Eric D. Snider
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (documentary)
Movie Review
"Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (documentary)"
Review by Eric D. Snider
Grade: D+
Rating: PG
Released: Friday, April 18, 2008
Directed by:
Cast:
"Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" is crap, but it's well-produced crap. I'll give it that. It leads the choir gently by the hand and entertains it with snarky humor before settling in to preach to it.
I don't say the film is crap because I disagree with it. I say it's crap because it disagrees with itself. It teems with contradictions, false dichotomies, and specious reasoning. It has Ben Stein saying "I know that Darwinism doesn't automatically lead to Nazism" right after spending 10 minutes very strenuously implying that it does. It has a scientist saying there's no inherent conflict between Darwinism and belief in God, or else all scientists would be atheists -- and then takes several minutes to show that belief in evolution leads directly to atheism, thus negating that professor's statement.
I could go on and on. In fact, I will.
The documentary's central thesis is that there is a figurative wall in the scientific community that prevents scientists from even suggesting that Intelligent Design might possibly be a factor in the origin of life on Earth. (Later, this figurative wall is compared to the Berlin Wall, no joke.) Ben Stein, the former Nixon speechwriter, "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" teacher, and game show host, is our on-camera guide, talking to several scientists who have been pressured to resign or openly fired -- essentially blacklisted -- for daring to suggest such a thing.
The reason, the film says, is a misunderstanding. Many scientists equate Intelligent Design with Creationism, when the two are not the same thing. Creationism is essentially the belief that the Genesis account of how the world came to be is a true record of how it happened -- and yeah, there's not much a scientist can do with that. But Intelligent Design merely says that certain things about life on Earth are best explained by something supernatural. It does not necessarily specify that the Judeo-Christian God did it, only that it was some force beyond the normal scope of human knowledge.
So consider this. There is no scientific consensus on how, exactly, the first life on Earth came to be. We know there were elements and proteins and primordial soup, and that somehow, a single-celled living organism emerged from that. There are theories on what sparked it, some more fervently held than others, but nothing conclusive.
That's where the wall comes up. The party line is that we'll keep experimenting and researching and testing until we come up with a definitive answer. That's the usual scientific process. But some scientists say, "Well, on that part where we don't know what happened ... maybe it was Intelligent Design? Some kind of creative force or something? Maybe?" And that's when, according to the film, the blacklisting and name-calling begins.
I agree that it's unfair to malign a scientist simply for offering a place-holder answer to a currently unsolvable mystery. If you said, "I believe it was Intelligent Design that launched life, so we can stop researching now!," then I suppose that's a problem. That's not very scientific. But if all you're doing is suggesting the possibility, well, why not? Science can't prove the existence of God, but it can't disprove it, either. Why not offer this as one possible solution until we find a definitive one?
On the other hand, the religious explanation isn't much better. Even if you believe that God (or Someone) provided the initial spark that led to life on Earth, well, where did God come from? "He was just always there" isn't very satisfying, is it? Scientists and religious practitioners both ultimately reach the same dead end, where you just have to say, "We don't know." The only difference is that scientists keep looking, while people of faith leave it at that.
My point is that there is no inherent conflict between science and a belief in God. Plenty of scientists are religious, and plenty of religious people accept the basic ideas of evolution. Most people of faith figure God will explain everything eventually, and in the meantime, don't sweat it. It's the extremists on both sides -- the narrow-minded scientists and the fundamentalist religionists -- who muddy the waters and create a conflict where there shouldn't be one.
Among those is famed atheist and scientist Richard Dawkins, who says in the film, "Evolution is a fact, and therefore God doesn't exist." That is an egregious misuse of the word "therefore," especially for a scientist. Evolution's factuality or falseness has nothing to do with the possibility of a higher power. It might contradict Genesis, but not the idea of God altogether. Yet the film takes Dawkins' statement and runs with it, as if his attitude is representative of Big Science as a whole. The message: If you believe in Darwinian evolution, then you can't believe in God. And if you start out believing in God, the more you study evolution, the more atheistic you'll become. Scientists who underwent such a shift personally are cited as cautionary tales. Beware of Darwinism! It will destroy your faith! (Of course, you have to wonder how strong someone's faith was to begin with if it's annihilated that easily.)
Ben Stein takes a surprisingly Michael Moore-ish attitude in his on-screen demeanor. Knowing that the comparatively small Discovery Institute in Seattle is at the root of the pro-Intelligent Design movement, he makes a point of wandering the streets pretending not to know where their headquarters are. "It must be this entire building," he muses, since surely a group that has caused SUCH a ruckus must be a HUGE organization! Elsewhere, he pretends to think that "Intelligent Design is just reheated Creationism," which he knows full well it isn't. Those cloying tactics are annoying when Michael Moore uses them, and they're no less grating coming from Stein.
But the film really turns to crap in its second half, when Stein and Co. take pains to point out that Hitler was a Darwinist. The concept of eugenics, of purifying the human race by killing the weaker members, goes along with Darwin's "natural selection" theories. So the Nazis were Darwinists. Well, guess what? The Crusaders were Christians. Murdering 6 million Jews is no more a natural extension of Darwinism than killing unconverted Muslims is a natural consequence of Christianity. Evil deeds have been committed in the name of just about every belief system. And if you really want to go down THAT road, Ben Stein, more people have been killed in the name of religion than in the name of Darwin or science. So how about we not go down that road, OK?
The film's director, Nathan Frankowski, and co-writers Kevin Miller and Walt Ruloff know the buttons to push for their audience, which they know will be mostly fundamentalist Christians and Creationists. Planned Parenthood, which passes out condoms (!) and helps women get abortions (!!), was partially founded by Margaret Sanger, who believed in eugenics! Of course, Planned Parenthood today has nothing to do with eugenics (or atheism, or science, or anything else related to this movie), but why not take the opportunity to increase the audience's outrage anyway?
I find two quotes in the film to be particularly telling, in an ironic way. Bruce Chapman, the head of the Discovery Institute says, "People who don't have a good argument are reduced to throwing sand in your eyes." Indeed.
Then there's Stein himself. While decrying how staunchly anti-Intelligent Design most scientists are, he says, "Rational discussion is a nice thought, but it's virtually impossible in the current environment." This film is evidence that the ID crowd has given up on rational discussion and decided to be guilty of everything they accuse the other side of. It's always nice when a movie reviews itself right in its title, and "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" does just that.
Grade: D+
Rated PG, some disturbing Holocaust-related images
1 hr., 40 min.
This item has 110 comments
April 22, 2008 at 5:32 am
Why not offer [intelligent design] as one possible solution until we find a definitive one?
The scientific method requires both falsifiability and testability, both of which any deity you care to mention as well as the supernatural and metaphysical in general are not. Considering any such theories to be science is fallacy, especially considering that there are already perfectly good fields that can contain them (i.e. theology and, to a somewhat lesser degree, philosophy).
That the anti-science creationists (and I see no meaningful distinction between them and IDers) aren't content with those two fields, and instead are attempting to redefine a third according to their own standards, tells you everything you need to know about their motivations. It certainly doesn't involve veracity.
And then there's this:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php
Synopsis: outspokenly anti-creationist professor is barred from entering an Expelled screening. Who's suppressing whom, now?
April 22, 2008 at 6:01 am
"So the Nazis were Darwinists"
Couple of points...
1.) There's no such thing as Darwinists or Darwinism.Evolution exists outside of Charles Darwin.
2.) Social Darwinism has nothing to do with Evolution. Natural selection and eugenics are contradictory.
3.) The Nazis were Christians. Adolf Hitler said that killing the Jews was doing God's work.
April 22, 2008 at 6:55 am
Perhaps I've failed to recognize a parody, but I can't help but respond to Strowbridge's supposed points. I hasten to add that I'm not a creationist, nor have I seen this film.
1- Yes, there is such a thing as Darwinism. It's the belief that evolution is driven exclusively by mutation and natural selection. One can believe in evolution and not be a Darwinist, though any contrary view of evolution is ill-defined at best, and probably reliant on the supernatural.
2- Natural selection and eugenics aren't contradictory. How you could come to this conclusion is beyond me. They are both types of selection, and they are based on the eminently reasonable and correct theory that if you don't allow certain traits to be reproduced they will become less common. That said, I seriously doubt that Darwin was necessary for eugenics, as even w/o a full-blooded evolutionary theory I suspect a few people noticed that offspring tend to resemble there parents.
3- No, Nazis weren't Christians, and to say otherwise is absurd slander. No doubt there were a few hopelessly confused individuals who tried to meld them, but the leadership and the bulk of the group as a whole were atheists. To the extent that religion was involved, they liked to draw upon Paganism, though that was for rhetorical purposes rather than a belief that these figures existed. Again, there are doubtless individual exceptions, but that was the overall trend.
April 22, 2008 at 7:21 am
No, Nazis weren't Christians, and to say otherwise is absurd slander. No doubt there were a few hopelessly confused individuals who tried to meld them, but the leadership and the bulk of the group as a whole were atheists. To the extent that religion was involved, they liked to draw upon Paganism, though that was for rhetorical purposes rather than a belief that these figures existed. Again, there are doubtless individual exceptions, but that was the overall trend.
By all appearances, the Nazis were Christians. Not good Christians, obviously, but their motivations were overtly religious.
Observe: http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes.htm
Please consider that if calling Nazis Christians is "absurd slander," then foisting that blame onto atheists is equally bad. Thank you.
April 22, 2008 at 8:45 am
"So consider this. There is no scientific consensus on how, exactly, the first life on Earth came to be. We know there were elements and proteins and primordial soup, and that somehow, a single-celled living organism emerged from that. There are theories on what sparked it, some more fervently held than others, but nothing conclusive."
