Expelled
April 23rd, 2008
(By Jesse Johnson)
“Expelled” is a documentary where comedian/actor/presidential speech-writer Ben Stein makes the case that scientists are suppressing evidence that shows that life has an intelligent designer. The point of the movie, which is now in theatres, is that evolution is a theory with more problems than answers, and is too unclear to be helpful anyway.
Nevertheless, the scientific community is so defensive of evolution that any evidence to the contrary is simply not allowed to be heard. Instead, those that dare do research that support intelligent design (ID) are expelled from the academic community.
The circular argument made by the scientific community and exposed by the movie is simple. ID is not science because no evidence in peer-reviewed journals exists. Moreover, no scientist can do research pointing to ID or publish any articles defending it because it is not science. The circle is both complete and impenetrable.
Stein compares it to the Berlin Wall; American scientists have freedom to explore anything they want, as long as they stay on one side of the wall and ID stays on the other. Anyone that violates this rule is fired, figuratively tarred and feathered, and driven into the wilderness. Meanwhile, scientists themselves have real questions about evolution that they are unable to ask for fear of reprisals. While our country was founded on freedom, this freedom is under attack by the scientific community (picture Stein walking through Arlington Cemetery asking if these men died in vain, and you get the picture).
This is not a Christian movie. Stein’s foundation is not the deity of Christ, and his push for theism is not a push to bow the knee to the creator of the universe. This is also not a fair movie. Stein acts like Michael Moore with interviews spliced together and simplified issues being dismissed with sound bite phrases.
Yet this is a helpful movie. Any Christian who has attended any public school at any level, be it kindergarten or grad school, can attest to the truth of what Stein exposes. Evidence for macro-evolution is practically concocted, and substantial evidence for ID is dismissed. Some of the best scenes in the movie have different evolutionists presenting Crystals and Aliens as possible sources for life on earth. This is more reasonable than ID, we are told, as long as the aliens themselves could have come from some Darwinian mechanism.
The last few scenes stressed that the debate between evolution and ID is really a debate about world-views. One of the scientists (there are so many in the movie, they are hard to track or remember their names) said that this is a debate where our world-view shapes how we see the evidence, not the other way around. This was probably the most profound line in the movie.
Christians realize what the scientific community (generally speaking) does not admit: our world-view does shape the way we see evidence. If nothing else, Stein succeeds in making a movie that shows people how shallow evolution is because of how shallow the world-view behind it is. He could have made a better movie. The evolution/Nazi connection was overplayed, and his explanation of evolution was under-played. He compared himself to Ronald Regan too much, and cartoonish evolutionary caricatures abound. But he did make an entertaining movie on a complex topic that is taboo in classrooms.
I strongly recommend college students go and see this movie, and strongly recommend that their shepherds take the time to talk to them afterwards. Use this as a chance to teach them what presuppositionalism is, and how it affects their education. The evolution “debate” has only one side being heard, and Stein sets the table for a helpful discussion about what is really behind the scientific community’s insistence that ID be silenced.
A final note: If you have seen “The Privileged Planet,” you will recognize Guillermo Gonzales. After the making of that movie, he was one of the scientists who found himself expelled.
I do hope this movie is available in the U.K.
Jesse,
Thanks for your run-down on the discrimination and hypocrisy within the scientific community towards ID advocates. I look forward to seeing Expelled and talking about it with my students.
Could you please briefly explain what you mean by presuppositionalism?
Thanks.
clint
Sigh. The theory of evolution addresses the complexity of life, not the source of it. Therefore, Intelligent Design cannot be considered an alternative to it. That is where Ben Stein gets this wrong. The supposed “anti-ID pro-Evolution” conspiracy movement has nothing to do with saying, “Your faith in God is wrong” but rather “Your faith in God is NOT SCIENCE!”
ID is not science because no evidence in peer-reviewed journals exists. Moreover, no scientist can do research pointing to ID or publish any articles defending it because it is not science.
I am unaware of anyone being “unable” to publish any research “pointing” to Intelligent Design for this reason. Rather, “Intelligent Design” proponents have simply failed to produce any information that survives under scientific scrutiny. In fact, much of “Intelligent Design” conjecture is based not on actual evidence for such a process — indeed, few if any proponents seem willing to even define the mechanisms of a process so it is difficult to imagine how evidence for this undefined process could be identified — but rather through claiming alleged failings of the theory of evolution that are, upon examination, actually not “failings” but rather mere demonstration of the proponents’ lack of understanding of basic biology. For example, Michael Behe has cited instances of “irreducible complexity” as evidence for “Intelligent Design”, suggesting that biological structures where removing one element would “break” any functioning of the structure demonstrates that such structures could not have come out through a process of evolution. However, his claim assumes that all biological structures emerged purely through addition of features. He does not consider that alleged “irreducibly complex” structures could easily have emerged as a combination of other structures that developed in tandem producing a compisite result, with features that were rendered redundant or no longer vital being removed; in assuming that all biological structures must evolve through a purely additive process, Behe ignores a demonstrated process by which “irreducibly complex” structures can emerge.
Evidence for macro-evolution is practically concocted, and substantial evidence for ID is dismissed.
I believe that the author is confusing his or her personal ignorance of the extensive evidence extant for established lineages of descent — including predictable patterns in the fossil record and patterns of markers, ERV insertions and gene breaks found in DNA across species consistent with predictions derived from established lineages. I am also unaware of any evidence for “ID” at all, much less “substantial evidence”. Perhaps the author could offer references.
If nothing else, Stein succeeds in making a movie that shows people how shallow evolution is because of how shallow the world-view behind it is.
This is a confusing statement. The author makes no explanation of the alleged “world-view” that is supposedly “behind” the theory of evolution, and in fact I am aware of no specific “world-view” behind evolution, nor do I understand how this would alter the validity of the theory, or how it would make the theory “shallow”. The author has failed to make a coherent statement with this claim.
A final note: If you have seen “The Privileged Planet,” you will recognize Guillermo Gonzales. After the making of that movie, he was one of the scientists who found himself expelled.
The author has a curious conception of what constitutes being “expelled”. Guillermo Gonzales was denied tenure at the university where he worked. While he has asserted that this denial was a direct result of his advocacy of “Intelligent Design” — which was not directly related to his academic field and thus should not have been a factor in any work that he did at the university — he fails to mention that he had produced very little actual research, had mentored no graduate students and had attracted no grant funding during his employment. While it is hypothetically possible that it was his advocacy of “Intelligent Design” that resulted in the denial of his tenure, drawing such a conclusion without even considering the other possible — and more likely — factors of his employment is not rational.
just saw Expelled; the fact that Ben Stein isn’t trying to win any popularity contests helps to validate his message… i gather that his goal is to promote free thought, especially more thinking about the worldviews that drive American academia
ID isn’t really scientific and its detractors are correct to say so. However, evolution is completely neutered by LOGIC, which needs no bunsen burner or laboratory. I’ve been told that complex enzymes existed on comets and that’s where life came from. The proponents of this never seem to be concerned that a ‘complex enzyme’ has to have an origin, too. The mental gymnastics needed for faith in evolution pump up the pride of the ’scientists’ who espouse it. The wisdom of the world is indeed foolish.
“I am unaware of anyone being “unable” to publish any research “pointing” to Intelligent Design for this reason.”
