a word in Yiddish for someone like Ben Stein. The word is "putz".-jcr
John C. Randolph | April 16, 2008, 6:00pm | #
" nihilism is all that can come about from the lack of God."What utter nonsense. I don't need an imaginary friend to have a full and happy life.
-jcr
shrike | April 16, 2008, 6:01pm | #
Andrew Murphy -Over 99% of all the creatures that ever lived are nihilists/existentialists. We know how lucky we are.
I once read an essay (in a book) by Clarence Darrow wherein he called our Earth, "the wart" - which was the epitome of this philosophy.
Can't find it now - even wit der Google.
John C. Randolph | April 16, 2008, 6:02pm | #
" the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints does not have a problem with evolution."Neither do the Anglicans, the Catholics, and many other religions. The Anglicans figured out sometime back in the 1800's that a creator who's able to make a universe where we developed without further intervention was even more wonderful than one who's constantly juggling everything to hold it all together.
-jcr
Jim Walsh | April 16, 2008, 6:14pm | #
...nihilism is all that can come about from the lack of God...In the immortal word(s) of Jean Paul Sartre, merde...
Aresen | April 16, 2008, 6:18pm | #
Beat me to it.
John C. Randolph | April 16, 2008, 6:00pm | #
" nihilism is all that can come about from the lack of God."
What utter nonsense. I don't need an imaginary friend to have a full and happy life.
-jcr
Nor do I need to believe that the universe has a purpose to lead a happy, meaningful and moral life.
Kenobi | April 16, 2008, 6:22pm | #
Friedrich Nietzsche and Albert Camus were more honest when they admitted that nihilism is all that can come about from the lack of God.They may have 'admitted' it, but that doesn't make it true. It can be a result, but it is hardly the only one.
Andrew Murphy | April 16, 2008, 6:25pm | #
John C Randolph wrote,"Neither do the Anglicans, the Catholics, and many other religions. The Anglicans figured out sometime back in the 1800's that a creator who's able to make a universe where we developed without further intervention was even more wonderful than one who's constantly juggling everything to hold it all together"
Yes indeed, in fact one of the first people to come to Charles Darwin's defense was Frederick Temple, Bishop and latter Archbishop of Cantebury
http://anglicanhistory.org/england/ftemple/bampton/04.html
Chamdar | April 16, 2008, 6:53pm | #
Doesn't seem to be very good year for that message."Hey Joe did you see that McCain is now ahead 10 points of Obama in PA? LOL pathetic. Guess the messege works after all.
It's "message", not "messege", you moron.
But then I should expect as much from a creationist.
Gahan | April 16, 2008, 7:50pm | #
Intelligent Design is so last year. This is the wave of the future:http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
Soda | April 16, 2008, 8:23pm | #
Friedrich Nietzsche and Albert Camus were more honest when they admitted that nihilism is all that can come about from the lack of God.I'm not sure there is a polite way to respond to this. If you need to believe in a God from Bronze Age Palestine to keep yourself and others from falling into nihilism then I'm not sure what to tell you.
What a load of crap.
He and the creationists are similar but on different ends.
This is the type of statement that really drives me up the wall. Just because two ends of a spectrum in arguments are equally loud doesn't mean the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Dawkins, Harris et al keep getting hammered with accusations of being "just as fundamentalist" as their antagonists etc.
I guess we libertarians are similar to totalitarian communists. Just, you know, at different ends of the spectrum.
Creationists claim Darwinism is atheism and Dawkins claims "yes, indeed"
Smell that straw burning! Dawkins does not equate Darwinism to atheism. Darwinism did drive him to atheism but he would never say they are equivalent or that one follows the other in any rigorous sense. At least, not that I'm aware of.
lab | April 16, 2008, 8:27pm | #
Andrew Murphy...I know that Darwin claimed to be agnostic, but quotes like this by him don't suggest any intellectual openness on the matter-"I well remember my conviction that there is more in man than the mere breath of his body. But now the grandest scenes would not cause any such convictions and feelings to rise in my mind."
