So much for camaraderie. New York Times movie reviewer Jeannette Catsoulis found fellow Times writer Ben Stein's "Expelled," his new documentary on evolution and how the concept of Intelligent Design is being stifled in academic circles, "an unprincipled propaganda piece."
(Catsoulis's politics are pretty easy to peg; witness her simplistic left-wing raves over the 2005 documentary "Waging a Living," based on a book by socialist writer Barbara Ehrenreich.)
Catsoulis not only doesn't buy "Expelled"'s premise that scientific debate is being squelched in academia in favor of Darwin-worship, she calls the movie names:
One of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" is a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry.
Positing the theory of intelligent design as a valid scientific hypothesis, the film frames the refusal of "big science" to agree as nothing less than an assault on free speech. Interviewees, including the scientist Richard Sternberg, claim that questioning Darwinism led to their expulsion from the scientific fold (the film relies extensively on the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy -- after this, therefore because of this), while our genial audience surrogate, the actor and multihyphenate Ben Stein, nods sympathetically. (Mr. Stein is also a freelance columnist who writes Everybody's Business for The New York Times.)
Prominent evolutionary biologists, like the author and Oxford professor Richard Dawkins -- accurately identified on screen as an "atheist" -- are provided solely to construct, in cleverly edited slices, an inevitable connection between Darwinism and godlessness. Blithely ignoring the vital distinction between social and scientific Darwinism, the film links evolution theory to fascism (as well as abortion, euthanasia and eugenics), shamelessly invoking the Holocaust with black-and-white film of Nazi gas chambers and mass graves.
Can someone point out the Times's lambasting of left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore for making those kind of leaps in his own widely praised documentaries?
Mixing physical apples and metaphysical oranges at every turn "Expelled" is an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike. In its fudging, eliding and refusal to define terms, the movie proves that the only expulsion here is of reason itself.
Catsoulis concluded with a mock rating:
"Expelled" is rated PG (Parental guidance suggested). It has smoking guns and drunken logic.
—Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times.
Comments Policy
I really have a hard time
April 18, 2008 - 15:24 ET by Troika37I really have a hard time with Catsoulis calling this movie a "conspiracy-theory rant" when the Truther's aren't completely disowned and disavowed by the left... I would think that if the Truther movement didn't count as a conspiracy theory, nothing would.
Does disowning & disavowing "Truthers" actually help???
April 18, 2008 - 15:26 ET by sarcasmoNot in my experience right-here....
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Clay well you beat me to it
April 18, 2008 - 15:26 ET by bigtimerClay well you beat me to it with the Moore example, but I will throw in algores Inconvenient Lies....
Nevertheless, I expected nothing less by the leftists of all venues when it comes to Stein and Expelled, this gal masquerading as a movie reviewer is a prime example.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Yeah Bt and thousands of others that are left wing propoganda
April 18, 2008 - 16:39 ET by Dee BunkWhether it's debates, documentaries, news, T.V or movies, Liberal think conservative theories should be hushed and not allowed. It's really frightening the way they flip out about people's free speech.
"an unprincipled propaganda
April 18, 2008 - 15:32 ET by motherbelt"an unprincipled propaganda piece."
That's as opposed, of course, to Algore's "An Inconvenient Truth" which was a well-researched and -documented, compilation of incontrovertible facts, right?
Pot meet kettle
April 18, 2008 - 15:32 ET by terrigThis is rich coming from the NYT, if anyone is experienced in "unprincipled propaganda piece" it's them.
terri, Boy have you got
April 18, 2008 - 15:38 ET by bigtimerterri,
Boy have you got that right....releasing the info they did to hurt this war against the terrorists is the utmost in a treasonist agenda in my opinion.
....zilch happens.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Well, it is wrong when
April 18, 2008 - 15:36 ET by blogonatorWell, it is wrong when left-wing propaganda films aren't criticized, but that is no reason to suggest other types of propaganda films shouldn't be. From what I read in a previous newsbusters entry, this movie does seem like conspiracy-filled propaganda. Conservatives outraged over films such as those by Michael Moore should be similarly outraged at this film.
Oh really blog.... I
April 18, 2008 - 15:40 ET by bigtimerOh really blog....
I think not.
How does it seem like it is conspiracy filled propaganda?
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Well, suppose for a second
April 18, 2008 - 15:46 ET by blogonatorWell, suppose for a second Moore is right about the healthcare industry in his most recent film. (I don't agree with Moore but bare with me) The way he uses ad hominem attacks, quotes out of context, faulty reasoning, dumb logic, and ill-informed "experts" to make his point would be wrong. That would be propaganda, and suggesting that the governemnt is behind all the healthcare problems in the country would be conspiracy theory like.