If these articles or proof texts were being suppresses and you were not looking for this type of activity, why would you be made aware of this. It seems like your argument of being unaware of this activity, or an argument from ignorance is thin.
You pointed out correctly that irreducible complexity [suggests] that biological structures where removing one element would “break” any functioning of the structure demonstrates that such structures could not have come out through a process of evolution. Yet your argument hear is that “could easily have emerged as a combination of other structures that developed in tandem producing a composit result” so you’re claiming that these complexities occurred all at once? …at the same time? And not only that but there could have been more structures that were there as well that have dropped off because they were not needed?
This would not only be an additive process that you seemed to be against in this case but if your premise is that these structures all came together at the same time in place in their full or functional complexity, it sounds like you are arguing for intelligent design more than you think. Unless of course your argument is inline with a big bang theory that first there was nothing and then the nothing exploded and created the complexity of the universe then of course we have an argument of absurdity that we can save for a later date.
A reminder from Scripture Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
Since you are curious about the differences in world view, this is a great example, my presuppositions come from the standpoint that God, as He revealed to us in Scriptures created the heavens and the earth and not only has made everything that has been made (fully complex from the beginning, though micro evolutions is capable of being seen), also sustains this universe in its complexity pointing to an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and personal God who has a special interest in His creation, especially us who were created complete in our wondrous complexity.
We certainly do see things from a different perspective. Possibly one reason is because Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. (2Co 5:17) . We certainly do see things with different eyes.
I see that God created the heavens and the earth and man along with it. Man rebelled and sinned against God brining sin and death into this universe which also separated us from God and passed down that sinful nature to us. God sent his only son Jesus Christ to pay the penalty for our sins by dying on the cross and rising again on the third day in fulfillment of Scriptures so that through repentance of our sinful nature, and believing in Him (Jesus Christ) we may be saved and reconciled to God.
You obviously read these posts so you may have heard this before unless this is your first time visiting. You brought up more eloquently stated arguments than I have but many of us understand here that believing is seeing….(by the Grace of God) Please consider.
Clint Goode,
What I mean by presuppositionalism this: everyone has their own set of beliefs, firmly held, that dictate how they reason and how they view the world. These presuppositions are not the result of logic and evidence, but are rather the foundation of logic and the grid by which they see evidence. In other words, all people everywhere use circular reasoning when they examine evidence or think, because they are forced to use their reasoning to even figure out how to reason. If that makes any sense…
Because this is true, salvation is super natural, as God causes someone to change their views about the world and about the Word through the working of his spirit through the preaching of his word.
This relates to the movie, because Stein does a good job of showing how at the end of the day, this is not a debate over science or evidence, but a debate over world-views.
Thanks,
Jesse
Scarysnow,
Nice name. If the theory of evolution address the complexity of life, but not its origin, how come Darwin’s opus magnum is called “The Origin of Species” not “The Complexity of Species”?
As I’m sure you know, when used to explain the complexity of life, most people who hold to some form of ID, have no problem with a form of micro-evolution as an explanation. The issue, as the movie (despite its inadequacies) makes clear, is very much one of origins.
Thanks,
Jesse
However, evolution is completely neutered by LOGIC…
Heheh.. I gotta little chuckle out of that one. The funnier thing is, evolution is just as neutered on its own terms (i.e., those of actual science), which I think the movie points out well, especially in the closing interviews with Richard Dawkins.
I do strongly agree with Jesse that if Christians do assemble to see this movie, a wise and sound leader should take some time afterwards to explain presuppositionalism and show the futility of evidentialism. Hopefully Jesse’s explanation on that is forthcoming, as per Clint’s inquiry above.
One thing that I think fits here is a little saying whose origin escapes me, but someone once remarked that a person can look at a painting of a man and instantly acknowledge a creator. But that same person can look at the actual man who’s depicted in the painting, in the flesh and right in front of him, and yet acknowledge no creator. That, I think, effectively captures the wisdom of the world.
Dimensio,
I think the point of the movie was to answer your question about how come you are not aware of any such active supression. Stein makes clear in the movie that his main goal is to make more people aware of what is going on.
Thanks,
JEsse
I started responding to David M.’s weird take on logic, but then realized that I should simply post it on my blog since it was becoming so long. Suffice to say, foolish is a two-edged sword. Anyway, I’m pretty close to the NY Times on this movie:
I just happened to click on a blog post this morning that was anti-Expelled the movie. The post seemed to prove the point of the film. The evolution proponents (scientists, some called themselves) were absolutely violent in their opposition. It seemed they would almost go to any length to stop a person from questioning their “theory”. The rage was so evident in some of the comments, it was actually rather scary. Why would a person that is genuinely confident in their view come to a point of near physical violence when questioned? The question answers itslef, does it not.
This Film will NOT be available in the United Kingdom or Europe - I WILL GUARANTEE that the “liberals” which advocate “freedoms” will remain facist about this one subject for many years to come over here in Europe.
After all all information is free - As long as it agrees. And knowledge - to them - is power! Obviously this is a fase satetment by them, but we know true knowledge comes with responsibilities, and is only power when applied with truth and wisdom.
It is always ironic how cults and liberals procliam “liberty”, but they would RATHER NOT TALK about the “other side” of Truth.
I am not a scientist thus I will not seek to answer like one. I simply want to share what I have observed about people- The people who get the most defensive when questioned are usually standing in the most error. The reason for this is because they are truly fearful that their house of cards will be blown over. It sounds like this movie questions the house of cards and people are getting upset. Some (maybe many) may conclude that the movie is all wrong but it seems at least the title is spot on!
I think the point of the movie was to answer your question about how come you are not aware of any such active supression. Stein makes clear in the movie that his main goal is to make more people aware of what is going on.
I am aware of the intended purpose of the movie. However, I am also aware that the accounts given in the movie have been disputed. For example, Richard von Sternberg claims that he was terminated from his position as editor of a biological publication following his approval of a paper that addressed Intelligent Design. In fact, Richard von Sternberg had announced his intent to resign from his position before the controversial paper had been published, and he left his post based upon his own announced resignation. He cites as evidence of alleged “supression” that he was ordered to turn in the keys that had granted him access to certain areas necessary for his research, while not mentioning that all employees were asked to turn in their keys, as the old lock system was replaced with a new mechanism that unlocked via coded ID badges; all employees, not just Dr. von Sternberg, were required to turn in their keys and all employees, including Dr. von Sternberg, were issued coded ID badges that allowed access to the same areas.
If the creators of the movie are willing to showcase such demonstrably exaggerated — at best — claims of “supression”, I will have some difficulty considering their argument to be credible.
Nice name. If the theory of evolution address the complexity of life, but not its origin, how come Darwin’s opus magnum is called “The Origin of Species” not “The Complexity of Species”?
The title reflects Darwin’s hypothesis as it related to the emergence — or origins — of new species.
If it is your intent to argue that Darwin’s book made an attempt to address the ultimate origin of life, you should approach the subject by quoting specific passages from the book that you believe support your thesis. Attempting to construct an argument based upon a selective interpretation of only the title, while ignoring the content of the book itself, does not constitute a strong argument.
If these articles or proof texts were being suppresses and you were not looking for this type of activity, why would you be made aware of this.
Then perhaps you can cite an article or “proof text” that has been supressed in some way, and document the “supression” that has occurred.