What that indicates to me is a stubborn resistance to any possible counterevidence.
Andrew Murphy | April 16, 2008, 8:38pm | #
Soda, Dawkins is a atheist fundamentalist. First off, as a scientist he should no better then to make flat out statements that there can be no God. Second he said many times that Darwin made it possible to be a fully functioning atheist. Darwin did no such thing. As I have stated, contrary to the creationist revisionisn, many of the first people to come to Darwin's defense were Christians like Bishop Frederick Temple and Cardinial John Henry Newman. Dawkins insists that even Darwinists who believe in God, there must be something wrong with them. That is fundamentalism, my friend. I am on his side on the evolution debate, but he doesn't want my meger help in the intellecutal debate because I believe in God, so somehow my Darwwinism is taintedAndrew Murphy | April 16, 2008, 8:46pm | #
Soda, do you read Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Heraclitus,Cicero,Marcus Aurelius, ? Based on your argument the Bible is too old for us modern folks, then the Greek and Roman classics must not hold any value either since they were written near the same time period.Andrew Murphy | April 16, 2008, 9:18pm | #
lab, how do you then address Darwin's letter to Asa Gray Nov 28, 1860, he writes that he can't be sure whether or not a God made the earth or it was all just a materialistic chance. He tells Gray that he is in a "hopless muddle" about the whole issue. To bad Dawkins doesn't have Darwin's humility and scientific agnosticism.juris imprudent | April 16, 2008, 9:49pm | #
My son is now considering majoring in biology - an interest that was sparked when he took the subject in high school... a Catholic high school. Funny how they didn't have any trouble teaching evolution.Gahan | April 16, 2008, 10:56pm | #
I'm pretty sure the Vatican has officially rejected Intelligent Design. It's just a bunch of fundamentalist dinosaurs who continue to cling to it.Soda | April 16, 2008, 11:16pm | #
Soda, do you read Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Heraclitus,Cicero,Marcus Aurelius, ? Based on your argument the Bible is too old for us modern folks, then the Greek and Roman classics must not hold any value either since they were written near the same time period.Where did I make the argument about the worth of anything based on how old it was?
Is this about calling the God of Abraham "God of Bronze Age Palestine?" I was commenting on atheism vs. nihilism, NOT on whether God exists or not. If I did I certainly wouldn't use age as an argument, pro or con.
Since you brought it up though, the Bible is indeed old. Although I wouldn't say it's worthless because it's old. There are many other reasons for why it's worthless.
Eric | April 16, 2008, 11:19pm | #
We must not forget that Ben Stein was a speech writer for America's favorite crook president, Richard Nixon.He is of the same fabric as Roger Ailes, the Karl Rove to Nixon. It was Ailes who founded the neo-con's news channel known as Fox news.
Don't drink their Kool-Aid, dawg.
The ID folks are just plain scary because their view is so narrow.
Hugh Akston | April 17, 2008, 12:18am | #
Friedrich Nietzsche and Albert Camus were more honest when they admitted that nihilism is all that can come about from the lack of God.Actually, neither one of them practiced nor preached nihilism. Both Nietzsche and Camus were strong advocates of humanist ethics and both argued that the lack of inherent value in our lives imposed upon us the responsibility to define our own meaning and value.
jesustweak | April 17, 2008, 2:34am | #
Quick, order your FREE! "Age of the Planet Earth" disk from Dr. Dino. Makes a great coaster for your favorite alcoholic beverage. If you overindulge, you can put it in the player and see if it makes sense.http://www.drdino.com/expelledoffer/?gclid=CP-z7ZOy4ZICFQ8qIgodtAwQ6Q
Stephen | April 17, 2008, 5:16am | #
I've gotta weigh in on this. I went to a catholic high school. Somehow they had no problem with evolution.I'm not particularly religious (going to a catholic high school will do that to you). What I always argue to an IDer is basically this.
ME :"So you think god is retarded?"