How the heck do you KNOW what was here in the beginning? This is exactly what the Inteligent Design debate is about. Darwinism is the "truth" that most scientists must believe in to advance their funding and research without any debate on the amount of order in this world that just doesn't seem to occur by chance to me.
Nas
April 22, 2008 at 11:38 am
Nick-
"3- No, Nazis weren't christians... but the leadership and the bulk of the group as a whole were atheists"
From Talk Orgins:
The Nazi Party in general rejected Darwinism and supported Christianity.
In 1935, Die B?cherei, the official Nazi journal for lending libraries, published a list of guidelines of works to reject, including:
Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (H?ckel). (Die B?cherei 1935, 279)
On the other hand, an undated "Blacklist for Public Libraries and Commercial Lending Libraries" includes the following on a list of literature which "absolutely must be removed":
c) All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk. (Blacklist n.d.)
Also, Hitlers acceptance of christianity is well documented with many examples.
Again from talk orgins:
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord" (Hitler 1943, 65).
"[T]he task of preserving and advancing the highest humanity, given to this earth by the benevolence of the Almighty, seems a truly high mission (Hitler 1943, 398).
A campaign against the "godless movement" and an appeal for Catholic support were launched Wednesday by Chancellor Adolf Hitler's forces (Associated Press 1933).
The overall trend is undoubtably that Hitler rejected evolution and accepted christianity. This is not to say that christianity lead to the holocaust. As i think we all know, Hitler was a bad man, this i feel was the main cause.
April 22, 2008 at 12:38 pm
1. The only people who use the term "Darwinism" are creationists. Can you name even one self-described "Darwinist"? The theory of evolution includes multiple mechanisms in addition to mutation and natural selection.
2. Use of selective breeding was practiced long before Darwin was born. It was even mentioned in the Old Testament.
3. The belt buckles of those soldiers said "Gott Mit Uns". Not a motto for atheists or Pagans. How many times did Hitler reference the Christian God in his speeches? And did he ever mention Darwin, even once?
Also, the appropriate placeholder in science is "I don't know" not intelligent design (i.e. a miracle).
At the Dover trial, Judge Jones concluded that ID is, in fact, a form of creationism. You should read his decision.
April 22, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Here ya go, Nick.
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God?s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice? And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." ?Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
Now, you can still assert that the Nazis weren't Christians, or maybe you can back pedal to 'I meant, not ALL Nazis were Christian', but that belief was most definitely part of the cleansing strategy.
April 22, 2008 at 1:48 pm
"It has a scientist saying there's no inherent conflict between Darwinism and belief in God, or else all scientists would be atheists -- and then takes several minutes to show that belief in evolution leads directly to atheism, thus negating that professor's statement."
I don't think that this example shows contradiction in the show as much as it is meant to show contradiction in the scientific community. I have personally found more scientific people say belief in God (Christians/Muslims/etc) is just superstition and just keep that at home. It has no place among educated people, except as an emotional crutch, like the tooth fairy or Santa Claus.
The problem that most religious folk have with science is that it wants to reduce humans to nothing more than a pile of chemicals. Even at BYU, there are many people who will tell you there is no such thing as free will, despite it being a main tenant of the LDS faith. Everything you do is because of the chemicals in your head or the manner you were raised. There is no room for the idea of a soul. Even the idea of a "mind" existing is a subject of heated debate, mostly rejected today. You have a brain run by chemicals. You never really make a choice in life, you merely react to the way chemicals in your body make you, or you react to the way your environment affects the chemicals in your body.
This is quite offensive to many people the logical extension of these things are scary. If we are nothing more than a pile of chemicals, then there is no right and wrong, no good or bad. Hitler was only reacting the way the chemicals in his mind told him to react, and is not accountable for his actions. His followers did the same. Those who believe humans are a more noble creature capable of acting beyond self-interest merely have certain chemicals in their heads that act a certain way that cause them to believe this way.
The problem with natural science is it believes there is no difference between man and a rock, besides a few chemicals. Making a third science that accounts for free will, the mind, God, miracles, and natural science isn't such a bad idea. In psychology there exists Phenomenology which is trying to account for such things. However, they are treated with contempt, as natural science rejects anything that considers man different from a rock with contempt.
April 22, 2008 at 2:32 pm
And thus, Ben Stein proves that Godwin's Law applies to the real world as it does to the Internet.
April 22, 2008 at 2:59 pm
No, Nazis weren't Christians, and to say otherwise is absurd slander.
No, to deny the fact that many Nazis also practised Christianity is absurd.
April 22, 2008 at 3:14 pm
No, Nazis weren't Christians, and to say otherwise is absurd slander.
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter." Adolph hitler
April 22, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Nick: Eugenics and natural selection are contradictory. In the case of eugenics, one trait is artificially selected and favored. The whole concept of natural selection is that multiple traits are present and that the most favorable trait will 'win' because it is favored by the environment and the species. If you select for a specific trait and get rid of all other traits, you aren't allowing natural selection to occur and you probably aren't picking the trait nature would have favored.
April 22, 2008 at 3:25 pm
The problem that most religious folk have with science is that it wants to reduce humans to nothing more than a pile of chemicals.
Two problems there (ignoring the "most religious folk").
1) Strawman. What "science" wants is to understand the natural world and why it does the things it does, understanding gained through research and testing of ideas. Anything else can only be attributed to the individuals within the scientific community; applying suppositions on a larger scale commits the same error the movie does.
2) Is-ought problem. Even assuming that people are nothing more than "a pile of chemicals," that doesn't imply we should act that way, or that people can't be held accountable for their actions. There are shades of the naturalistic fallacy in there too, which is equally untenable. After all, humans are animals, and it's the nature of animals to take whatever they need, be it food, shelter, or females. Funny how there aren't too many (any?) behavioral scientists claiming that theft and rape aren't crimes, let alone assault and murder.
If we are nothing more than a pile of chemicals, then there is no right and wrong, no good or bad.
Quoth Richard Dawkins himself:
"...natural selection is a good object lesson in how NOT to organize a society. As I have often said before, as a scientist I am a passionate Darwinian. But as a citizen and a human being, I want to construct a society which is about as un-Darwinian as we can make it. I approve of looking after the poor (very un-Darwinian). I approve of universal medical care (very un-Darwinian)."?
The Nazis were Christians. Adolf Hitler said that killing the Jews was doing God's work.
Sure Hitler was Christian, in the same sense Stalin was Eastern Orthodox. Both considered the church another layer of control over their subjects, to be cast aside when it ceased to be useful (the same as pretty much everything else in the world). I'd call that an excellent lesson in why separation of church and state is so necessary, but little more.
? http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins
April 22, 2008 at 5:09 pm
I haven't seen Stein's film, (though I probably will at some point since I see most propoganda documentaries as great entertainment). It seems ironic to me, however, that you gave the tremendous intellectual dishonesty of "An Inconvenient Truth" a B+; but blasted "Expelled" for (apparently) committing similar errors. Maybe it's supposed to reflect some kind of difference in their respective entertainment values?
As for the overall premise of the film, Stein is dead on. I switched out of bio-chem as a major partly because of the uber-atheism of so many of my professors. Blind adherence to dogma is a flaw we are all prone to, but it spells intellectual death in the realms of scientific exploration, and I wanted no part in it.
April 22, 2008 at 6:34 pm
"1. The only people who use the term "Darwinism" are creationists. Can you name even one self-described "Darwinist"?"
Richard Dawkins?
"As I have often said before, as a scientist I am a passionate Darwinian."
^_~
(Okay, okay, "Darwinian" isn't "Darwinist," but work with me for the laugh.)
April 22, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Comment #13: "The whole concept of natural selection is that multiple traits are present and that the most favorable trait will 'win' because it is favored by the environment and the species."
It is interesting that many see a conflict between natural selection and creationism. Natural selection is a process that occurs. The debate is origins of species. Did we begin with "soup" and natural selection improved upon it? Or did we begin with "perfection" and natural selection pulled out breeds from it? Or. . . there are many options. Intelligent design seems to be an option that is often ruled out because of its connection with creationism and so religion.
Comment #1: "The scientific method requires both falsifiability and testability, both of which any deity you care to mention as well as the supernatural and metaphysical in general are not."
Evolution and Intelligent Design both have the same dilemma--the scientific method cannot be directly applied. Though we can see natural selection taking place today, we cannot see origins of species. Both are belief systems and are based upon a person's faith--hence religion.
Whether one favors creation, evolution, natural selection, Darwinism, or whatever label he or she chooses, it is important to keep an open mind and be careful that our box of understanding is not so small that we limit our options.
And though Stein's film may be flawed, I believe this is the point he is trying to make.
April 22, 2008 at 6:54 pm
"What "science" wants is to understand the natural world and why it does the things it does"
The problem with this idea is that natural science assumes that truth can only be found through the scientific method. A method which is not without critics, as it was founded on rational thought, not empiricist study. The scientific method used today must reject anything without empirical, measurable evidence. As such, metaphysical ideas such as right or wrong, love, hate, God, souls, mind, free will, etc. must be rejected as fancy and unscientific. Or such must be turned into an object, quantifiable idea. Imagine trying to quantify objectively how much you love your family using discriminate levels? There's something inherently flawed about that idea. We have to create artificial measures to make everything conform to natural sciences and reject anything that doesn't fit. That is pretty much the main argument against the scientific community as it stands.