Similarly, whether you agree with the theory of evolution or not, it seems to me that Stein uses dishonest tactics to arrive at his conclusion. And suggesting there is a conspiracy among scientists to keep ID out of the science classroom is also dishonest.
I haven't seen the film so maybe I'm wrong, but the discription I read has led me to this opinion.
Conspiracy sounds too cloak and dagger.
April 18, 2008 - 16:17 ET by Karmablogonator,
Is this documentary suggesting a "conspiracy" or a "concerted effort" in keeping ID out of the classroom?
I am under the impression
April 18, 2008 - 19:15 ET by blogonatorI am under the impression that this film portrays scientists as dogmatic about their crazy theory and refusing to acknowledge other points of view. That they are trying to suppress Intelligent Design in the classroom, while the ID proponents are the victims whose well supported idea is being hidden to the masses.
Sounds like conspiracy theory to me. If I'm wrong, I apologize.
Blogonator: Sounds like
April 18, 2008 - 19:24 ET by tracheostomyBlogonator: Sounds like conspiracy theory to me.
I prefer to call it "peer review" myself.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Hehehe... I appreciate your
April 18, 2008 - 20:12 ET by blogonatorHehehe... I appreciate your humor.
However, call me a prude, but I don't find it funny when a film claims the theory of evolution led to Nazism as this movie seems to imply. It's as a dumb of an argument as when a Dawkinist claims that religion is the root-cause of evil. This type of reasoning is best reserved for the left. If conservatives embrace this movie while slamming Michael Moore's movies, it is hypocritical of them to do so.
B: However, call me a
April 18, 2008 - 20:37 ET by tracheostomyB: However, call me a prude, but I don't find it funny when a film claims the theory of evolution led to Nazism as this movie seems to imply.
Ah, but it does. You don't need a film to imply it either. See my link below.
B: It's as a dumb of an argument as when a Dawkinist claims that religion is the root-cause of evil. This type of reasoning is best reserved for the left. If conservatives embrace this movie while slamming Michael Moore's movies, it is hypocritical of them to do so.
In either case of either claim, they both have to have something to back it up.
- The typical Dawkinist is indeed speaking truth when they say this. In fact, they're practically quoting the Bible. However, the error comes when they point the finger exclusively at Christians*. You can't paint the entire movement with the same broad brush as "evil" by cherry-picking one errant sect that wasn't playing with a full theological deck.
- OTOH, the typical ID proponent is indeed speaking truth when they say Darwinism leads to Nazism. Because Hitler absolutely did not cook his "truth" out of whole cloth. There's a paper trail to his philosophy. And it amounts to the conclusion (that everyone's afraid to talk about, OMG, don't even GO there) that just as Cro-Magnon man was superior to the Neanderthal. . .so also are any theories floated out that conclude the same about race today. Can't conclude one valid without allowing the other. And with a little charisma, a hunger in your belly, and the need for a racial scapegoat, you've got the perfect recipe for a holocaust.
-PJ
*And ultimately "Teh Joooooosss!!!"
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Oh Please blogonator
April 18, 2008 - 18:22 ET by Dee Bunkeven if this film uses any of Michael Moore's tactics, what's the worst thing that can happen from his supposed lies? That people think ID should be allowed in school? Come on. Michael Moore tries to convince people to hate this country and blame it for everything wrong in the world. He wants to confiscate people's money for a socialist system and fundamentally change our form of government. What he lies about is far more important.
I find it hard to believe how a movie saying that they don't allow ID in the schools can be a lie. They don't allow it in the schools where I live. Do they allow it where you live?
Even if it were some horrific thing to let children know that the possibility of a creator exists, Conservatives would have every right to be fine with any tactics in this movie if it's anywhere entertaining. It's One conservative Documentary balanced against thousands of liberal ones using extremely biased tactics. If nothing else it should be lauded as giving them a taste of their own medicine.
So, while it may work the other way; Liberals should have no problem with his tactics if they have none with the plethora of lib docs that have come out, you can hardly reverse it when conservatives have a grand total of One documentary that has made it to the mainstream theaters. Then you are back to letting liberals forbid conservative speech.