Them: "No. We believe that God is all powerful and all knowing and created life, poof."
ME: " so what you're basically saying is that God couldn't pass grade school biology?"
I don't understand how darwinism doesn't enhance the whole Omniscient part of God's title. If a supreme being where really "all knowing" wouldn't he have to set up a set of rules in order to make sure that life actually kept on developing as not having those rules would destroy faith. That is to say that if there were any concrete proof of God then faith would collapse and there would be no need for church because people would be unable to "choose"( seeing as concrete evidence of God would validate only one line of decision making) and without the ability to choose right from wrong the whole concept of salvation falls on it's head.
Isn't all religion based on free choice? or supposed to be at least....
To quote Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy Paraphrasing "Scientist around the universe have pointed to the creation of the babel fish as an evolutionary impossibility. the theory being that God's existence is based on the fact that he refuses to prove he exists so scientists say 'but the babe; fish is a dead giveaway.' To which god responds "oh" and vanishes in a puff of smoke." (close as i can remember)
Stephen | April 17, 2008, 5:17am | #
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4iIo1tUtW0i was close. God bless youtube.
This is basically the greatest use of logic I have ever seen.
Basically by trying to prove intelligent design Ben Stein is trying to KILL GOD!
LarryA | April 17, 2008, 10:09am | #
Darwinism, of course, does not permit for the existence of a supreme being, a higher power, or a God.I think that the “problem” with “Darwinism” (evolution) is that if God set up a world that natural laws run pretty much automatically, without him having to constantly tinker, (How else would God intelligently design it?) then He doesn’t need the help of the Intelligent Design folks to keep things on the straight and narrow.
What do you mean by "completely" proven? Evolution itself is an observable fact. The theory of evolution is Natural Selection and that has been corroborated in many different ways. How much evidence is needed to completely prove anything?
In the true scientific process nothing is ever “completely” proven. There’s always room for more data, for next year’s discoveries to disprove theories, modifying our understanding. That’s the difference between science and dogma.
stuartl | April 17, 2008, 11:04am | #
In the true scientific process nothing is ever “completely” proven.True, evolution is only about as well demonstrated as universal gravitation. Although evolution and gravitation are real phenomena, both theories may require slight modifications in the future.
Soda | April 17, 2008, 11:56am | #
In the true scientific process nothing is ever “completely” proven. There’s always room for more data, for next year’s discoveries to disprove theories, modifying our understanding. That’s the difference between science and dogma.Bingo.
Zeb | April 17, 2008, 12:56pm | #
If God had created man as his ultimate creation, he would have done a better job designing knees and backs. QED.Salvius | April 17, 2008, 1:38pm | #
...if God set up a world that natural laws run pretty much automatically, without him having to constantly tinker...I'm an atheist, but my girlfriend, who is religious, says that creationists' refusal to consider this possibility amounts to them limiting God's powers/abilities. It reduces God's creation to a conjuring trick: "Hey, Rocky, watch me pull the universe out of this hat!"
God is not obligated to do everything in a way that is comprehensible to you.
Fitz | April 17, 2008, 2:04pm | #
There's an interesting account fo dealing with the pre-release media relations folks for "Expelled" athttp://www.process.org/discept/2008/02/25/expulsion/#more-23
DannyK | April 17, 2008, 2:36pm | #
Man, what is it with Jewish conservatives lately? Ben Stein, Jonah Goldberg, just Godwinizing right and left.It was bad enough when Saddam/Ahmedinejad/Osama/whoever was the new Hitler, but to hear these guys tell it, the U.S. is at least 25% Hitler already. Maybe 30%.