"...natural selection is a good object lesson in how NOT to organize a society. As I have often said before, as a scientist I am a passionate Darwinian. But as a citizen and a human being, I want to construct a society which is about as un-Darwinian as we can make it. I approve of looking after the poor (very un-Darwinian). I approve of universal medical care (very un-Darwinian)."
There is hypocrisy here. Ontologically and epistemologically speaking, man either is a subject only to natural law and is determined by outside forces, or man is not. If man is the former, as natural science declares, then man cannot choose anything. Man can only react to stimulus. If man is the latter, capable of choice, then man transcends natural science. This is the inherent hypocrisy in the natural sciences, when applied to man. At least John Calvin and Thomas Hobbes were brave enough to admit that man merely reacted to external stimulus and had no free will. Dawkins contradicts himself.
Put simply, if man is a rock, then that's what he is. To assume man is better than a rock and can make choices that a rock cannot is to go to the metaphysical realm. Natural science unequivocally declares that there is no difference between a man and a rock, besides a more complicated chemical composition.
This debate is had by people more learned and skilled than us. I recommend reading "What's Behind the Research?: Discovering Hidden Assumptions in the Behavioral Sciences " by Brent D. Slife and Richard N. Williams &
"The Phiosophy of Psychology" by Daniel N. Robinson. Other books by those authors are also useful to this idea.
April 22, 2008 at 6:55 pm
All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:
From The book Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, _Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.
Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:
"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." (p 6 & 7)
10th October, 1941, midday:
"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." (p 43)
14th October, 1941, midday:
"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State." (p 49-52)
19th October, 1941, night:
"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."
21st October, 1941, midday:
"Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea." (p 63-65)
13th December, 1941, midnight:
"Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease." (p 118 & 119)
14th December, 1941, midday:
"Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics." (p 119 & 120)
9th April, 1942, dinner:
"There is something very unhealthy about Christianity" (p 339)
27th February, 1942, midday:
"It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)
April 22, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Though we can see natural selection taking place today, we cannot see origins of species.
See this: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html
"Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism (Shapiro et al. 2004)."
...and this: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
Hell, just skim the entire site, or at least the index of creationist claims.
The problem with this idea is that natural science assumes that truth can only be found through the scientific method.
Correction: scientific truth can only be found through the scientific method. Religion is not, nor should it claim to be, scientific. Call it an extension of Gould's non-overlapping magisteria.
A method which is not without critics, as it was founded on rational thought, not empiricist study.
I honestly don't know whether to call that semantics or a Freudian slip.
We have to create artificial measures to make everything conform to natural sciences and reject anything that doesn't fit.
Again, you're assuming some sort of scientific takeover where none exists. Biology, psychology, philosophy, and theology are separate schools of thought for a reason.
There is hypocrisy here...
Again with the is-ought fallacy.
April 22, 2008 at 7:32 pm
"We know there were elements and proteins and primordial soup, and that somehow, a single-celled living organism emerged from that."
I'm curious how we "know" this. Because you saw it on the History channel. Or read it in you 1970's 7th grade science book.
April 22, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Wow, this is the best comments I've read!!!
You guys are stuffed with intelligence.
I still believe in the Spaghetti Monster, though. ARRGH!!!
:-)
April 22, 2008 at 7:48 pm
I saw the movie Sunday night with some other folks and the general feeling was that the movie is warranted, the reason being: this is not just a scientific issue; it is a philosophical issue.
In his book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins (interviewed in the movie), like Snider, tries to compare the Crusades with Nazism. The Crusades are a stain on Christendom, and that cannot be denied. But to suggest that more people "have been killed in the name of religion" is not only historically wrong, it misses the point that Stein makes in the movie. In an interview with Ben Stein, David Berlowitz (can't remember exact name and spelling) makes the comment--rough quote--that "Darwinism was not a necessary commitment of the Nazi worldview, but it was an essential one." What he means by this is not that Darwinism necessarily led to Nazism, but that it essentially propped it up, which brings me to the bone of contention that I have with the stereotypes hurled against all religions without due consideration of history: it is absurd to say that more people have been killed in the name of religion than have simply lost their lives in the twentieth century alone under "Godless" political regimes. There were not simply 6 million Jewish people killed under Nazism (as if this were not bad enough), and for the record, Hitler was not a Christian (Jesus said you'll know them by their fruits), but millions and millions killed under communism. And it just so happens that Darwin's ideas were conviently used by both Marx and Hitler in the propagation of their idealogies. This illustrates Berlowitz's point, and it is undeniable if one reads Marx and Hitler.
One of the challenges of ID posed to Darwinism is that it is an unguided and essentially "Godless" explanation for the cosmos. What is so wrong with challenging this? It seems implicit, if not explicit, that IF God created the world, his fingerprint should be there. This is exactly the thing that Darwinism, controlled and propagated by the powers that be, has not, for the most part, permitted.
As I left the movie, I felt affirmed in my spirit, because, I get tired of the marginalization of the religious worldview. It is the height of arrogance, on the one hand, to suggest that a worldview cannot be employed at all since it is presuppositional. But, on the other hand, a religious worldview is no more presuppositional than functional atheism (often at work in much science today). This, BTW, is another relevant point made in the movie: it is misguided to assume that worldviews are not part of the matrix of interpretation; they clearly are. There is a double standard at work, and this is extemely hypocritical. I don't know--because I'm not a scientist--if ID is good science or not, though some who are qualified say that it should AT LEAST be considered (another point of the movie), but I do see the obvious philosophical inconsistencies.
One of the problems that the scientific enterprise cannot address is/are the prescriptive "why" question(s). While science can tell us to no end (in theory) how things work, it can describe them in meticulous detail and bring about wonderful discoveries for the betterment or destruction of the world, it cannot give a fully orbed explanation to the all important "why" questions. Why am I here? Why should life be valued? Why should I be full of hope? These are metaphysical questions that must first be answered philosophically, and dare I say it, biblically.
Science, by itself, will never have these answers. As such, it needs to see its own philophical tendencies and limitations rooted in scientism, and admit, humbly admit, that it is not qualified to even answer such questions. It oversteps its bounds when it attempts to do so. This is exactly why Dawkins and others are flustered in the movie when asked why we are ultimately here (two bizarre postulated answers: we come on the backs of crystals and the cosmos was impregnated by aliens). Wow! No wonder Ben Stein is baffled at the overly authoritarian attempts to exclude ID.
April 22, 2008 at 8:10 pm
I think its important to correct the false assertion that ID (as the discovery institute's creation, not the older references of the term) isn't creationism. The origin of ID follows the Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) case in which Creationism was found to violate the separation of church and state, thus dooming creationism to be taught in public schools.
Following this court decision, the creationist text book 'Biology and Creation' was heavily changed in drafts. Over one hundred uses of the root word "creation", such as "creationism" and "creation science", were changed, almost without exception, to intelligent design. The new draft was renamed 'Of Pandas and People' (published in 1989) and became a centerstage item in the Dover trials, after having been given to the school district as a donation bought by funds raised by a local church.
In the 'Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District' case (2005) a Bush-appointed, church-going judge John E. Jones III stated "we conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child".
So while you can say that ID is not the same thing as creationism, you'd be wrong to assume the most common usage of the term ID isn't.
ID also serves no function in scientific discourse, as it does not predict anything, provide any evidence, nor is it falsifiable. Science is a process more then a subject, but scientific understanding itself needs not to name every aspect that is not understood. Intelligent design as a term would be extraneous, as it already is defined under Abiogenesis. When placeholders are used, its terms like 'Dark Energy' not theologically loaded terms like Intelligent Design.
April 22, 2008 at 10:06 pm
"There is hypocrisy here...
Again with the is-ought fallacy."
Let me put it this way: Saying that man is a rock and ought to act differently than a rock is like saying a rock ought to choose to act differently than a rock. See the hypocrisy? See how ludicrous the statement is?
I can re-write Richard Dawkins quote to show you how silly his statement is:
"...[inanimate rocks are] a good object lesson in how NOT to organize a society. As I have often said before, as a scientist I am a passionate [natural scientist]. But as an [inanimate rock], I want to construct a society which is about as [non-conforming to natural law] as we can make it. I approve of [rocks] taking after the poor (very un-[natural scientific]). I approve of [rocks choosing to provide] universal medical care (very un-scientific)."
Choice, or free will, is not scientific. It contradicts natural law. To say people are natural objects like rocks and then ask they act non-naturally is a contradiction.
April 22, 2008 at 10:20 pm
I've been hearing about this movie for months now. Thanks for the review, Eric, I was waiting for your review of it specifically. I wish you had mentioned the upcoming lawsuit, where Stein is being sued by Yoko Ono for using "Imagine" in the film without her permission. That alone provides a lot of comedy fodder, not even touching on the film itself yet.
April 22, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Let me put it this way: Saying that man is a rock and ought to act differently than a rock is like saying a rock ought to choose to act differently than a rock. See the hypocrisy? See how ludicrous the statement is?
Oh, it's ludicrous, just not for the reason you think.
I cannot think of anyone (less you) who has ever told me that every aspect of a being (human or otherwise) is entirely immutable. Certainly...oh, the entirety of psychology disagrees. If a personality could never change, there'd be no parenting, no prisoner reform, and no animal domestication (unless said animal just happened to automatically do something useful to us). I suspect religion would never have existed outside of simple tribalism. Certainly, Christianity would be pointless, focusing as it does on altering a person's nature.
Yes, "ludicrous" is entirely apt.
Choice, or free will, is not scientific.
That the "nature vs. nurture" debate exists at all is proof to the contrary.
To say people are natural objects like rocks and then ask they act non-naturally is a contradiction.