The worst thing that could
April 18, 2008 - 18:49 ET by blogonatorThe worst thing that could happen is that people will be motivated to pass and enforce legislation based on bad reasoning. It doesn't matter whether it's Intelligent Design taught in the science classrooms or encouraging 10 year olds to have promiscuous sex in the classroom. If we make an exception for one thing, that puts the state in a much better position to do all the things that you fear.
One can make their point with humor and be entertaining without giving in to using dishonest tactics. Southpark does it all the time. We need integrity to reverse the progress that the left has been making in this country. If we stoop to their level, we'll be losing hearts and minds.
Again, I haven't seen the movie and maybe I'm projecting my own bias onto it, so I may be wrong. If I am I apologize.
blogonator, here's 7 minutes
April 18, 2008 - 19:39 ET by upcountrywaterapologize now
<gaia/love>SAVVVE The Whales N' Earth; conserve N' recycle !
IranianUranium<sleep>New/Infrastructure/repair?/ROFLMAO
I've been reasonable in
April 18, 2008 - 19:55 ET by blogonatorI've been reasonable in my opinions so please don't patronize me by giving 7 minutes of the film and telling me to "apologize now".
I'm willing, after seeing the film, to admit I'm wrong if Ben Stein did create a thought-provoking and honest movie without going into "Moorish" territory. Are you willing to admit that this film deserves the same criticism that Fahrenheit 9/11 does if the reasonings are in fact similar?
I'm already skeptical based
April 18, 2008 - 19:57 ET by balboaI'm already skeptical based on the Dachau segment.
Bal: I'm already
April 18, 2008 - 20:34 ET by tracheostomyBal: I'm already skeptical based on the Dachau segment.
No problem with that. Just don't use your skepticism as an excuse to quit.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
I actually think it is a
April 18, 2008 - 21:31 ET by cleverpigI actually think it is a horrific thing to allow ID in science classrooms. Horrific. I think it constitutes a perversion of the very idea of science. It can be in a sociology classroom, a theology classroom, a mythology classroom. It is not science, and no amount of whining about how unfairly it is treated will make it science. So it shouldn't be taught to our students as science.
I think you can mention ID
April 18, 2008 - 21:39 ET by balboaI think you can mention ID in a science class, but I agree that discussion, analysis, etc., should be reserved for philosophy, religion classes.
"our students"?
April 18, 2008 - 23:31 ET by Karmacleverpig,
Here is where we drastically part ways. I disagree with 100% of everything you said. You are wrong. I am right. You believe the opposite. So be it, but, DO NOT refer to them as OUR STUDENTS. They are MY children, not yours or the all knowing governments'. I graciously allow you to teach your children what you mistakenly see to be "enlightened". You don't seem to be willing to allow those of us who disagree with you, to ... uh disagree with you. I truely thought you where more open minded and tolerant than that.
I'm sorry, but this is more
April 19, 2008 - 03:29 ET by cleverpigI'm sorry, but this is more than an issue of philosophy. It is an issue of standards of inquiry. And I believe that as someone who has taught some of them, it is perfectly appropriate for me to refer to them as "our students." You are free to tell YOUR children whatever you want at home, but if you want ID allowed in the science classroom then you are affecting OTHER PEOPLE'S children too. So let's not get our noses too high in the air here, you don't get any points for playing the mommy card. I may not have children now, but if I ever do your stand on this issue will affect them.
To me, this is an issue of how we teach students to evaluate the world. Is popularity the measure of a theory's merit, or are there empirical standards that we can apply? The only way ID makes it into the debate is by relaxing our standards, making exceptions to save people's feelings. That is important in many realms of human endeavor, but NOT science.
When science discovers unpleasant things, we don't hide them. You don't like the truth? Too bad. Doesn't match with your religious beliefs? Suck it up. You can work as hard as you want to reconcile the two, and scientists spend a lot of time thinking about this stuff, but the day we fudge the science to fit someone's mythology we lose what to my mind is one of the greatest human acheivements in the history of our species.
The same goes for scentists themselves. When our pet theories are disproved, we don't get to keep them. That's just not how it works. Occassionally people try, but they always get found out. And believe me, there are scientists out there who know what it means to let go of a great hope, to throw away an entire career. It can be devastating. But no one says to them "Hey, it was a really good idea, and we know it is important to the way you see the world, so we'll just keep it in the textbook for you anyway."
Science is a human endeavor, which means that it is imperfect and has societal implications that have to be considered. But in the end it is incredibly unforgiving, and we need it to be unforgiving so that we know we are seeing the world clearly and not just imposing our ideas upon it.
Thank you, cleverpig! Bravo for your eloquence!