It is a shame that a "Science Reporter" should have such a dismissive view of creation. Not only is ID correct but most of the major scientific minds today can't agree on which form of evolution they want to believe in. I was hoping for a more objective view point but instead was presented someone who can laugh at another's plight as long as his small environment is not affected.
zoltan | April 17, 2008, 8:07pm | #
Hey Joel, guess that means Ron Bailey is shilling for Big Atheist, huh!?!? Might you want to give any evidence of which "major scientific minds" can agree and what the different forms of evolution are? ID is a joke with no published papers in peer-reviewed journals--how does this lead you to your conclusion that it is correct?"Soda, Dawkins is a atheist fundamentalist. First off, as a scientist he should no (sic) better then to make flat out statements that there can be no God."
Dawkins knows that science can't disprove any gods. That's why he uses philosophy and logic to do that. He says science can help, in that it allows for an explanation without a god, but science in itself can never prove or disprove a supernatural entity, just as it cannot prove or disprove invisible pink unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters.
"Second he said many times that Darwin made it possible to be a fully functioning atheist. Darwin did no such thing."
Dawkins never says that Darwin actually said that. He said he made it possible for people to believe in a view of the world that does not have to include a god. Meaning, since there is a natural, non-religious process of the development of life, then any gods can be factored out of the equation. Dawkins never says that Darwin actually intended that as a consequence, but it is a pretty joyous part of evolution, whether Darwin was agnostic or not.
"Dawkins insists that even Darwinists who believe in God, there must be something wrong with them. That is fundamentalism, my friend.
I am on his side on the evolution debate, but he doesn't want my meger help in the intellecutal debate because I believe in God, so somehow my Darwwinism is tainted"
Not that Dawkins needs your help (with what exactly?) but thinking there is something wrong with someone because they believe a certain thing is not fundamentalism. I think that those who think the state should be more involved in everyone's lives has something wrong with them--it is an indication of the way they think and sheds light on their mental processes. And surely, to think there is something wrong with that is not fundamentalism, it is judgment. Sound to me, but not to all.
As for the age argument:
Maybe if Soda believed in Zeus and Apollo your argument against him might hold water; otherwise, it's just a strawman. He said to believe in a Bronze Age Palestinian god to be happy is somewhat depressing, not that the Bible is worthless due to its age.
Tim Washburn | April 18, 2008, 1:16am | #
To those who think that GOD created man & woman only in the forms of Adam & Eve and therefore are descended from them, I give you this:Genesis Chapter 1 Verses 26 & 27; Then God said,"Let us make man in our image, in our likeness".
So God created man in his own image,in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
(Holy Bible New International Version 2001.)
Remember these verses are before the verses concerning Adam & Eve.
I have 2 questions reletively tounge-in-cheek: 1)If mankind was made in God's image, does He also have an appendix? and; 2)If indeed mankind was unchanging per God's creation, dose that make God a statist?
Wow, all u atheists and evolutionists must be getting worried. When you're on your deathbeds and sinking fast, will your known "evidence" of evolution be enough assurance that you were right about the non-existence of God? Think about it.
PhilBest | April 18, 2008, 2:05am | #
And I'd agree with Stein. We might not have men in jackboots marching us off to gulags over this, but when we wonder how mass deception got put across on an intelligent people like the Germans, we are very unwise to assume that the same can't happen to us just because of all the freedoms we've got. The way the theory of evolution has got established is a classic illustration.Trouble is that most people involved in the "science" aren't in it to find evidence for the scripturally-based faith point of view. It makes your faith look weak if you are anxious to be looking for evidence to back it up. Nevertheless, there are enough honest men in the game, including the odd "lapsed atheist" scientist here and there, that the Christian doesn't have to look far for the flaws in the theory. If you're pinning your faith on the theory of evolution, you are one very much more irrational person than the religious faithful who you disparage now.
Ian M | April 18, 2008, 3:05am | #
You can't safely start with an ancestral tale such as the Book of Genesis, search for 'scientific' evidence to support it, and expect to stay out of trouble logically.The Darwinian theory arose and took hold precisely because of serious inadequacies in the preceding creationist paradigm, despite its having a monopoly in universities and educational institutions everywhere, and with its supporters having power to have heretics at least expelled, if not worse.