You pointed out correctly that irreducible complexity [suggests] that biological structures where removing one element would “break” any functioning of the structure demonstrates that such structures could not have come out through a process of evolution. Yet your argument hear is that “could easily have emerged as a combination of other structures that developed in tandem producing a composit result” so you’re claiming that these complexities occurred all at once? …at the same time? And not only that but there could have been more structures that were there as well that have dropped off because they were not needed?
I believe that you have misunderstood my statement, and I likely did not phrase it correctly.
It was not my intention to suggest that multiple “irreducibly complex” systems would emerge in a biological organism simultaneously. Rather, I was stating that an apparently “irreducibly complex” structure can easily be the result of the emergence of another structure, one that is not “irreducibly complex”, or the emergence of multiple structures — all of them not “irreducibly complex” — that loses features until the system appears to be irreducibly complex. As an analogy; most buildings cannot be constructed without the aid of a scaffolding. However, once the building is completed, the scaffolding may safely be removed. The result is a structure that could not have been built in a progressive fashion, as the scaffolding — which is now missing — was required for the emergence of the completed entity. This is not a fully apt analogy, as buildings and scaffoldings are constructed and removed deliberately, however I do believe that it should constitute a sufficient illustration; some structures emerge as a result of a preceeding structure, and that preceeding structure can then disappear and make the emergent structure appear ‘irreducibly complex’.
Unless of course your argument is inline with a big bang theory that first there was nothing and then the nothing exploded and created the complexity of the universe then of course we have an argument of absurdity that we can save for a later date.
I am only addressing the theory of evolution and the conjecture termed “intelligent design”. I am not attempting to address the entirely seperate subject of the Big Bang theory. However, your assessment that the Big Bang theory states “first there was nothing and then the nothing exploded” is not an accurate summary of the theory. As such, your suggestion that it would lead to “absurdity” cannot be considered an informed opinion.
I see that God created the heavens and the earth and man along with it. Man rebelled and sinned against God brining sin and death into this universe which also separated us from God and passed down that sinful nature to us. God sent his only son Jesus Christ to pay the penalty for our sins by dying on the cross and rising again on the third day in fulfillment of Scriptures so that through repentance of our sinful nature, and believing in Him (Jesus Christ) we may be saved and reconciled to God.
I feel that I should inform you that your above unsubstantiated assertions do not constitute evidence that the theory of evolution is false, nor do they constitute evidence that any other explanation for the cause of extant biodiversity is correct.
I am not a scientist thus I will not seek to answer like one. I simply want to share what I have observed about people- The people who get the most defensive when questioned are usually standing in the most error. The reason for this is because they are truly fearful that their house of cards will be blown over. It sounds like this movie questions the house of cards and people are getting upset. Some (maybe many) may conclude that the movie is all wrong but it seems at least the title is spot on!
This is an interesting hypothesis. Would you apply this to individuals who become upset when addressing and countering assertions that the Holocaust was a hoax?
RC Sproul interview Ben Stein, I think some of you will find it interesting.
http://www.ligonier.org/blog/2008/03/rc-sproul-interviews-ben-stein.html
Dimensio,
Thanks for interacting here. My goal in this article was not to argue for or against the merits of evolution, but to say that it is a conversation that is literally not happening in any kind of fair way in academia. Allegedly that is because the debate has been settled–so officially settled that to continue it is to risk what this movie documents.
I think as with the evidence for macro-evolution/ID, the firing of these individuals will likely be interpreted based on people’s presuppositions. My guess is that to many Christians who have been in the academic world the stories put forth by the expelled scientists seems very plausible. I don’t know if you have seen Expelled or not (have you?) but in it the man who refused Gonzales’ tenure says pretty plainly it was because of his ID research. Obviously there are two sides to each one of these stories. The point in the movie, made despite its obvious flaws and caricatures, is that only one side is being heard.
Thanks,
Jesse
Nice name. If the theory of evolution address the complexity of life, but not its origin, how come Darwin’s opus magnum is called “The Origin of Species” not “The Complexity of Species”?
You misinterpret the title. If it truly meant the origin of life, it would be called, “Origin of Life.”
“The Origin of Species” is a correct title because it relates to how “species” came to be. In other words, how diverse biological groups came to be.
But don’t take my word for it. Read it. There is no explanation for the source of life…it is about evolution through natural selection.
Dimensio and scarysnow,
Just as a matter of interest: both of you say that evolution does not address the (ultimate) origin of life, but only describes how it came to be where it is now. I have heard that before from an ardent evolutionist.
Help me to see how that is the case. Ideas have consequences, even ultimate consequence like the origin of all things.I fail to see how you can stand for evolution (and everything that it describes) and in the same breath palm of any idea about the ultimate cause. Is that not a little too easy?
If you track back with evolution you will come to a point where there is no ultimate cause that can be determined (that’s why you like to stay away from abiogenesis argument). Could you show me how you can have a congruent system, which claims to describe the evolution of life, that does not describe the ultimate cause? I have been wondering about that since i heard it the first time.
Thanks.
A website that counters the claims made in this movie:
http://www.expelledexposed.com
A review from a Christian source:
http://www.canadianchristianity.com/nationalupdates/080424expelled.html
Also, since I haven’t seen the film, I wonder if anyone who has could list some of the supposedly “suppressed” evidence for intelligent design that is discussed in the movie. (Claims of alleged flaws or shortcomings in evolutionary theory is not the same thing as evidence for intelligent design). If such evidence actually exists, surely the producers of this film would have taken the opportunity to present it.
lutesuite,
The movie basically does not deal with evidence for/against evolution. Instead, it focused more on evidence that the debate itself is being suppressed. Those that try to pursue it, publish on it, or question evolution are silenced.
I don’t think the movie really wanted to analyze the “evidence” for evolution, or give a defense for ID, as much as it wanted to ask why freedom of speech is not tolerated in this debate.
By the way, I enjoyed the Canadian Christian review linked above.
Thanks,
Jesse
re: Hosea46
I’ll take a quick stab at this, but it’s actually quite a complicated question.
For the record, the implications are irrelevant to the theory in itself, but many obviously speculate on it from an analytic point of view.
From the biological evidence, one can speculate that life was probably not created in one fell swoop by a God-like being as one described in the Old Testament. I mean, I won’t lie, it’s a tough pill to swallow, because what we know of nature is that it’s not perfectly designed, but rather imperfect and indifferent.
But I’m not sure that the actual origin of life can be answered through biology, but rather physics. Physics, in this regard, is yet to have its breakthrough, but this will come in time, and hopefully answer more questions.
You seem to be somewhat implying that evolution may completely contradict religion, and therefore as a person of faith, you are required to discredit any reasoning or evidence that would contradict your understanding of scripture. RE: confirmation bias. I understand that, but I wouldn’t be so quick to make that implication. One can speculate, but no one knows 100%, implications or not. We only know what works, and so far, evolution works.
The rest will follow, for better or for worse, depending on your point of view.
The Greeks saw lightening and heard thunder and made up stories to explain what was happening. We now call this Greek Mythology. The Romans felt earthquakes and saw volcanoes and made up more stories to explain what was happening. We now call this Roman mythology. The moderns saw bones and made up stories to explain what was happening. Will future folks some day refer to this as modern mythology? Same human impetus through and through: you see and hear stuff, and you make up stories to explain it.