I say this as a declarative statement, not an ad hominem: you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
April 22, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Eric:
I'm curious how we "know" this. Because you saw it on the History channel. Or read it in you 1970's 7th grade science book.
Unfortunately not everyone on the internet is an evolutionary biologist specializing in abiogenesis and the conditions of early earth. As such not everyone on the internet is as familiar with the primary literature as I'm sure you must be.
As such many of us do gain knowledge from text books (it's how they teach people in universities, don't you know?). As long as these textbooks have verifiable sources back to primary literature they are no less valid.
Earth's early atmosphere - JF Kaskin (1993) is a good place to start for a summary of the various gaseous conditions, specifics on evidence for indivdual gasses can be garnered from the articles referencing this one.
Is real research good enough? Or do you require a first hand account?
April 22, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Apologies, name error in the last post, must make sure JF Kasting gets his deserved recognition
April 23, 2008 at 12:20 am
Actually instead of the Yoko Ono lawsuit I wish Eric would have mentioned this (from the Skeptic's Dictionary Newsletter Vol. 7, No. 4, April 6, 2008):
"Stein and producer Mark Mathis apparently think they are doing God's work by lying and trying to deceive us about the content of their film and about the way in which they produced it. They lied to several people that they were doing a documentary on science and religion called "Crossroads." Those on record as having been lied to are Richard Dawkins, PZ Meyers, Allen MacNeill, and Eugenie Scott. The Expelled folks used a shell company to produce the film and owned the domain name expelledthemovie.com months before interviewing real scientists whom they planned to make look foolish by systematic editing."
Or this (from the same above-mentioned source):
"[Mark Mathis'] people set up a screening of Expelled at the Mall of America in Minneapolis and used the Internet to have people sign up to attend. Those who signed up could bring several guests. Evolution blogger PZ Myers signed up and said he'd bring four friends. When he got there he signed in and he and his friends showed IDs. Mathis sent a security guard to remove Myers. Yes, the guy who made a movie claiming his fellow Christians are being expelled from academia and denied their right to free speech expelled Myers from the theater even though Myers was in the movie and is acknowledged in the credits. Myers's guests were allowed in, however. After the showing, Mathis took questions. One of Myers's guests asked why Myers was expelled. The guest was Richard Dawkins who was in town to speak at an atheist gathering. Mathis told Dawkins that the show was by invitation only (which was not true) and that Myers wasn't invited (which was true because nobody had been invited). Dawkins thinks he got in because Myers's name was on a list of those who signed up on the Internet. Guests' names were not on any list and neither Mathis nor his goons recognized Dawkins, who had shown his British passport as identification. Mathis now claims that Dawkins "crashed" the showing.
April 23, 2008 at 12:35 am
"That the "nature vs. nurture" debate exists at all is proof to the contrary."
Neither nature nor nurture account for free will. When you ask why someone did something, nature vs nurture only asks: Did he do it because his biology made him do it, or did he do it because external forces caused him to do it? Free will is nowhere in the equation. Never does someone ask if he chose to do it. They ask which external force outside of the subject's control caused him to do it. Even Freud's subconscious ideas ignore free will, as the subject is acting without choosing the action.
The fact that you don't know this tells me you have a poor understanding of the fundamentals of psychology or philosophy. As my social psychology professor declared: "We assume determinism in social psychology." As my neurology professor said, "There is no such thing as free will. We can manipulate the chemicals in your body and that's what makes you do things." As B. F. Skinner said "Give me a child and I'll shape him into anything." Social psych and behaviorism believe nurture is the deciding factor in all things. They assume determinism, not free will. Neuroscience believes nature trumps all, and they also reject free will.
The idea that people can change does not assume free will. A rock falling down a hill changes position and shape. Someone throwing a rock causes it to hit someone, which can change the rock. I can strike a rock and sculpt it. The rock changed, but there is no free will involved. By the same token, psychology believes you can manipulate someone's nature or environment and cause them to change. Nowhere is free will ever discussed. Unless you study Jungian psychology, or phenomenology, both of which reject the reductionism of the natural sciences and are mocked for doing so.
April 23, 2008 at 2:28 am
"So consider this. There is no scientific consensus on how, exactly, the first life on Earth came to be. We know there were elements and proteins and primordial soup, and that somehow, a single-celled living organism emerged from that. There are theories on what sparked it, some more fervently held than others, but nothing conclusive."
No, we don't know this. This is exactly what is being contested, and not just on religious grounds but on scientific grounds. An almost universally accepted scientific principle is that all things that had a beginning had a cause. Either you believe that matter existed eternally without a cause (which fewer and fewer scientists are able to believe), or you believe this scientific law was bypassed (which is unscientific and arbitrary), or you believe in a Creator who existed eternally without a cause (which many scientists refuse to believe on philosophical rather than scientific grounds.)
Another important foundation of the I.D. position is the scientifically valid tenet that information only comes from information. Even the simplest one-celled living organism cited by the reviewer contains highly organized information. I.D.'ers are not inserting religion into the gaps in scientific knowledge. They are simply trying to be true to the scientific laws that are already firmly established.
"And if you really want to go down THAT road, Ben Stein, more people have been killed in the name of religion than in the name of Darwin or science. So how about we not go down that road, OK?"
This is an extremely common error. It's forgiveable that the reviewer has not gone to the trouble of calculating how many people have been killed in the name of religion. How many of us have? Some people have calculated the number, however, using population studies and records of wars through history. I don't have the numbers at my fingertips but I do remember noting that the number of people killed in the name of religion is a tiny fraction of the number killed through atheistic regimes such as those of Stalin and present communist China.
Granted, atheism may not be necessary to Darwinism, but Darwinism is definately necessary to atheism and provides the evil minority with logical justification for many inhuman atrocities. For example, one of the killers at Columbine was fond of wearing a T-shirt with the slogan, "Survival of the Fittest"?
April 23, 2008 at 4:55 am
Being killed by atheists is not the same thing as being killed *in the name of* atheism.
April 23, 2008 at 5:18 am
Wow. I'm glad that the comments have decided to focus on the two sentence mention of Nazis as opposed to how the article pointed out what an awful movie this was.
That said, I'd like to make a few points.
The Nazi party, while probably made up mostly of Christians, and certainly occasionally using twisted Christian theology to justify their actions, should not be taken as a good representation of Christianity, any more than Loud Obbs should be considered a good representation of Republicans.
It doesn't matter if you're a believer in Intelligent Design or not, associating your opponents with Hitler is a low blow.
This movie obviously took the FOX News approach to fair and balanced.
I don't think Eric was trying to come down on either side of the Intelligent Design/Darwinism fence. In fact, I believe he maintains that there is no such fence ("My point is that there is no inherent conflict between science and a belief in God." etc.) He does, however, appear to be firmly in support of the "this movie is a load of bullocks" party.
I can do this too!
April 23, 2008 at 6:09 am
John Doe:
You seem to be really upset about the potential ramifications of a purely deterministic universe. Surely you realize the negative implications of a concept do not constitute evidence against the the validity of the concept.
There is nothing hypocritical about having the opinion that the Universe is most likely deterministic and, at the same time, believing that we should behave as if it isn't. Heck, if it really is deterministic, you don't have any choice but to behave as if it isn't. :)
The fact of the matter is that even if every single movement of every single atom could be determined if one could know the initial state of the universe and factor in all the variables, the world still *appears* to allow for something that seems pretty much like free will. The number of variables involved is so astronomically huge that, from our perspective, we may as well continue to treat it the way that we perceive it - as a world where we can make meaningful choices.
Also, given how many people actually do believe in a deterministic universe, but continue to raise families, go grocery shopping, play racquetball, and not kill puppies, it seems like being some sort of amoral monster is not a necessary response to that philosophy, though I suppose it would kind of screw up a number of religious ideas, like eternal reward/punishment based on accountability.
April 23, 2008 at 6:19 am
Dangit Allister, you left your bold tag open!
Hopefully that fixed it.
April 23, 2008 at 9:04 am
I like arguments like this because blanket statements keep me warm at night.
April 23, 2008 at 9:07 am
Waaaait a minute - leaving a bold tag open on some forums bolds future comments? Excuse me while I unleash a webwide world of havoc.
April 23, 2008 at 10:30 am
Tom Williams:
No, we don't know this. This is exactly what is being contested, and not just on religious grounds but on scientific grounds. An almost universally accepted scientific principle is that all things that had a beginning had a cause. Either you believe that matter existed eternally without a cause (which fewer and fewer scientists are able to believe), or you believe this scientific law was bypassed (which is unscientific and arbitrary), or you believe in a Creator who existed eternally without a cause (which many scientists refuse to believe on philosophical rather than scientific grounds.)
We do know this, at least to a degree, see my above post for some literature on the subject. However, this is not the point of my post. You seem unfortunately to be confusing Abiogenesis and Evolution (wiki if you need to). Abiogenesis is an unknown, scientists admit this. Evolution however is an observable reality.
Next, the argument from first cause has it's counterarguments that i won't express here, however this too is irrelevant to evolution and ID and thus to this film. Evolution deals solely with organisms that already exist and the forces that act on them to produce new organisms. No "creation" involved. The matter is already there before evolution kicks in.
Another important foundation of the I.D. position is the scientifically valid tenet that information only comes from information. Even the simplest one-celled living organism cited by the reviewer contains highly organized information. I.D.'ers are not inserting religion into the gaps in scientific knowledge. They are simply trying to be true to the scientific laws that are already firmly established.