The current proponents of ID accuse Darwinists of precisely that. But it is the ID school that has the record of censorship and brainwashing, not the Darwinists or neo-Darwinists.
tony o'brien | April 18, 2008, 5:10am | #
don't panic. this is only happening America. In New Zealand it counts against you if you try and appeal to a 'christian' constituency. i think i'll stay.Troy Camplin, Ph.D. | April 18, 2008, 9:24am | #
I wonder if, in that legislation, they will also make it illegal to discriminate against someone FOR believing in evolution. I use evolutionary theory in my humanities work, and that hasn't exactly enamored me with humanities departments, which are typically postmodernist and thus anti-science. If there's going to be affirmative action laws for IDers in science departments, shouldn't there be affirmative action laws for pro-science, pro-free market humanities Ph.D.s in humanities departments?Dorian Mills | April 18, 2008, 10:51am | #
Good lord! I just lost any respect I had for Ben Stein, not that I had much to begin with, but I at least thought he was more intelligent and was one of few celebrities that championed reason and intelligence over baby bumps and scientology. How irresponsible of him to make this ridiculous film. Well with creationist progaganda gearing up all Michael Moore style lets just sit back and let them discredit themselves.Norman | April 18, 2008, 12:56pm | #
"the film is entirely free of scientific content"This article is entirely free of scientific content.
Elohim Jehosaphat | April 18, 2008, 1:37pm | #
I am working in areas of computer pattern recognition using models of intuition and autistic "idiot-savant" behavior. If all you "hard" scientists will come down from the trees long enough to provide a non-derisive answer, I'd very much like an explanation of how a thought ("will" if you will) causes my finger to move. No, you can't skip the part where the "word" becomes "flesh"- we already have infinitely detailed studies of what happens AFTER the thought becomes electro-chemical-mechanical(flesh). Tell me about its existence in my mind as intention (if you pull the P.T. Skinner behaviorist crap of telling me I have no mind, I may have to track you down and shoot you). Give me that wiring diagram between thought and action and then I'll race you to the patent office- it's worth billions.No one's found it yet? could it be because it might be "Magic?"( the world as a product of consciousness- not vice versa)?
The problem with any entrenched authority is "I am the authority, and I LITERALLY cannot Imagine the answer as anything outside my knowledge Therefore I will not allow any of these questions because they are a waste of time ( and they insult my intelligence/ Authority)? - sound familiar? it would to Copernicus and Gallileo. So have fun and make fun, just remember that I can accept both evolution and the mind of god, and if your world-view of evolution demands “objectivity “, (i.e. ignorance of intuitive process and your complete "objectification” by turning into a soulless automaton with no personality or identity) do you wonder that people of consciousness pity you and find you every bit as aggravating as you find them?
Ozark_Sunshine | April 18, 2008, 4:41pm | #
Funny how several leading scientists who appeared in the film that have given interviews say that this film is backed by science yet liberals who never seen the film try to say otherwise. Remember liberals want to tell you what to think and believe like Al Bore's lies, yet when challeneged with the facts will still lie first, shout you down second and then say you don't know what you're talking about. Just like with global warming they want no discussion so they say the discussion is over. Guess what, the discussion is still going on but like spoiled children who take their bat and go home, you don't want to participate. Instead of being the open-minded insdividuals you claim to be you are narrow minded, spoiled brats you act like. I will see this movie and along with Kent Hovinds DVDs use them to teach people the fallacy behind the "Darwin Theory" of evolution.charles | April 18, 2008, 4:42pm | #
Just because I may believe in things unsupported by science, like the existence of unicorns, it does not follow that it is discriminatory to claim discrimination for the lack of Faculties of Single-Horned Equine Mammals.I used to think Ben Stein was a smart guy. I am so disappointed.
electric | April 18, 2008, 5:27pm | #
As usual both sides on this forum are spewing out venom and not talking much "issue".ID proponents can't simply refer to Al Bore as one did, or accuse liberals of lying w/out interacting w/ evidence. And please, he is Al Gore, not Al Bore. What do you accomplish w/ such juvenile behavior?.