—–
“And God spoke, and the sea brought forth life after it’s kind. And the land brought forth vegetation and animals after its’ kind. And the sky brought forth birds after their kind.”
Let’s assume this actually happened. Can anyone accurately explain what this looked like at the levels of atoms and molecules while it was happening?
“And God formed Adam from the dust of the ground”
Let’s assume this actually happened. Can anyone accurately explain what this looked like at the levels of atoms and molecules while it was happening?
“And God breathed into Adam the breath of life”
Let’s assume this actually happened. Again, can anyone accurately explain what this looked like at the levels of atoms and molecules while it was happening?
I don’t mean to be discourteous, but those who do not have a sound background in biology and chemistry will not truely understand the significance of the three questions I just asked.
The question being examined is this: Given life, can we explain the diversity we see by using natural means (mechanisms natural to the earth, not outside of it)? That is the only question being considered. Since God is supernatural and exists outside of the earth, He quite naturally cannot be considered as an answer to the question. There also appears to be no Intelligent Designer that is natural to this earth, so He cannot be considered as an answer to that question.
Again, the question is not “who created the universe and life on this earth?”. The question is: given life, can we explain the diversity we see by using natural means? If you understand this, the apparent one-sidedness of the debate will make more sense. The debate must stay one-sided because of the way the question is framed. The criteria “using natural means” requires that nothing supernatural be allowed as part of the examination process.
God is supernatural. Neither He nor His works can be adequately apprehended using the tools we have at our disposal. Therefore, whether and how God created the universe and life on earth can never be a proper subject for scientific inquiry. We don’t have the means to inquire properly.
Thanks for the reply, Jesse Johnson. So lets just make sure that I’ve got this straight.
So there is no evidence for ID given in this movie, whose whole subject is ID, because the producers didn’t want to include it.
There is no evidence for ID in the scientific literature because of a massive conspiracy against scientists who argue for the existence of God. A conspiracy that, strangely, has not affected individuals like Ken Miller, who has written the most successful high school biology text book:
http://www.templeton.org/belief/essays/miller.pdf
or Francis Collins, who was put in charge of arguably the most important scientific endeavour of this century, the human genome project:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html
Maybe, in fact, the real reason no evidence for ID can be found in the places you would expect to find it, is because the evidence simply doesn’t exist.
For all those who are critical of this movie that have not seen it, you are proving the point of the movie. The movie begins talking about freedom and ends talking about academic freedom. Ben Stein presents a point of view that you may not agree with but it is a documentary with a point of view just like any other documentary.
This movie was not made to discredit evolution. It was made to promote debate. Not wanting to interact with the movie and only dealing with sources like Expelled:Exposed is not fair. (Seeing that this site is sponsored by one of the same groups that Stein highlights in the movie in a not so positive light. Shouldn’t that make you skeptical The National Center for Science Education has Eugenie Scott on its board and Ben Stein is not too positive on this organization.)
I think Jesse is right, we all have presuppositions and we should be careful when we try to act as if we do not.
The problem with your argument, Hayden, is that the very existence of this movie disproves its claim that criticism of “Darwinism” is being stifled. What the “cdesign proponentsists” (Google it) are demanding is not freedom of debate. Instead, they’re asking for a free pass to have their religiously-based beliefs be treated as legitimate science without their having to do the experimentation and providing the evidence required for any other scientific idea to be treated as such. The reason ID is not discussed in legitimate scientific institutions is because it is not science, period. If there was evidence for ID, you can be sure this movie would have presented it. Can you name another scientific theory that has gained acceptance by making propaganda films and crying that the peer-review process was unfair, rather than simply providing the experimental evidence to support it? Why should ID be treated any differently?
lute,
Obviously you missed the first part of my statement. Did you see the movie? Did you read my comment above?
BTW I have a BA in Anthropology with an emphasis on biological evolution so I am well aware of many of the arguments you are putting forward.
You try to end the debate by saying ‘its not science’ without any serious inquiry which is EXACTLY what the movie puts forward.
Have you read any books by Michael Beale, Phillip Johnson, or any ID theorist? Have you critically addressed any of the arguments of molecular biologists?
Hayden,
I can’t see the movie, as I live in Canada. Not that think I will, anyway, given the abysmal reviews. I’m responding to the movie’s arguments as put forth by those who have seen the movie, and who are sympathetic to its point of view. If they are misrepresenting the movie, then that’s not my fault, but Jesse Johnson says pretty clearly that no evidence for creationism or intelligent design is mentioned in it, so I don’t see how seeing the movie should influence my views.
Even having not seen the movie, I am very familiar with the viewpoints of creationists/ID proponents from other sources, and know that the work of Behe (who I assume you are referring to above, not “Beale”) Johnson, Dembski, Hovind et al is without any scientific merit whatsoever. As I’ve said before, if they have anything that can withstand the peer review process, let them submit their findings to a journal. The closest thing to peer review they have allowed themselves to be subjected to is when Behe (thought none of the other leading lights of ID) testified at the Dover trial. There, his idea of “irreducible complexity” was shredded, and he admitted under oath that if ID is valid science, then so is astrology.
Molecular biologists are the ones providing the most overwhelming, irrefutable evidence for evolution today, so I don’t know what you’re referring to here.
Lute,
What you have articulated about them submitting their material to peer reviewed journals is the point of the movie. The movie was not primarily about ID but about how those who dare to take an ID approach are NOT ALLOWED to be published in peer-reviewed journals or allowed to teach on college campuses.
The whole movie was about FREEDOM OF IDEAS not proving one side or the other. Even those who are opposed to ID admit that they are not open to the ideas of ID proponents.
It may not be that way in Canada, but freedom of ideas on the college campus here in America is only if you ‘toe the party line’.
“The movie was not primarily about ID but about how those who dare to take an ID approach are NOT ALLOWED to be published in peer-reviewed journals or allowed to teach on college campuses.”
Well, since it’s pretty established that ID is not science, then why should proponents be allowed to teach it in a science-context? Why not just put pastors in the science classes? Or the bum in the alley that keeps mumbling about a purple dragon?
I’m all about freedom of ideas, but let’s use some context here. ID is fine to believe in, but it’s just not science, and it shouldn’t be allowed to be taught in accredited science curriculum, or even printed in scientific journals alongside studies that are light years ahead in research, evaluation, and discipline.
Just as a matter of interest: both of you say that evolution does not address the (ultimate) origin of life, but only describes how it came to be where it is now. I have heard that before from an ardent evolutionist.
Help me to see how that is the case. Ideas have consequences, even ultimate consequence like the origin of all things.I fail to see how you can stand for evolution (and everything that it describes) and in the same breath palm of any idea about the ultimate cause. Is that not a little too easy?
I am not “palming” any ideas. I am merely pointing out that the theroy of evolution has a specific scope of study, and the origin of the first life is not within that scope. This does not mean that the issue of the origin of the first life is of no interest to biologists; in fact, it is a subject of great interest to biologists. However, even though the subject is of interest to biologists, it is not a part of the theory of evolution.
Have you read any books by Michael Beale, Phillip Johnson, or any ID theorist?
Phillip Johnson is an attorney, and thus not a credible authority on any scientific subject, including subjects that are a part of biological sciences. I am unable to locate any information regarding an author by the name of “Michael Beale”.