Information is a poorly designed and not very useful concept in biology. Most often it is used to mean complexity and organization and as "organized information" is what you address it is what i shall speak on. Complex organization can be found in many structures. Snow flakes and particularly crystals have incredibly complex structures organized in a regular matter. However, nobody would seek to promote a view that God (or aliens, we're not really religious at all, promise) made snowflakes. Information provides an appearance of design, certainly not evidence of it.
April 23, 2008 at 4:35 pm
MattP:
Thank you for illustrating the hypocrisy of natural scientists. I'm not saying a deterministic world is good or bad. I have no problem embracing a completely deterministic world. However, the contradiction inherent among natural scientists is what I'm unhappy with. On one hand, they will tell you that there is no free will, God and religion is superstition and should have no place in intelligent discussion (which is one of the points of the movie from my understanding), and then fully embrace metaphysical ideas that they agree with. It is hypocrisy to declare that the metaphysical ideas you like should be followed, while everyone should renounce metaphysical ideas they don't agree with. They use science to tell religious folks they are superstitious, but they ignore science when they refer to their own metaphysical ideals. It is one or the other. Either man is a rock and only empirical science should matter and all metaphysical ideas should be followed by the caveat "this is my personal superstition" or all metaphysical ideas should be treated equally.
As I said before, this debate is had by people more intelligent than us. Refer to the books I referenced earlier because they are more qualified to explain it than I, and they are real scholars, as opposed to anonymous guys on the internet.
April 23, 2008 at 4:52 pm
John:
When you refer to the "metaphysical ideas" of scientists, which specific beliefs are you referring to? Are you referring to hypothesis (hypothesii?) and theories?
Wikipedia explains that a theory:
*is tentative, correctable and dynamic, in allowing for changes to be made as new data are discovered, rather than asserting certainty, and
* is the most parsimonious explanation, sparing in proposed entities or explanations, commonly referred to as passing the Occam's razor test.
Thus, "intelligent design" is not a theory because it doesn't solve the problem of where the "intelligent designers" came from. It just adds a step and puts us back at square one. You're right that this doesn't necessarily rule it out. I think scientists reject intelligent design because so much of it is merely a philosophical backdoor to creationism which they oppose.
In a nutshell, evolution has real-world verifiable proofs to it (micro-evolution), and the macro-evolution side of things is an inference based on small trends multiplied over a period. Intelligent design is a theory as well, but relies on assumptions and, no offense, wishful thinking that make scientists uncomfortable. Making @#$! up is an alternative to science, and the fact that the @#$! is unprovable and by extension can't be disproven doesn't make it right or wrong. On the other hand, I'm a proud Creationist myself, with highly personal reasons and experiences behind my belief that I value as highly as any objective study.
I think my debate degree has fast become useless in five years, but I hope I made some sort of sense here.
April 23, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Let me see if I can sum up the comments on this board:
1. The Nazis were bad atheists and worse Christians.
2. Some people believe in Intelligent Design and some people don't.
3. Every person is absolutely positive that he or she is right and people who disagree are . . . well, stupid.
I will now offer my point of view:
1. The Nazis were bad. I learned this from Hogan's Heroes and Indiana Jones.
2. People will never agree on the whole ID/Creationsim/Science thing.
3. Anyone who is not me is probably at least a little stupid.
April 23, 2008 at 6:10 pm
However, the contradiction inherent among natural scientists is what I'm unhappy with. On one hand, they will tell you that there is no free will, God and religion is superstition and should have no place in intelligent discussion (which is one of the points of the movie from my understanding), and then fully embrace metaphysical ideas that they agree with.
What scientists say is that metaphysical ideas do not have any place in the work of science, which is a study of the physical world. They don't say that only *their* metaphysical ideas should have a place at the table. For instance, a neuroscientists' personal opinions on the existence of free will should not influence their research into the mechanisms employed in the brain during decision making. We're a long way from having a comprehensive understanding of the brain, so it's way too premature for such opinions to even matter when it comes to the hard science.
Scientists don't care whether you embrace their personal philosophies or not, they just ask you to do good science - Create a hypothesis based on observations, perform experiments which could falsify the hypothesis, modify the hypothesis based on the results of the experiments, retest to confirm the new hypothesis, then subject this new theory to critical peer review. It's hard work, so they understandably object when a politically-motivated group tries to skip all the work and go straight into high school science classrooms through lobbying of state legislators and local school board members who have no science background.
I know this gets beat to death, but ID is just not a scientific idea. They sort of have a hypothesis, but they have no experiments, no peer review - nothing. The Templeton foundation offered to fund grants into ID and no one from the ID camp even applied for these grants. They couldn't even come up with scientific program worthy of a grant proposal. This foundation is immensely pro-religion, and their whole purpose for existing is to fund research on the intersection of science and religion and even they have concluded that there's nothing to ID as a science at this time and are no longer offering to fund ID research. When pseudo-scientific ID papers were scoffed at by mainstream scientists, they produced their own journal in which a review board composed of sympathetic ID supporters. After publishing a handful of papers that have already been thoroughly refuted, they ceased publication. I think it's been two years since their last issue. Even the poor attempts at something that sort of looked like science have stopped. Several of the big names of ID now largely make a living publishing popular books (and movies!) and lecturing at churches about their persecution.
Science is not afraid of new ideas, but when your new ideas are dramatically at odds with well-supported theories, it's not unreasonable to expect a "put up or shut up" response from the establishment. If you can actually demonstrate that your theory is superior and completely overturns the status quo, that doesn't get you expelled, it gets you a Nobel Prize! As it stands, ID is not even a theory.
April 23, 2008 at 8:11 pm
microevolution implies macroevolution. (Shapiro et al. 2004)."
Thanks for the laugh... Scientist make that jump because they can't prove macroevolution. It's their very own version of religion and makes as much sense as saying "Our existence implies the existence of Diety"
April 23, 2008 at 9:01 pm
notJoeKing:
Thanks for the laugh... Scientist make that jump because they can't prove macroevolution. It's their very own version of religion and makes as much sense as saying "Our existence implies the existence of Diety"
1st, i take it you didn't read the paper? Just laughed at the title? Wow, an informed opinion you have.
Microevolution does indeed imply microevolution. Microevolutionary changes will over time logically add up to a large change. Or is there some maximum amount of microevolution that occurs? Stopping just before it meets your arbitrary "macro" limit? If so i would be fascinated to read your discovery.
More importantly it is somewhat irrelevant as to whether microevolution implies macroevolution. This is because macroevolution can be directly observed.
Macroevolution is defined as the evolution at or above the species level. Thus one species becoming another is macroevolution. Speciation events are very well documented in the literature. As a single example the london underground mosquito works well.
April 23, 2008 at 9:08 pm
"Thanks for the laugh... Scientist make that jump because they can't prove macroevolution. "
Maybe this works better if you give the full quote:
"And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism (Shapiro et al. 2004)."
The point being that, as commonly used, microevolution is nothing more than a snapshot of macroevolution in action. Given our puny human lifespans, that's all we get to see directly.
The attempt to divide evolutionary process into "micro" and "macro" is a recognition that it's really hard to disprove that evolution is observable, since people tend to drop dead on a regular basis because of its effects. So, we need to segregate the observable, fatally palpable evolution into its own little pocket. Now we can attack evolution by saying "no one can prove macroevolution", which is nothing more than argument from personal incredulity, since there is a ton of evidence documenting evolution in the large as well as in the small.
April 23, 2008 at 9:20 pm
microevolution implies macroevolution. (Shapiro et al. 2004)."
Thanks for the laugh... Scientist make that jump because they can't prove macroevolution. It's their very own version of religion and makes as much sense as saying "Our existence implies the existence of Diety"
Of course there is significantly more evidence from which to infer macroevolution than an inference from microevolution. Note that there are no standard scientific definitions for "microevolution" and "macroevolution" - these terms are used more in anti-evolution arguments than in the publications of evolutionary biologists. Additionally, once you grant that microevolution, however you define it, is a demonstrable reality, then macroevolution, again however you define it, becomes a reasonable hypothesis upon which to base further research.
The inability to induce in the lab speciation on the level of, say, reptile-to-bird is not an indication of the failure of evolutionary theory any more than the inability to create a supernova in the lab is an indication of the failure of astronomical theory. It does, however, require that other lines of evidence be explored. Fortunately, there are several very convincing and well-studied sources.
The study of molecular phylogeny provides some of the most compelling evidence for common descent, though it's a very technical field that is difficult to succinctly explain to laypersons. The fossil record is also very good, though creationists are quick to make terse assertions like "there are no transitional fossils" which, again, take considerable effort and domain knowledge to refute effectively.
This the major problem faced by science advocates - their creationist/ID opponents rattle off strings of false or uninformed assertions, many of which seem, on their face, to be reasonable to those who do not understand the science. As soon as one claim has been answered, the creationist jumps to the next, and the next, never acknowledging the earlier answers or shrugging them off as insufficient without providing any substantive rebuttal to them. There's even a term for this, the "Gish Gallop", named after one particularly pernicious user of this "debate" technique.
I think you'll find that all of the arguments you've heard against evolution have already been answered in considerable detail and, if you approach a scientist in the appropriate field with remaining questions, that you'll find them quite willing to answer them. Scienceblogs.com is a good place to find working scientists that regularly blog on their fields of study. Of course these are human beings and have a variety of temperaments, but I've seen even the most "strident" of the atheists, P.Z. Meyers, politely respond point-by-point to questions or criticism of evolutionary theory from those who don't share his worldview. For instance, there's a great article explaining how species could have evolved with different numbers of chromosomes, posted just a day or two ago: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/basics_how_can_chromosome_numb.php
April 23, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Lol - Jacob, I think you summed it all up very nicely. While I do appreciate the overall level of intelligence demonstrated by the comments on this article, and the discussion is genuinely interesting overall, I pretty much have to agree with you on all points.