And Darwinists must at least come clean and admit Darwin has been proven wrong in numerous ways.
So, to both sides:
Are we willing to discuss honestly?
Or does our fear prevent us from doing so?
the innominate one | April 18, 2008, 8:05pm | #
PhilWorst:Do not conflate "evolutionists" with atheists. Plenty of "evolutionists" are Christians, they just tend not to be "young earth creationists".
"...the Christian doesn't have to look far for the flaws in the theory..."
Please enlighten us. But before you post anything, feel free to check a "evolutionist" website, such as pharyngula, to see if your claims have been refuted. It is likely they have.
"If you're pinning your faith on the theory of evolution, you are one very much more irrational person than the religious faithful who you disparage now."
No faith needed for the theory evolution, it is backed by empirical evidence. On the other hand, Christian belief is deeply steeped in irrationality, both historically and in modernity. Christian philosopher Tertullian wrote "I believe because it is absurd" (in Latin, of course).
Norman, your mind is free of scientific or any other content.
Elohim Jehosophat: ask a neurologist or a neurophysiologist. Your question doesn't have anything to do with whether or not evolution is real.
Ozark_Sunshine: please furnish the supposed facts, but first, check your claims against an "evolutionist" website to see if they've been debunked. Maybe you will learn something and not waste our time. Creationist and IDers claims about evolution have been answered repeatedly, but because those answers do not conform to a certain interpretation of the bible, they are ignored, and more answers and debates are demanded. What positive, objectively verifiable evidence, independent of the bible, do you have for your version of creationism? Trying to shoot down evolution does not prove creation by default.
electric:
Let's have a list of your strawman claim of the ways Darwin has been proven wrong. I suspect you'll find the ways in which Darwin was proven wrong, was proven by a scientist. The parts of Darwin that could not be reconciled with modern understanding of inheritance resulted in the Modern Synthesis (aka the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis). Other ideas have been promoted, notably by Steven Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, who promoted punctuated equilibrium as an alternative to Darwinian gradualism.
Most of the claims about evolution and evolutionists are wrong on several levels. But keep on repeating those strawman and ad hominem arguments! They're all you've got!
As an alternative, you could try reading what evolutionary biologists actually claim about evolution, instead of getting all your (mis)information from evolution's opponents, who will not accept any amount of empirical evidence if it contradicts their reading of the bible.
Elohim Jehosophat | April 18, 2008, 9:26pm | #
Elohim Jehosophat: ask a neurologist or a neurophysiologist. Your question doesn't have anything to do with whether or not evolution is real.dear innominate one {(he) who may not be named? Ywh?}
You sound as if you may have enough sense to make a worthwhile discussion.
So. I have asked neuro-biologists and the long and short of their answer so far is- we don't know- we suspect a quantum level connection. Ask a quantum physicist.
I am a quantum physicist. Answer-it appears to some that reality is caused by the collapse of probability functions by the intervention of consciousness- in short, consciousness may very well create reality, rather than reality creating consciousness- Why would that be such a shock? Because it's very difficult to maintain the primacy of "Objectivity"(the cornerstone of authoritarian science) if it turns out that reality is by definition "Subjective". Someone’s ox is being gored- (Actually, it's been being gored in tremendous slo-mo since about the turn of the century) It disturbs me not a bit to conclude that consciousness is the stuff of reality, and it disturbs me not a bit to recognize that to say "consciousness is reality" is basically no different from "Magic" ( consciousness controls reality) More to this point, if you wish to call the universe "The mind of God" I find no real objection- though I do anticipate quite heated discussions about who or what "God" is. I also see no relevance to the existence of the Mind of GOD whether Darwin was or was not correct about evolution.