Lute, Scarysnow & Dimension,
Thank you for proving Ben Stein’s point. I couldn’t have asked for better examples.
ID isn’t science, according to you, because you say it isn’t. (Even though there are some scientists that believe it) That is exactly Stein’s point.
“Phillip Johnson is an attorney, and thus not a credible authority on any scientific subject, including subjects that are a part of biological sciences.”
Darwin was not educated as a scientist either. Should he be dismissed as a credible authority on any scientific subject?
I don’t. I think he was wrong, but I don’t dismiss him as a credible authority.
p.s. Dimensio, you seem to have too much free time to spend posting.
Re: Hayden
I don’t say anything. I’m not even saying ID is wrong. I am saying it does not qualify as science because it does not meet the criteria.
And as long as were saying scientists are “people” who can be “biased,” then surely the supposed scientists who support ID can be as guilty? Or are they the only honest ones because it supports your own biased pre-conceptions?
Wow. One post that disses attorneys, Canadians, and people who spend time bogging.
Hayden,
We’re not saying that ID isn’t science just because we say so. For an idea to be taken seriously as a scientific theory, it must be able to generate hypotheses that can be experimentally tested, and produce results worthy of being published in the peer-reviewed press. Decades after their inception creationism and ID have yet to produce one single paper in the literature. To put that into perspective, cold fusion is an idea generally dismissed by physicists, yet last time I checked there were over 900 papers in the literature on the subject.
Creationists are now trying to excuse themselves for this by saying the peer-review process is biased against theists, but produce no evidence to back this up. Do you have any evidence to counter the facts given on the Expelled Exposed page regarding the falsity of the allegations made by the movie? Meanwhile, I have given but two examples of the many theistic scientists whose careers have thrived. The personal opinions of scientists, no matter what their credentials, has no bearing on the validity of an idea. That idea must be backed up with evidence before it can be considered a theory.
In Canada, thankfully, this is a non-issue. I suspect this is because religious fundamentalists don’t have the political power here they seem to in the US. That should also give you pause. If there was legitimate scientific evidence to back up ID/creationism don’t you think there would be at least one scientist, somewhere, who is indifferent to religion and still supported the idea? The idea is entirely supported by religious fundamentalists. Doesn’t that suggest that it is only one side of this debate who is letting their personal beliefs influence their scientific objectivity?
Hayden,
Peer review is not biased against theists, it’s biased against those who dare question the long standing doctrine of evolution.
“Peer review” was not biased against Galileo because he was a theist, it was biased against him because he dared to question the long standing doctrine of geocentrism.
“The Aristotelian professors, seeing their vested interests threatened, united against him. They strove to cast suspicion on him in the eyes of the ecclesiastical authorities because of [alleged] contradictions between the Copernican theory and Scriptures.”
Galileo’, The New Encyclopædia Britannica 19:638, 15th Ed. 1992
As far as peer review goes…
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5613/
This is a non-issue in Canada because in Canada, we are trained from birth to submit to authority.
The astounding effort, time and resources put into campaigns to stop or discredit the film tells me that “the man” does not want “the people” to see this.
I’m a Canadian and I can’t wait to see the film…because evolutionists say the darndest things.
“In my opinion, using creation and evolution as topics for critical-thinking exercises in primary and secondary schools is virtually guaranteed to confuse students about evolution and may lead them to reject one of the major themes in science.” - Eugenie Scott‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’ Michael Ruse
‘Further, Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.’ Phillip Skell; The Scientist 19
‘Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.’ Richard Dawkins
‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’ Richard Lewontin(bold emphasis mine”We don’t need proof, we know it to be true.” Richard Dawkins
I just don’t have the faith to believe in evolution
Oops! Messed up the Lewontin quote.
Just in spite and a priori were meant to be in bold,/b>
I can’t even begin to comment on how out of context many of those statements are. But I couldn’t expect much more from a believer, who keeps the nice Bible verses, tosses out the Bad ones, and develops an entire world view around a completely subjective tenet.
(Sorry, cheap shot, but I’ve taken a few.)
One more point I’d like to make: If you go to the comments section of Ben Stein’s website (http://121167.netguestbook.com/st_0.html), not surprisingly you’ll find lots of comments about “Expelled.” However, the surprising thing is that every one of these comments are positive. This might seem suspicious, given how controversial this film is, and the critical drubbing it has been receiving.
And your suspicions would be correct. As shown here (http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=40236&p=780342&hilit=stein#p780342) all negative comments are being deleted.
Seems that Ben Stein is all for free speech, but only if it supports his own beliefs.
Somebody had to take care of this bold thing.
Whoa… it didn’t work.
Nice name. If the theory of evolution address the complexity of life, but not its origin, how come Darwin’s opus magnum is called “The Origin of Species” not “The Complexity of Species”?
Darwin, who had an exceptionally good scientific training at the universities of Edinburgh and Cambridge, only mentioned the origin of life at the end of “On the Origin of Species” –
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.”
“For an idea to be taken seriously as a scientific theory, it must be able to generate hypotheses that can be experimentally tested, and produce results worthy of being published in the peer-reviewed press. ”
This is simply incorrect. “Science” is (and starte as) at base level, observation and induction vis-a-vis the natural world. Experimentation is helpful on the “how does it work?” level, but this “method” is a rather late development in the history of science, and is merely a subset of science as a whole. One can still observe, induce and note, for example, that there is no Darwinian explanation for specified complexity in the cell, etc.
But modern Darwinians can’t even allow that, so they make up a false limitation on “science”, viz., observation and objective analysis just isn’t “enough.”
This idea that ID is “not science” is one of two ploys that opponents use to shut down debate. The other being the accusation that ID is merely dressed up “creationism.”
Both false, so don’t fall for it. Do not cede any ground to the “it’s not science” fallacy.
A rigorous Christian critique of ID:
http://fireandrose.blogspot.com/
Also, to those who have posted on this thread critiquing this movie and ID as a whole: I am really impressed by your decency of tone, and I apologize on behalf of the Christian community for the indecency offered in response. It is undeserved and damaging to the Christian gospel.
“One can still observe, induce and note, for example, that there is no Darwinian explanation for specified complexity in the cell, etc.”
Any evidence to support this assertion? In fact, is there even any evidence for the validity of Dembski’s concept of “specified complexity”? As you can see at these links, the concept is nonsense when analyzed according to the principles of mathematics and information theory, which is what it purports to represent:
http://goodmath.blogspot.com/2006/04/one-last-stab-at-dembski-vacuousness.html
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/eandsdembski.pdf
“This idea that ID is “not science” is one of two ploys that opponents use to shut down debate. The other being the accusation that ID is merely dressed up “creationism.””
Well, it seems the evidence for ID and creationism being synonymous was strong enough to convince a conservative, church-going Republican judge, who was nominated for his position by Rick Santorum, no less. Again, Google “cdesign proponentsists” if you think otherwise.
And, again, if debate is being “shut down”, then how are we having this discussion? Isn’t this debate? Aren’t the two articles I linked above part of the “debate”? Proponents of ID are not being hindered in any way from making their case. They just have not made a case that comes in any way close to being scientifically persuasive. If they feel the have such a case, why do they spend all their time and resources making propaganda films bereft of scientific discussion, building museums, and trying to stack schoolboards to allow their ideas to get into school curricula thru the backdoor?