April 23, 2008 at 10:06 pm
3. Every person is absolutely positive that he or she is right and people who disagree are . . . well, stupid.
For what it's worth I'm not absolutely positive that I am right, though I'm reasonably confident of the fact, otherwise I would have changed my mind by now. :) Not having an opinion either way is also an option, of course, but I've spent enough time on this subject that I sort of feel obliged to have one.
Also, I don't think anyone here is stupid. I wouldn't bother trying to educate people if I felt they were incapable of learning. My assumption is that people, in general, are not stupid, though we all lack knowledge in areas where we haven't dedicated any serious study. There is no shame in that. I would just hope that people can acknowledge their own biases and try to "think around them" when approaching ideas which they disagree with. This is difficult to do, and I struggle with this myself, but I think it's a worthwhile effort.
April 23, 2008 at 10:36 pm
I just have to point out the contradiction in my previous statement before somebody else does. In one paragraph I said that ID is not a theory, and in the next I say that it is. I meant to say "hypothesis" in the second paragraph.
April 23, 2008 at 11:02 pm
"What scientists say is that metaphysical ideas do not have any place in the work of science, which is a study of the physical world."
Let me quote Daniel Dennett: "Scientists sometimes deceive themselves into thinking that philosophical ideas are only, at best, decorations or parasitic commentaries on the hard objective triumphs of science, and that they themselves are immune to the confusions that philosophers devote their lives to dissolving. But there is no such thing as philosophy free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on without examination."
Scientists do metaphysics ALL THE TIME. There is no such thing as science without metaphysics. That's why its hypocritical to tell people that their metaphysical ideas have no place in science, while they ignore the metaphysical assumptions they themselves unquestioningly embrace.
The natural sciences are laced with theological assumptions:
1) the processes of the natural world happen autonomously, independent of God.
2) the processes of the natural world can be studied autonomously, without reference to God.
These two assumptions have their roots in Deism, a particular theological position I strongly disagree with. I'm not going to argue against it here, but merely make the point that Deism is as much an unproven metaphysical/theological/cosmological position as an reference to contemporary divine intervention. You can't dismiss a cosmological position merely because it's theological, metaphysical, or philosophical, considering that the dismissal can only be made on theological or metaphysical grounds (the assumptions listed above).
I explain it better on my blog: thaynebrain.blogspot.com
April 24, 2008 at 12:01 am
1) the processes of the natural world happen autonomously, independent of God.
2) the processes of the natural world can be studied autonomously, without reference to God.
I think it's more appropriate, and illustrative, to compress these statements to "The processes of the natural world should be studied independent of considerations of the supernatural."
This is not an anti-God position. This is just an admission that the study of the natural world, from a purely natural perspective, has been fruitful and that introduction of supernatural concepts into otherwise scientific studies have frequently resulted in unnecessarily complex ideas at best, and just plain bad science at worst.
Science is a study of the natural world - the examination of the behavior of matter and energy, with different branches of science evaluating specific niches that involve particular assemblages of matter. To say that science insists that the processes of the natural world are independent of God is like a road paver saying that the process of concrete curing is independent of God. In the area of his expertise, the concept is not explicitly rejected, it just doesn't come up, regardless of his personal religious disposition. Taking a step back to the scientist who developed the cement compounds that make for the most durable roads, again he's only concerned with how the chemistry works and how to apply that knowledge to building better cement mixtures.
Where we run into trouble is when science investigates topics which have already been answered by religion such as how did we come to be what we are? The scientists again charge in, following effects to causes and following those causes to previous ones. They analyze the evidence, develop a hypothesis and perform tests to verify for falsify it. As the hypothesis stands up to testing a theory comes to exist. It's not perfect, but it's the best we've got. If you have an idea for how science can accommodate the supernatural while still being reproducible and predictive, I'd be interested in hearing it.
God isn't explicitly ruled out, He just isn't necessary for answering every one of these type of questions any more. We no longer believe that lightening bolts are an expression of a God's wrath, or that tornadoes are punishments for our sins, at least most of us anyway, but there are still areas where science concedes a present lack of knowledge.
You are free to give God credit for those gaps of knowledge, as many theistic scientists do, but just positing God whenever the answer is "I don't know" is not a scientific position. It's not testable, it provides no predictions, and it's not subject to objective analysis. It's not necessarily a wrong position, it's just not scientific.
April 24, 2008 at 12:32 am
I think it's more appropriate, and illustrative, to compress these statements to "The processes of the natural world should be studied independent of considerations of the supernatural."
My point: this is a theological/philosophical position. I'm not saying it's anti-God; I am only saying that it is a philosophical claim that the universe is composed in such a way that it can be studied without reference to God. This is a pre-empirical philosophical assumption made and defended on philosophical grounds.
You cannot dismiss alternative cosmological assumptions on a scientific basis, but on a philosophical one. Go ahead and dismiss them; that's fine. Just be aware that it's a philosophical claim, not an empirical one.
Gadamer is well known for making this claim. Richard Williams summarizes his point: “Methods do not establish truth. Rather, presuppositions about truth – and the nature of the world – influence, and, therefore, end up instantiated in methods. Thus at some level and to some degree, any methods will reflect back to those who employ them something of the presumed nature of truth and the world that influenced their creation and deployment”
again, a more detailed explanation is on my blog.
April 24, 2008 at 1:04 am
My point: this is a theological/philosophical position.
*shrug* I think it's just a practical position. Is it even possible to do science if you allow for supernatural influence? What does that look like? How do you create experiments for it?
Science studies that which can be studied. If it has a measurable effect in the natural world, science can measure it. Unless you posit a God that has no effect, science doesn't preclude God from study, though if a God phenomenon is ever observed by science, it may end up falling under some other moniker, like "quantum randomness."
You say that perhaps God used evolution as a tool, where the scientist simply states that evolution apparently occurred. Whether there was no God, or God set the universe in motion and let it go from there, or God guided every single mutation, all that science can say is that evolution happened. That is not a metaphysical or even philosophical position. However, stating that, absent supporting evidence, God's hand guided evolution clearly is.
Of course there are individual scientists that say evolution = no God, but you'll never find a scientific publication by even the most strident materialist atheist activist scientist that expresses that as a professional opinion because it is a conclusion only of their personal philosophy, and not a condition of the epistemology of science. Saying there is no God adds no more illumination to an otherwise perfectly sound theory than saying there is.
April 24, 2008 at 1:22 am
I have nothing further to add to the debate. Only wanted to say I don't see anyone here who has said anything really stupid, has acted immaturely, or resorted to ad hominem attacks. Except maybe the person who said we did. People can disagree without thinking those who disagree are stupid and I think this board is an example of that (so far).
April 24, 2008 at 5:25 am
John Doe, I might know you... link to my blog (earlier post) and say hi! we'll talk.
April 24, 2008 at 6:03 am
@Jeff:
"The natural sciences are laced with theological assumptions:
1) the processes of the natural world happen autonomously, independent of God.
2) the processes of the natural world can be studied autonomously, without reference to God."
You're using "theological" as a dirty word, attempting to color scientists as merely religionists of a different color. But you're using it incorrectly. Any dictionary defines theology as the study of God. Some make the religious connection even more explicit. As we do not yet have microscopes and telescopes that can see God, and probably never will, not a single one of the assumptions you mentioned is/can be theological in nature. That doesn't mean it's atheistic - it just means that we'll go ahead and do our own research, and those of us who believe in God will take what we feel He gave us. Otherwise we'd be paralyzed. If I transcribe all happenings directly to God, then why bother to invent anything? After all, if the Good Lord had wanted us to fly, we would have been born with wings.
Your Deist connection is also about as hilarious as atheists saying that the Abrahamic God came from monotheism, which evolved from the concept of patron deities, which came from polytheistic paganism, all the way back to one unusually-intelligent ape who tried to explain a meteor shower to his comrades. Colouring Christianity with paganism attempts to marginalize religion in general, and your attempt to associate the scientific method with Deism smacks of an uncle marginalizing his successful nephew by reminding him of his toilet training. I don't care how a philosophy started if it's practical. Most assumptions go back to some philosophy (you might want to go further back to Aristotle), which doesn't prove their veracity or falsehood.
I'll proudly do my part to achieve a smaller ratio of movie review to commentary if you're all still game.
April 24, 2008 at 2:44 pm
"You're using "theological" as a dirty word, attempting to color scientists as merely religionists of a different color."
I disagree with Jeff's use of the phrase "theological assumptions", but that's one of the problems with the internet. You want to be pity without a lot of jargon. I would say there are philosophical assumptions in empirical science as it stands today which cannot be neutral. Either there is a God or there isn't, and science must reject the existence of God. Most people do not understand the philosophical foundation of this idea. For example, there is the debate still going on today about ontology and epistemology. Are we dualists (is there something beyond matter) or are we monists (there is no difference between a man and a rock). Natural, empirical science today assumes man is a rock, without a mind (but with a brain), without a soul, and without free will. Science doesn't know where life came from, doesn't know where instinct comes from, and doesn't know where intelligence/consciousness came from. Are we born with ideas in our head? If so, what caused that? There was a time when science said everything was an instinct. It's not much better today since natural science must assume materialism, that we are what we are because it's somewhere in our brain. Science doesn't know where these parts of the brain are yet that give us these instincts, thoughts, or ideas yet, but by golly it's got enough faith that it's true that it puts religious fanatics to shame.