Hence - the point of Ben Stein’s movie was not whether evolution is real or not, it was that Authoritarian Science ( one might say a- theist/no god) Science has taken he same authoritarian measures against those who dare to question the correctness of its primary beliefs- (objectivity?) that all entrenched authority does- it denies the legitimacy of the inquiry and seeks to marginalize and discredit those who make such inquiry. Authority does this in all good conscience because it is ridiculous to waste time, thought or energy on things that it literally cannot imagine.
I couldn't care less about evolution except to note that it is a better basis for understanding science and the earth sciences as they are today, than is the notion of magic. I am simply amused at contemplating the day the Scientist is confronted by the Wizard- and noting that, as a fairly "objective” referee, Ben Stein is correct. I've seen all too many cases of inquiry into Intelligent Design("Magic") stifled by threats to career or reputation. Is intelligent design correct? That's not the point. Authoritarian stifling of inquiry is wrong, whether it's done by the Vatican or M.I.T.
elohim jehosophat | April 19, 2008, 2:41am | #
Just finished a trial and checked this post- I noticed I should make a couple corrections:1.dear innominate one {(he) who may not be named? Ywh?}
( sorry innominate one- I really do know that the Tetragrammeton is YHWH - sloppy typing.
2."Authoritarian stifling of inquiry is wrong, whether it's done by the Vatican or M.I.T"
Let me rephrase that to make it clearer that I do recognize that intellectual intolerance is a two way street:
Authoritarian suppression of inquiry is wrong, whether it's done by East Jesus Tech, M.I.T. or Easterbrook Elementary School ( For the Vatican and I.B.M it's just a business decision.)
David Moshinsky | April 19, 2008, 5:57am | #
Bailey seems to think loss of tenure, loss of lab space, loss of ones job, ostracism, etc are no big deal. It is true these are not equal to the rack, but in modern times these are serious. The movie did not make much of a case for intelligent design, but that is because it was aiming at the censorship of ID and not the case for ID.If Bailey is so sure there is no scientific merit to intelligent design, I challenge him to a debate. I will be happy to take a position favoring ID. I think your readers would be astonished how strong is the case for ID and how desperate is the opposition.
Berthajane Vandegrift | April 19, 2008, 10:10am | #
No one questions that evolution occurred; many people question that evolution is driven by random mutation and natural selection. I saw the film. The argument here seems to be that no one is killed or imprisoned for discussing the possibility that the universe is designed; people who question neo-Darwinism merely lose their jobs if they publicly wonder how “natural selection” might somehow turn a series of genetic mistakes into biological adaptations.If a sufficient number of people reach the subjective judgment that the universe is not a meaningless mechanical device, intelligent organization will be discussed as an alternative. I hope non-materialists don’t then try to impose their views upon everyone by intimidation and appeals to the courts for protection from criticism. However, if non-materialists ever start behaving like today’s neo-Darwinists, I personally would probably try to find a way to argue the other side. Academic freedom is more important to me than any individual theory or concept.
Questions about Materialism
http://30145.myauthorsite.com/
genotypical | April 19, 2008, 12:57pm | #
David Moshinsky--I agree that Mr. Bailey was a bit dismissive of the impacts of failing to be tenured, losing a job, etc. However, most of these alleged "persecutions" did NOT happen to the people featured in the movie. For example, here is no indication that Dr. Gonzalez (despite Mr. Bailey's "guess") failed to get tenure because of his ID writings. He simply did not have a tenurable record during his time at Iowa State, where he was well below the departmental standard for all the important criteria, such as number, quality, and independence of publications, grant money obtained, and grad students mentored. The actual facts in all these cases are documented at http://www.expelledexposed.com.James F | April 19, 2008, 3:27pm | #
If Bailey is so sure there is no scientific merit to intelligent design, I challenge him to a debate. I will be happy to take a position favoring ID. I think your readers would be astonished how strong is the case for ID and how desperate is the opposition.Case for ID? Consider this: peer-reviewed scientific literature represents a truly vast body of knowledge - there are about SEVENTEEN MILLION individual papers indexed at the National Library of Medicine's online public database (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/). Not a single research paper refutes evolution, and not a single research paper provides data in support of intelligent design. Not one. The reason that there isn't a single peer-reviewed ID research paper is that ID does not provide falsifiable, testable hypotheses: it can be boiled down to "this is so complex, it can't be explained by natural laws and processes, so there must be a designer working in supernatural ways." This cannot be tested, and it predicts nothing. Furthermore, a central concept of ID, "irreducible complexity," has been throughly debunked. I refer you to Prof. Ken Miller's excellent lectures on the subject here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW_2lLG9EZM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQQ7ubVIqo4
What damns Intelligent Design even further was that it was never about scientific inquiry: it was conceived as a way to impose a specific, fundamentalist religious view into education and society in the guise of science (see the Wedge Strategy http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf ). It is very telling that the definition of intelligent design used in the pro-ID textbook Of Pandas and People was EXACTLY the same as the definition of creationism in an earlier edition. Even the intellectual godfather of Intelligent Design, retired law professor Phillip E. Johnson, had this to say:
"I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world."