I saw Ben Stein’s movie. I am a post-doctoral fellow in Chemistry at Harvard (and still, technically, a member of grace….oops; need to tell them that I moved). The research group that I’m in is interested in the chemical origins of life (it is one of the subgroups within the lab). The chemical origins of life is probably a legitimate research interest. While God certainly spoke life into existence, He might have enabled autocatalytic chemical processes that resulted in self-assembling entities (or not). Among the subgroups within our larger research group, however, this particualr subgroup is unique because we CAN NOT EVEN THINK OF WHAT EXPERIMENTS TO DO (let alone do the experiment and interpret the results). The subgroup is becoming a joke and is basically dying and disbanding. And we are considered one of the best groups at HU! This is not to say that we will not, one day, figure out the chemical origins of life. But just remember this when puffed up people like Richard Dawkins tell you–so emphatically–that they are certain about the Godlessness regarding the origins of life. By the way, I saw Mr. Dawkins on campus; he was speaking at, of all places, a church. He was reading from his book, “The God Delusion” at a Unitarian church that is well known for its support of gay marriage. This is profound; the endpoint of bad doctrine and false faith is this: people eventually come to your church to speak of the “God delusion.”
lutesuit, do you have a blog? because i would subscribe.
and i’d recommend the book, “40 days and 40 nights” to anyone interested in this subject as it relates to the education system.
Note to lutesuite and interested others, the old article by Elsberry and Shallit has long since been refuted.
www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ssdd-shallit-and-elsberrys-equivocations-and-bluffs/
And debate in a blog is one thing. It’s debate in the academy that’s being shut down. Much to the disgrace of the true scientific enterprise.
Well, interested readers can look at Elsberry and Shallit’s paper for themselves and decide if Sal Cordova’s response actually addresses the issues raised there.
And, again, I feel compelled to point out that the very existence of the paper gives the lie to the claim that ID is being ignored by academia. Its claims are being seriously examined and rejected on their own merits, or lack thereof.
Yes, by all means, people should read the materials and decide for themselves.
Which is more than most science students get to do in most college classrooms. Especially when professors get canned for even raising the questions.
The assertion that “professors get canned for even raising the questions” is completely without proof. Last I checked, Michael Behe still has a job, even though his dept. has put out a disclaimer distancing themselves from his ID views:
http://www.lehigh.edu/bio/news/evolution.htm
Notice that, while they disagree with his views, they are in no way preventing him from expressing them.
Of course, Behe had tenure before his book came out.
It’s the profs who speak BEFORE tenure who get canned, as the film points out. And the proof is right there in Expelled.
Profs who do question ID, and do not have tenure, can’t talk about it. That proof is in Expelled also.
Anyone who sees the film will hear the testimony, and can follow it up.
For starters, see:
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/13593
Since we have to subscribe to the magazine to read that article, maybe you could summarize the evidence presented there, and how it contradicts the evidence available (for free) here:
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/gonzalez
An excerpt:
“A scientist should not expect his colleagues to ignore his advocacy of a perspective that those in his field have overwhelmingly rejected. For faculty members to have looked askance at Gonzalez’s acceptance and advocacy of a nonscientific movement is expectable. Of course, Gonzalez is free to disagree with the position of the American Astronomical Society, and does so when he insists in Expelled that ‘The questions that I ask in my Intelligent Design research are perfectly legitimate scientific questions.’
“But if this is so, his failure to produce any results from that research would legitimately count against his tenure application, as would pursuit of any other failed research program. If, on the other hand, his work on intelligent design would not be considered science, his colleagues could legitimately consider how much time he was investing in non-scientific pursuits which could otherwise have been put toward writing grants, conducting research, or publishing research results. He cannot have it both ways.”
The “evidence” you cite is easily refuted.
First, the post makes no mention of the petition circulated by the atheist profs and ISU, a fact noted by objective sources, e.g.,
http://media.www.dailyiowan.com/media/storage/paper599/news/2008/02/08/Metro/Isu-IntelligentDesign.Prof.Loses.Tenure.Bid-3198089.shtml
More facts may be found here:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/12/cataloguing_darwinist_denials.html
Re-read the quote I posted above. The links you cited do nothing to contradict it.
If the majority of professors at ISU disagreed with ID, but Gonzalez was producing large amounts of publishable research based on his hypothesis, then they would not have had grounds to deny him tenure. That was not the case. The academic principle of “Publish or perish” still applies. Gonzalez perished.
The fact that the other professors (how do you know they’re all atheists?) chose to make their views known on ID is irrelevent to the case. Or are you saying they should not be allowed to express their views? Isn’t that what you’re arguing against?
I did read the quote, and it’s not only refuted elsewhere, it is SELF refuting. One of the two great ploys used by Darwinists, the limited definition of science so as to expel ID, is right there for all to see.
I think now there is enough information and links posted for people to check things out for themselves, and draw their own conclusions.
That’s really the benefit of the film, and of blog dialogues like this. People don’t have to rely on any one source anymore. And the vitriol leveled at Expelled is a good thing. It’s making a record for future generations to see just what was going on. The term “witch hunt” seems apt for such a time as this.
Here’s the best way I can think of to understand the Gonzalez case, as well as the other allegations of the academic suppression of ID.
I don’t know much about astronomy, but lets say there is a current controversy over the mechanism of the formation of black holes. Most astronomers believe in Theory A, but there is a smaller faction that believes in Theory B. As yet, there is not sufficient data to definitively support one theory over the other, and advocates of both continue to publish research in the peer-reviewed press supporting their view.
Scenario 1.
Lets say there is an astronomer who supports Theory B and he works in a department whose head is a strong proponent of Theory A. This astronomer is an excellent researcher who regularly gets his work published in the top journals in the field, whose graduate students do similarly exemplary work and consistently complete their degrees. If this astronomer is denied tenure, assuming his academic qualifications are sufficient to otherwise get tenure, he has a case to argue that he was a victim of discrimination, and that it was his advocacy of Theory B that led to his being unfalrly denied tenure.
Scenario 2.
Another astronomer is hired on a probationary basis by a dept. After being hired, he starts to believe that he has his own explanation for the formation of black holes: He believes they were formed by purple leprechauns. He genuinely believes this, and writes books in the lay press and tries to get articles published in the journals arguing for his “purple leprechaun theory.” However, he understandably has little success, as his theory is actually ludicrous and has no empirical evidence to support it. His colleagues are understandably embarassed by his continued, public professions of belief in purple leprechauns, and issue statements distancing themselves from his views, lest there be a perception that they support them, as well. When time comes to review his application for tenure, it is understandably denied.
Scenario 3.
Another astronomer supports neither Theory A or B, but a third theory, Theory C. Many other astronomers secretly believe in Theory C. However, there exists a vast conspiracy to suppress it, therefore evidence in support of it is never published in the journals, and anyone publicly supporting Theory C quickly loses their job. Our astronomer is an intrepid soul, however, and insists on attempting to publish research on Theory C. However, he has no luck, as the anti-Theory C cabal controls the editorial boards of all journals and will not allow any mention of Theory C in their pages, no matter how valid the research supporting it may be. It is no surprise, then, when this astronomer is denied tenure, not having produced any demonstrable results from his academic activities.