Circular reasoning is also a problem. "Mr. X has self-esteem issues. Why? Because he's sad. Why is he sad? Because he has self-esteem issues." "Religious folks have a 'religion center' in their brain that makes them religious. How do you know? Because they are religious, and everything we are is in our brain." Yes, science works hard to solve these problems, but it hasn't brought forth many answers in these areas.
However, we are on the internet. To disrespect someone's ideas and opinions because they aren't writing scholarly articles to defend their beliefs is hardly fair. The only thing we can do here is say "this is what I believe." To respond with "you're wrong and you better explain it better" or "let's debate" is silly. Just read the board here and see if the other person does have a point you can respect. Scholars of natural science, philosophy, psychology, and a host of other fields have debated similar ideas for years and have not found the truth of the matter. To believe that by belittling another's ideas on a movie review board somehow makes your position the superior one is childish at best. That's my opinion at least. Rather than try to have a scholarly debate about something we'll never agree on, see if you can respect the other person's perspective.
I believe in God and believe the natural sciences have shut out the metaphysical in an unfair manner. However, I respect the dilemma of trying to integrate the metaphysical because natural laws don't work as laws when there isn't a constant present. Psychology is considered a "pseudo-science" mostly because there are no universal laws for humans, unlike physics where you can apply laws and things work the way the laws say. That doesn't mean those who think we can integrate the metaphysical should be laughed at or scorned when they try to make it work. I don't have much opinion about ID as it currently stands, but I do believe the truth of the matter is that there is a God who created all things. I reject the idea that humans can be reduced to a pile of chemicals. I reject the idea of tabula rasa. I believe the natural and metaphysical can co-exist in science, there just needs to be more effort in the area. Maybe I'm wrong, and I'm not going to force anyone to teach ID or believe in God. Things as they stand aren't bad, but it could be better. You can mock or disagree, but this debate is not going to be won on a message board about a movie review. Either you can respect my thoughts and ideas, or you can't. That's all there is to.
April 24, 2008 at 3:44 pm
1st, i take it you didn't read the paper? Just laughed at the title? Wow, an informed opinion you have.
Microevolution does indeed imply microevolution. Microevolutionary changes will over time logically add up to a large change. Or is there some maximum amount of microevolution that occurs? Stopping just before it meets your arbitrary "macro" limit? If so i would be fascinated to read your discovery.
More importantly it is somewhat irrelevant as to whether microevolution implies macroevolution. This is because macroevolution can be directly observed.
Macroevolution is defined as the evolution at or above the species level. Thus one species becoming another is macroevolution. Speciation events are very well documented in the literature. As a single example the london underground mosquito works well.
I did read the website you keep linking to as "proof" and its just about as intelligent as using LDS.org to prove that the Book of Mormon is true.
Of course there are variations in the species but the most that any scientist could ever do regarding the past is absurd and far from prove. That's the whole point, they can guess and even test their guesses but that doesn't equal proof. The London Underground Mosquito? What a joke. That's like saying humans are proof of evolution because we are thought to have decended from chimps. The hilareous thing will be when alien scientists 1000 years in the future find the skeleton of a European, an Asian, and an Afican in the same reagion and deduce that they are links in the Evolutionary chain that have evolved into each other... or better yet, when they find the skeleton of someone with elephantitis and add them in as just another step in the evolutionary chain...
You want to convice me? Give me a scientist that doesn't assume evolution happened and then goes looking for proof of that... that's the importance of something like ID, being able to say: "hey we don't know exactly what happened so we aren't going to look for proof of that thing, instead we are going to with the belief that we just don't know." ID does take it too far if they say, it is unknowable so we'll stop trying to find out but evolutionists are just as wrong in saying that they know what happened so now is the time to find proof of their "best guess".
Again, thanks for the laugh.
April 24, 2008 at 4:58 pm
"I disagree with Jeff's use of the phrase "theological assumptions", but that's one of the problems with the internet. You want to be pity without a lot of jargon. I would say there are philosophical assumptions in empirical science as it stands today which cannot be neutral. Either there is a God or there isn't, and science must reject the existence of God."
John - An assumption that makes a claim about God is a theological assumption. You've just agreed with me here.
April 24, 2008 at 5:07 pm
notJoeKing
I did read the website you keep linking to as "proof" and its just about as intelligent as using LDS.org to prove that the Book of Mormon is true.
I have not linked to a website, I mentioned Talk Origins when discussing Nazis as it was a decent summary and provided it's references to the original text. No link was given however.
I mentioned wikipedia also, in saying that someone may want to check the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution there. Again no link was provided.
Finally I recommended a piece of scientific research. No link was provided yet again, but even if it had been i don't quite see how you could dispute it's accuracy it documents repeatable experiments that have been used to draw conclusions.
Perhaps you were confusing me for someone who linked to talk origins.
Of course there are variations in the species but the most that any scientist could ever do regarding the past is absurd and far from prove. That's the whole point, they can guess and even test their guesses but that doesn't equal proof. The London Underground Mosquito? What a joke. That's like saying humans are proof of evolution because we are thought to have decended from chimps. The hilareous thing will be when alien scientists 1000 years in the future find the skeleton of a European, an Asian, and an Afican in the same reagion and deduce that they are links in the Evolutionary chain that have evolved into each other... or better yet, when they find the skeleton of someone with elephantitis and add them in as just another step in the evolutionary chain...
Mostly nonsense, but some of it makes enough sense to address. The London Underground mosquito is not an inference of evolution. It is a documented case. Since the construction of the London Underground a species of mosquito has emerged that is only found there. Either the "Intelligent Designer" decided to update the species list a little and threw together a new model... or this is macroevolution.
You want to convice me? Give me a scientist that doesn't assume evolution happened
Scientists assume that evolution happens because all the evidence says it does. If evidence is found to challenge this, and the problem cannot be reconciled then evolution will be rejected as an adequate theory. This is how science works.
that's the importance of something like ID, being able to say: "hey we don't know exactly what happened so we aren't going to look for proof of that thing, instead we are going to with the belief that we just don't know."
Unfortunately for ID when they don't know exactly what happened they don't go looking for proof of anything at all. They consider job done because there only interest is in getting God into schools (see wedge document).
Science does not claim to know exactly what happened, it can never be proved definitively. However as for the moment evolution fits every bit of available evidence it is fair to use it as the working theory. All acknowledge that it is not the final answer, it will undoubtably be refined as the years pass. However, it is wrong to say that "we don't know". We have a pretty good idea (as i say, it accounts for everything, pretty good in my book).
April 24, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Please don't use HTML tags unless you know what you're doing. If you feel you must put something in bold type, you start it with <strong>, and then you must end it with </strong>. When you omit the slash in the closing tag, it screws everything up.
April 24, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Just for those creationists/ID supporters who are getting carried away with the Darwin->Hitler link.
1) Almost all creationists and ID supporters, even Young Earth Creationists (YECs), accept microevolution (evolutionary change within species). Eugenics is concerned with effecting artificial change within species. Therefore, even YECs accept the very science they say leads to genocide like the Holocaust.
2) Darwin's breakthrough was to realise that the selective actions of humans in artificial selection, that had been known for centuries, could also be carried out by nature. Eugenics is the opposite (attempting to "aid" natural selection by carrying out artificial selection).
3) Darwin is on the record as saying that although putting aside our morals and attempting to interfere with human reproduction could lead to benefits for the species as a whole, to do so would be **evil**. Evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive.
4) The veracity, or lack of it, of a theory cannot be determined by the uses it's put to (or the habits of whoever came up with it). Claiming that evolution leads to eugenics, and is false as a result, is equivalent to claiming that a belief in gravity leads to suicides from the tops of buildings (and therefore should be discarded as well). The same goes for if Darwin was a genocidal baby-eater.
April 24, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Scientists assume that evolution happens because all the evidence says it does. If evidence is found to challenge this, and the problem cannot be reconciled then evolution will be rejected as an adequate theory. This is how science works.
Seriously? Science works by assuming something to be true and then looking for evidence? If evidence, that they aren't even looking for, arises and they can't find some way to discredit it, then they will change their minds? You think that is the best way to find the truth?
I completely agree that this is how evolutionary scientists are approaching their job, assuming something is true and waiting for incontrivertable disproof, but so are the people who believe in God.
So in the end it is an even playing field with scientists and their faith in evolution being no different than theologians and thier belief in God. The only difference is that the scientists get to teach their assumptions, through text books, to kids in public schools.
April 24, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Seriously? Science works by assuming something to be true and then looking for evidence?
You are jumping on a bit of semantic laziness here and pretending that he's arguing a position that he doesn't hold. It's clear from the context that he meant that Scientists conclude that evolution happens because all the evidence says it does.
Scientists constantly test their theories with new evidence. The scientific process is more about attempting to disprove a theory rather than justify it. The broad theory of evolution is so well supported by so many lines of evidence that it's unlikely to ever be falsified, however theories about individual mechanisms of evolution are regularly updated, rejected, and replaced as new evidence is discovered.
You seem to have a very naive understanding of both the scientific process in general, and the theory of evolution in particular. We teach students about the theory of evolution for the same reasons we teach them about the germ theory of disease, plate tectonics, and gravity theory - the evidence overwhelmingly supports these theories. If you want to teach religious creation stories, that can be done in a philosophy or theology class. You can even use textbooks.
April 24, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Matt P:
Thank you, conclude is a much better word. It's a shame however that my error gave notJoeKing an excuse to avoid the rest of my, or anyone else's posts.
notJoeKing:
If evidence, that they aren't even looking for, arises and they can't find some way to discredit it, then they will change their minds?