http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles/issue10/evolution.pdf
This guy's editorial is a crock. Whether ID is true or not was not exactly the point of the film. The point was that people are being fired for asking uncomfortable questions. The atheists were left looking like total fools. It was pretty hilarious. Though I am an evolutionist, I can also hold a view simultaneously that something larger caused the process. Small minds have a hard time with this, and fire folks who don't hold to their ideology. Reason used to support various points of view. The magazine has declined in quality.
T Heller | April 19, 2008, 8:37pm | #
Scratch "uncomfortable" -- make that "imponderable" questions. Which puts the subject outside the realm of science and squarely into the realm of faith, myth and dogma.Maybe some individuals believe their persistence in presenting, in a formal educational setting, Intelligent Design as a plausible alternative explanation of the origin of life has lead to a form of persecution (job loss), but they unreasonably escalate their victimhood. They're paying a price for introducing nonsense to the classroom.
Ben Stein appeared on the Laura Ingraham show this past week. He illustrated the movie's intended point by suggesting academics couldn't even state 'how thermodynamics "came to be", much less how life came to be.
Huh? How a physical law "came to be"? THAT IS AN IMPONDERABLE. It belongs to the realm of faith, myth and dogma. IT IS NOT A QUESTION THAT SCIENCE CAN ANSWER.
Yet Stein (and this film) wishes to suggest that as evidence academics know nothing of truth.
Yet it was science that discovered the laws of thermodynamics -- and has effectively harnessed and employed them, presenting them in multitudinous forms which have greatly benefited mankind. KNOWING THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS (i.e. knowing why & how they work) IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN KNOWING "HOW THEY CAME TO BE".
Same with 'knowing the origin of life': it is an imponderable outside the realm of science. Stein's mission in this film is silly.
david Pate | April 20, 2008, 12:44am | #
I wonder why Mr. Bailey is so upset over Ben Stein's movie. Seems to me the point of the movie is that some have lost their jobs over an innocuous point of view which is frightening. Note that Richard Feynman the physicist admits that science does not answer why but only seeks to observe and catalog. From this predictions and what will happen if we do certain things can be made. H mm, why did life originate? I have as yet to see ashes unburn. Just as I feel threatened by Osama the terrorist, so do I feel threatened from Mr. Bailey.Gorebull Warmingmonger | April 20, 2008, 12:45am | #
The evidence for evolution is pretty solid in my mind, I think Ben Stein DOES make a good point in that science can in fact become a dogma, like global warming. It is total bull but god help you if you are a scientist and say it. You will be burned as a witch. (for which they can buy carbon credits to off set the exhaust of your flaming body.StealthSpeak | April 20, 2008, 1:26am | #
"The filmmakers portray opposition to teaching ID in universities and public schools as a threat to freedom on a par with Communist and Nazi repression."I saw the movie. The filmmakers portray opposition to DISCUSSING ID in universities and public schools as a threat to freedom on a par with Communist and Nazi repression.
This iss