Now, which of these scenarios applies to Guillermo Gonzalez? It seems clear that Scenario 1 does not apply, as the evidence presented at “Expelled Exposed” (and not refuted anywhere) regarding his publishing and mentoring history while at ISU demonstrates. So we are left with Scenarios 2 or 3.
It’s not easy, just on the bare facts, to distinguish these two scenarios. In both cases, you have an academic who cannot get his research published. Is this because his research is worthless, or is it because it is being actively suppressed? To prove Scenario 3 applies to ID, it is not enough to simply give examples of ID proponents who have lost their jobs. If proponents of “purple leprchaun theory” kept losing their jobs, it would not be because of discrimination. It would be because the theory was worthless.
Instead, the makers of “Expelled” need to demonstrate that ID is a valid scientific theory, and that there is an active effort to suppress it. From what has been said here, they do not even make an effort to address the first issue. There appears to be ample reason to doubt their evidence for the second.
My belief is that ID is not discussed in academic institutions for the same reason that “purple leprechaun” theory is not. There is simply no evidence to support it. The vast majority of legitimate scientists believe the same. I think the onus is on the conspiracy theorists to provide evidence for the suppression of a legitimate scientific idea. But I agree with you, it is up to individuals to educate themselves on evolutionary theory and ID, and decide for themselves.
Sorry, that post ended up being much longer than I intended….
“Instead, the makers of “Expelled” need to demonstrate that ID is a valid scientific theory, and that there is an active effort to suppress it. From what has been said here, they do not even make an effort to address the first issue.”
Sigh.
No need for a lengthy response at this point. The information is out there, refuting the above. Rather than more cutting and pasting, interested folks can spend part of a morning or afternoon finding the facts.
No need top spend the afternoon. Jesse Johnson provided the evidence just above:
“The movie basically does not deal with evidence for/against evolution. Instead, it focused more on evidence that the debate itself is being suppressed. Those that try to pursue it, publish on it, or question evolution are silenced.
“I don’t think the movie really wanted to analyze the ‘evidence’ for evolution, or give a defense for ID, as much as it wanted to ask why freedom of speech is not tolerated in this debate.”
Now it’s snippets from a meta?
“…as much as…”
What do you think that means? Jesse is right that the emphasis was on the witch hunt, but the scientific theory was explained.
Lutesuite, have you seen the film?
As I’ve explained, I haven’t seen the film. If I misinterpreted Jesse’s response and, in fact, there was evidence, suitable for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, that was presented in “Expelled”, by all means lets hear about it. Only, in everything I have read about this film, not a single piece of such evidence has been mentioned. Remember, we’re not talking about supposed flaws in evolutionary theory, or just an explanation of what proponents of ID believe. I mean actual evidence that supports ID as a legitimate scientific theory.
BTW, the Anti-Defamation League has issued a statement about “Expelled”:
“The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory.
“Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler’s genocidal madness.
“Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.”
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/5277_52.htm
lutesuite, when you see the film, (which I recommend), please pay special attention to what Steven Meyer explains.
Now you’re bringing up the Holocaut references, which is entirely another matter. The Expelled opponents are, of course, in a dither about this. More helpful is this:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/04/expelled_does_not_try_to_blame.html
Could you summarize what Steven Meyer has to say?
I’ve left a comment on the Holocaust issue at the “Evolution and Ethics” page. The Klinghoffer article you cite isn’t very helpful. To say that “Expellled” doesn’t blame Darwin, but “darwinism,” for Nazism seems entirely beside the point.
lutesuite, I’d rather have you see the film. (It can use the money!)
I’ve also read Mein Kampf. Have you ever read it? That is the primary source of the Hitler connection (as is mentioned in the film, BTW).
The critics who have jumped all over this are way overreacting.
Anyway, thanks for the dialogue. Keep open about this, at least. That, after all, is all that ID is asking of the scientific community–openness. Self-questioning. Real scientific inquiry.
Vincit omnia veritas.
“lutesuite, I’d rather have you see the film. (It can use the money!)”
Interesting. Everyone says there’s evidence for ID, but no one seems willing to provide it.
“I’ve also read Mein Kampf. Have you ever read it? That is the primary source of the Hitler connection (as is mentioned in the film, BTW).”
I haven’t read it. But since you have, maybe you can correct any errors in this analysis by someone who has:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=40643&p=823949&hilit=mein+kampf#p823949
“Anyway, thanks for the dialogue. Keep open about this, at least. That, after all, is all that ID is asking of the scientific community–openness. Self-questioning. Real scientific inquiry.”
The ID movement has nothing to teach the scientific community about openness and scientific inquiry. Its true motives are revealed in the infamous Wedge document, which overtly describes its goal of subverting science in the name of promoting relgious dogma:
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf
The thing to note here is that they eplicitly state that their prime objective is to enforce social and political change. Science, on the other hand, is primarily concerned with understanding the workings of the material world, without political, social or religious preconceptions. (You can also easily see how “Expelled” fits into the strategy spelled out in the document.) For the creationists/ID proponents to accuse mainstream science of being biased in favour of a particular religious or philosophical view is nothing more than projection. I would add that many of the other articles posted on “Pulpit” also explicitly state that scientific investigation must only be considered valid if its conclusions conform to a literalist reading of the holy scripture. How open-minded is that?
But I return your thanks for the dialogue.
I’ve been reading all of y’alls post with great interest. I am not an “IDer” nor an evolutionist. I am a creationist, who believes that God created everything in this whole entire universe in 6 days approximately 6,000 years ago… And if anyone would like to discuss such topics as distant starlight, be my guest. It happens to be my favourite topic
Lutesuite,
if you would like information or proof for ID, there is much… Though I would suggest searching on the following site http://answersingenesis.org/ any questions you have, they will have the answers to. Also if you have a question that is not answered please submit a question at www.gotquestions.org ….. but I would like to make the statement that the facts that we interpret are them selves neutral, but the thing is…. Is when these facts are interpreted they are subject to our axioms… For more on this follow the link http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/presuppositional-apologetics
there is much more I would like to say, but in light of my current situation a.k.a. school assignments, I shall leave it at this… If you have anyone would like to ask me a particular question, please email me at kneelander16@aim.com this is checked with some regularity…
Cheers!
Lydia
LydiaC,
Thanks for the reply. I’m quite aware of AiG. There is no evidence there in favour of ID. This excerpt from their “Statement of Faith” pretty much says it all:
6. “No apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.”
Science requires examining evidence with an open mind. This statement clearly demonstrates that, whatever discipline AiG believes it is practicing, it certainly isn’t science.
This website might be of interest:
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/
ID could very well be true, but that doesn’t make it science, and that is just fine! All truth doesn’t have to be nestled in the science category. ID simply fails the criteria of science by providing no mechanism by which species arose. God did it, certainly. How did he do it? They don’t answer, and so scientists cannot test that (as nobody can) therefore it isn’t science. That doesn’t make it false. I think the movie makes an error trying to put it in that category when it doesn’t need to be, whether ID is true or not. That’s my opinion anyways.
lutesuite,
Thanks for the link to NAIG… I’ve explored there a good bit
I was wondering though, if the 1st 11 chapters of the Bible aren’t true.. How can the rest be? In answer I say none, if the foundation of the Bible is just a story, then the Truth of of Salvation, is also false….