This is the straw man in the statement. Every piece of biological knowledge uncovered by scientists is essentially checked against evolution. Immunology, how did the immune system evolve? Antibiotic research, how do bacteria evolve resistance? Taxonomy, how do these species fit together in the tree of life with common decent? etc. etc. etc.
Scientists aren't out there trying to prove evolution wrong, in this you are correct. But they are trying to increase understanding of how life functions. And they are trying to fight disease. And if a discovery in any of the fields of biology were to contradict evolution... then it would be questioned.
Scientists conduct research and any issues thrown up are addressed.
That is not to say that ID scientists are not free to find their own evidence, in this case it will certainly be considered.
The fact that ID advocates are unable to do so, accompanied by the fact that no evidence against evolution has been found by the scientists working in their fields and that all evidence supports the theory, is the reason that scientists conclude that evolution is a correct theory
April 24, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Ah the strawman... you type something, I restate what I believe you are saying and why I disagree, you then are caught looking stupid so... time to bring up strawman, nazis, or some other lame redirect...
I'm not going to spend hours responding to everything you (and everyone else) types because it all comes down to the same thing: The majority of scientists, from far before they start researching anything, start with a faith in Evolution. After that point, when they "discover" something, they have to make it "fit" into evolution. Its the same way with religion.
Wording doesn't change the fact that evolution is what they are assuming/theorizing/concluding happened. What also doesn't change is the fact that if a human being goes into any situation, including an experiment, with an expectation, they are far more likely to walk away from that having validated their belief. Its just another form of closemindedness and the only cure is to approach everything with an attitude of "I don't know yet". By assuming evolution happened, they taint eveything they do and say from that point on.
In the end the only thing that differs between scientist and theologians is in what they place their faith.
April 25, 2008 at 2:27 am
Guys, Hitler was a politician. He talked out of both sides of his mouth on the subject of Christianity, and just about everything else for that matter... you know, he voted for it before he voted against it.
April 25, 2008 at 3:43 am
Scientists begin with an understanding of the process of evolution. Faith is not involved. Any evidence uncovered during the process of scientific exploration that seems to refute the scientific understanding of evolution is re-examined for validity.
Science also does not attempt to find "truth", but rather seeks to understand.
I think this is the most common error in attempting to equate religion with science. Religion relies on faith, and seeks truth. Science relies on evidence and seeks understanding. They can easily co-exist, or not, as the individual chooses, but one does not necessarily negate the other.
April 25, 2008 at 3:57 am
In the end the only thing that differs between scientist and theologians is in what they place their faith.
Really? What about these other differences?:
* Science is falsifiable. Regardless of how biased individual scientists may be, it's always possible to falsify a scientific theory with new evidence. For instance, finding fossil rabbits in the Cambrian would really screw up several aspects of evolutionary theory. You can claim that scientists would ignore or distort this evidence, but you haven't provided any evidence that this is actually how scientists would respond. In any case, theology does not even provide a mechanism where someone can demonstrate the falseness of a given theological claim to another person. It's not even possible in principle to falsify a religious doctrine.
* Science develops consensus. The vast majority (99%+) of working biologists believe evolution to be at as well supported as any other well-established scientific theory, such as the theory of gravity. Only a tiny fraction consider ID to be a valid scientific idea at this time. What portion of theologians agree on, just for a few examples, how the earth was created, how man was created, or how many gods there are?
* Scientific consensus is developed independent of, or despite, individual ideology. Consider the number of different religions and philosophies that are represented within the ranks biological scientists - there are Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Atheists, Hindu, you name it. Many of them have creation stories that, when taken literally, disagree with evolution. The evidence has convinced these people that their creation stories are metaphorical, simplified, or the merely the work of human authors taking liberties to postulate the process that occurred absent actual revelation.
* Science is merit-based. Anyone can publish a scientific paper and if it meets the standards of the journal and passes review, it will be published. No scientists other than a few noisy IDists are complaining that their ideas are being suppressed because they conflict with orthodoxy. There are few enough of these IDists attempting to be published and they are complaining loudly enough that their specific work has already been soundly demonstrated to be scientifically vacuous. Their ideas have been given a fair hearing. There is no overriding authority on scientific theory. No one has the power to say "no, you're wrong" without considering the evidence. Theologians are often subject to strict hierarchies of authority. Doctrine is established in a top-down fashion with only the highest-ranking theologians having the authority to alter existing canon. There is no official canon of science - the "doctrine" of science is the sum off all of the published research, from thousands of scientists spread out over the globe and over the ages.
It's notable that the largest organization of "creation scientists", Answers in Genesis, requires its members to sign a Statement of Faith that includes this statement: "No apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record." It's not even *possible* to argue against their faith, regardless of the evidence - they explicitly prohibit it.
Yes, humans have biases and scientists are human but beyond this simple observation there is no comparison with religion, regardless of the truth of any particular expression of it. The ideal of science, as defined by the scientific method, is to subject new ideas to harsh scrutiny to weed out the bad ones. Mechanisms exist to overturn previous scientific conclusions, but this requires extraordinary evidence. IDists have thus far done a very poor job at providing such evidence. If you disagree, please point to the most compelling evidence for ID that you are aware of and I'd be happy to discuss it.
April 25, 2008 at 7:46 am
notJoeKing:
Besides looking poor at grammar i don't think that i have looked too stupid. At least I don't support a theory for which there is no evidence. I'm sorry not to remain civil but as soon as a board deteriorates into name calling it becomes difficult to continue.
Strawmen, Nazis and other lame redirects? Nazis are indeed a poor way to argue. perhaps inform Ben Stein? The only reason Nazis were brought up here is to refute the rubbish that he spouts in this "documentary".
Straw men are a logical fallacy. You take your premise and use it to reach your conclusion. However, your premise is incorrect. It is not how things in science actually operate, thus you are attacking a false image of science. One easier to ridicule. This is a strawman.
The way you have pounced on the word assume is regrettable. There is a massive difference with conclude. With conclude, the evidence clearly comes first.
And yes, people have their biases, same as any ID supporter does not do an experiment with "i don't know" in their minds, they are fervently hoping to discredit evolution.
This is why double blind trials are used in medical research. In scientific research, the methods used must be submitted along with the results to peer review. And here, scientists regularly criticize bad methodology that could have led to false results and interpretations.
April 25, 2008 at 3:15 pm
"The problem with this idea is that natural science assumes that truth can only be found through the scientific method. A method which is not without critics, as it was founded on rational thought, not empiricist study. The scientific method used today must reject anything without empirical, measurable evidence. As such, metaphysical ideas such as right or wrong, love, hate, God, souls, mind, free will, etc. must be rejected as fancy and unscientific. Or such must be turned into an object, quantifiable idea. Imagine trying to quantify objectively how much you love your family using discriminate levels? There's something inherently flawed about that idea. We have to create artificial measures to make everything conform to natural sciences and reject anything that doesn't fit. That is pretty much the main argument against the scientific community as it stands."
You're missing one word in your opening line: "objective" Science seeks an objective (i.e. measurable, observable) truth which is pretty much why scientific method relies on objective criteria. A mechanism for finding "truth" based upon what you or I believe, is pointless, at least at our current level of development. Perhaps someday we'll have a method of discerning which belief system is "true", but, for now we pretty much do it by numbers - 100 million people believe in the saving power of Jesus Christ while only a few million believe in the saving power of the Easter Bunny. Guess that means Christ is "true", at least until majority opinion shifts. Right now the ID crowd seems intent upon shifting prevailing belief systems away from evolutionary evidence in order to create a "truth" by numbers.
Also, saying that man is no different than a rock certainly indicates much about the level of your thinking on the issue. This magical soul you espouse does not eliminate the chemicals that enable our minds to communicate and think.These chemical processes are objective fact. They (in complex combination) also make us different from a rock or a chicken or even each other. The ideas of "mind" and "soul" are certainly intriguing fodder for conversation, but, again, the "truth" of these concepts cannot currently be demonstrated except through numbers of believers.
Let's that I believe Earth revolves around the sun, while you believe the sun revolves around Earth. Prior to Copernicus your view would be "true" since the majority of people believed it. After Copernicus, my view trends toward "true" as more and more people are exposed to the contradictions to your belief raised by objectively observed data. Does this mean that you are wrong in some absolute sense? Not necessarily. Maybe the sun did revolve around Earth until majority belief shifted or maybe it still does and we are blind to it. These are faith or philosophy-based arguments. In an objective sense, however, one has to conclude that currently, according to the evidence of our senses, Earth does revolve around the sun. That is a science-based argument, just as evolution is a science-based argument.
Which is more useful in planning your everyday life? Which is more helpful in settling social disputes? Why should demonstrated fact be irrelevant to settling disputes between factions? Don't we both exist in this observable world? Should not evidence before our eyes be a common ground? I may not share your belief in heaven and you may not share my jihad, but we do share the sensate world.
Scientific method serves us in a practical sense, while faith may very well serve us in a personal sense. As long as both are confined to that appropriate sphere of political/social decision-making (reason dictating social rules, faith dictating personal ethics), I have no problems.
Once we move beyond this world, I wish you the best in whatever direction you choose to go. For now, let's agree that the Earth revolves around the sun.
April 25, 2008 at 3:36 pm
This movie got me thinking of another documentary i saw on TV a while ago: Jusdgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trail
If I recall correctly, I think they proved in court that to the Discovery Institute, that atleast to them, Intelligent design is thinly veiled Creationism. I turned out that the books they were trying to introd