And your statement “Science requires examining evidence with an open mind” I find quite interesting… For no one has a completely open mind… For each and everyone of us (including scientists) has a presupposition, all facts are neutral, nothing comes with tags on it saying how old it is… These neutral facts are interpreted by scientists who are subjective.. Plain and simple… And I have to say according to AiG’s statement of faith… If the Bible is true, which it has proven to be many times… Then what better place to start our thinking from..
Cheers,
LydiaC
LydiaC,
No one has an open mind, true. That is what gives the scientific method its power. When properly applied, it allows the discovery of knowledge that is not encumbered by subjectivity. The proof of the power of this method is in its results: The technologies, medical treatments, and discoveries of the physical workings of the universe (from the largest extraterestrial bodies to the most minute subatomic particles) speak for themselves. True, there are instances where an individual’s subjectivity might impede his ability to properly follow the sceintific method, but that is why the peer-review system exists: to correct any such errors.
When creationist institutions like AiG state up front that they are assuming from the outset that all results must conform to a narrow, literalist interpretation of the Bible, they are expressing their contempt and disregard for the scientific process. And that’s their prerogative. However, it is then hypocritical of them to demand that they be given any credence from legitimate scientific institutions, and that their beliefs be taught as science.
I also wonder how you can reconcile your belief that scientific facts are open to subjective interpretation, with your insistence that there is only one objectively true interpretation of holy scripture. The existence of hundreds of different sects of Christianity, alone, would seem to bely that.
One more point, in response to this statement:
“I was wondering though, if the 1st 11 chapters of the Bible aren’t true.. How can the rest be? In answer I say none, if the foundation of the Bible is just a story, then the Truth of of Salvation, is also false….”
To me, it seems the obvious answer is: If the facts contradict your beliefs, then you should modify your beliefs. However, the fundamentalist approach is: If the facts contradict your beliefs, you must modify (ignore, distort) the facts.
Two different world views, to be sure. It seems obvious to me which is the right one to follow.
lutesuite,
Much of what is taught as “fact” in the realm of science is not fact at all, but is the current best hypothesis. When I went through the public education system too many years ago to be proud of, one “fact” that was taught was that the smallest building blocks of matter were atoms. Science now understands that atoms are composed of much smaller particles than the proton, neutron, and electron, i.e.; the grouping of particles into the families of fermions and bosons; fermions being represented by leptons and quarks, each of which is represented by six variations. Then we get into the mechanical concept of “spin”.
It’s not my intent to discuss or debate particle physics in this forum, my point is that science correctly updates the “current best hypothesis” fairly often and when new findings support it. That is a good thing.
The problem is that we’re talking about ultimate truths here, not best guesses. I don’t believe you’ll find an instance where a scientific “FACT!” contradicts Biblical truth. Many, many commonly held “facts” are not factual at all, but are based on layers and layers of assumptions.
We all have faith in something…be it science, our God, or ourselves. To deny that is an exercise in futility. Fundamentalists put their faith in the word of God.
Do you think a Fundamentalist is less offended at being forced to listen to satements of faith, such as the Big Bang theory, than an Atheist is at being forced to listen to statements of faith such as the resurrection of Jesus Christ?
Oh, wait…..Atheists aren’t forced to be indoctrinated into a Christian worldview. Why should Christians be indoctrinated into secular naturalism?
Expelled; No Intelligence Allowed is simply asking that question.
“Do you think a Fundamentalist is less offended at being forced to listen to satements of faith, such as the Big Bang theory, than an Atheist is at being forced to listen to statements of faith such as the resurrection of Jesus Christ?
Oh, wait…..Atheists aren’t forced to be indoctrinated into a Christian worldview. Why should Christians be indoctrinated into secular naturalism?
Expelled; No Intelligence Allowed is simply asking that question.”
Uh, are you sure that’s the question it’s asking? My understanding is that it claims there is valid scientific evidence, using the standard scientific method, to support the existence of an “intelligent designer”, and that this evidence is being suppressed for ideological reasons by an atheistic conspiracy. Please correct me if I’m wrong. That’s not quite the same thing as what you’re saying. What you’r saying is that the scientific method itself is antithetical to the religious world view (the fundamentalist version, anyway) that all knowledge ultimately comes from divine revelation. With that, I couldn’t agree more.
Christians aren’t being forced to be indoctrinated into anything. Our society has decided, rightly I think, that a scientific education is something of value to be imparted to every citizen. And there are certain rules and procedures that must be followed in order for science to be science. A scientific education requires presenting the facts and theories as they are best understood at the moment. And if people feel those facts contradict their religious beliefs, frankly that’s their problem.
It was once considered blasphemous, to the point of deserving execution, to believe the earth rotated around the sun, or that matter was composed of atoms. Religion’s track record on defining “truth” is not too enviable.
Correction to above: The earth revolves around the sun, not “rotates.”
“Do you think a Fundamentalist is less offended at being forced to listen to satements of faith, such as the Big Bang theory”
Hey there! I want to clear up a little misconception for you here. The Big Bang is both a theory and a fact. Just like gravity and evolution.
The “fact” is the observable parts of the big bang. For example, we observe things like the Cosmic Microwave Background (the static on your tv!) and the expansion of space in all directions, and then we build a theory that explains all the evidence. So, Big Bang Theory is our best explanation for the Big Bang evidence we have. As more evidence comes in we adjust the theory to completely explain the evidence. NASA actually just completed the WMAP survey which gave us the most accurate age of the universe yet: 13.73 billion years. How’s that for old???
That is a world away from having faith in supernatural events written in a book by man several thousand years ago. A scientific theory is only as good as the evidence that supports it.
Same thing is true of Evolution. We have the “facts” of evolution, such as genetic records, fossil records, and direct observation of species. And then we have the current Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection, which explains those facts. As more evidence comes in we refine the theory to explain the facts. If something in the theory is wrong or doesn’t fit the evidence we rework the theory to fit the evidence.
It’s this ability to change out minds based on more evidence that makes science so much more powerful than faith. I’ve always found it funny how people of faith revel in revelation; in discovery… but when in fact, the greatest revelations of our time are coming from science! We’re in the thick of it right now and some don’t even realize! We’re uncovering the mystery of the infinitely small, and peering back in time through telescopes that can nearly touch creation! This is the most wonderful time of discovery to be alive in all of human history, but a large majority of people in the world just sit there reciting verses from books written by men in the desert thousands of years ago. It makes me sad that more people don’t appreciate and understand the giant leaps humankind is taking right now! We need to shed the skins of our past and plow bravely into this new and exciting world that’s just waiting to be understood! Cheers!
I hope all the creationists here realize what they are doing: The claim of “Expelled” is that proponents of creationism/ID are just pursuing scientific investigations, unemcumbered by any ideological preconceptions, and that it is the supporters of evolution who are suppressing and ignoring evidence that contradicts their (a)religious beliefs. The admissions made on this board, not to mention “respected” creationists sites like AiG, only serve to prove that just the opposite is true, and that the entire premise of “Expelled” is a lie.
Simple Question: If the account in Genesis One is a literal 6 day creation in six 24 hour days - then where did the asteroid craters come from? The yukatan peninsula has a deep impact crater that can only be created by a deep impact which would have destroyed life on earth — the earth must be over 10,000 years old! The fundementalist/evangelical interpretations must be incorrect. Also please note - that not all early church fathers believed the Genesis One account was a literal day by day account.