April 19, 2008 - 08:22 ET by Syrius"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
No apology necessary.
April 19, 2008 - 08:25 ET by Karmacleverpig,
We need to think about the children. And ourselves.
...And I believe that as someone who has taught some of them, it is
perfectly appropriate for me to refer to them as "our students." You
are free to tell YOUR children whatever you want at home,...
That is one scary statement. This is why home/private schooling is far superior to government schools. Tell me, how much longer will you allow me to tell my children whatever I want at home?
So let's not get our noses too high in the air here, you don't get any
points for playing the mommy card. I may not have children now, but if
I ever do your stand on this issue will affect them.
Sorry cleverpig, it's your elitism that shines through here. Your stand on this issue doesn't effect, detrimentally I might add, others' children?
Is popularity the measure of a theory's merit, or are there empirical standards that we can apply?
AGW anyone?
When science discovers unpleasant things, we don't hide them. You don't
like the truth? Too bad. Doesn't match with your religious beliefs?
Suck it up. You can work as hard as you want to reconcile the two, and
scientists spend a lot of time thinking about this stuff, but the day
we fudge the science to fit someone's mythology we lose what to my mind
is one of the greatest human acheivements in the history of our species.
In my mind, it's you who have a problem fitting the possibility of ID into your mythology and elitist world view. You need to find a way to deal with it.
...When our pet theories are disproved, we don't get to keep them...Occassionally people try, but they always get found out. And believe
me, there are scientists out there who know what it means to let go of
a great hope, to throw away an entire career. It can be devastating.
But no one says to them "Hey, it was a really good idea, and we know it
is important to the way you see the world, so we'll just keep it in the
textbook for you anyway."
I get the strongest sense that here lies your greatest fear. You feel the overwhelming need to close your minds and the minds of others to anything contrary to your views to protect ego's and claim your careers weren't a waste. Trust me cleverpig, we who have open minds to all possibilities in this debate understand our human weaknessess and we are very forgiving. Your career and contributions will not have been a waste. Quite the opposite.
BTW, felt my first earthquake ever yesterday. Eerily exciting.
Karma, You write: In
April 19, 2008 - 18:06 ET by hydrodynDMKarma,
You write:
The reason scientists don't accept ID as scientific is because it incorporates supernatural agents within its theories in a non-trivial way. Supernatural agents - by definition - have non-empirical characteristics. Consequently, you can't derive unique empirical consequences from theories that incorporate them and so can't test them.
So no - science doesn't "need to deal with it" and scientists are not being "elitist". The reason for rejecting ID as scientific is a practical one. Supernatural agents fall outside the realm of what science can deal with.
You also write
I've seen this insulting suggestion leveled at scientist so often it's getting tiresome. As I pointed out above, science cannot incorporate supernatural agents. Period. If you can explain to me how to derive unique empirical results from a theory that uses supernatural causes, I'd love to hear it, because as far as I know, no one knows how to do this.
And by the way - there are a ton of scientist who are people of faith who don't accept ID as scientific. How do they fit into your condescending characterization of scientists?
As a final note - I know your comments were aimed specifically at cleverpig and my above comments assume that you meant them for the scientific community in general. If that isn't the case, I apologize ahead of time.
hydrodyneDM and
April 20, 2008 - 12:57 ET by KarmahydrodyneDM and cleverpig,
I read both of your posts today and they say pretty much what I expected. One side makes a statement, the other side perceives an insult and the back and forth continues.
My comments were aimed at anyone who believes their unproven theories are superior to other unproven theories and then attempt to stifle opposition.
The battle will continue and life goes on. Mr. Stein's documentary does a great service to this debate and I hope to see many more.
I wish you both well and have a great Sunday.
Karma,
April 20, 2008 - 14:49 ET by hydrodynDMKarma,
You wrote:
OK. I'll take that for what it's worth and not assume you mean evolutionary scientists in general.
But just so you know, most scientists realize that scientific theories can never be "proven". That doesn't, however, prevent them from discussing the relative merits of theories. And it also doesn't prevent them from being able to comment on whether a theory, like ID, is scientific or not.
And it's that last point - whether ID is a scientific theory - which is at the heart of this discussion and which you failed to address in your post.
hydrodyneDM, Your
April 20, 2008 - 20:20 ET by KarmahydrodyneDM,
Your assumption was correct, my comments were aimed at any elitist individual or group who touts their theoretical ideas as supreme and unquestionable.
It's my nature to be very sceptical of rules made by the "rulers".
I am not a politician, but I refuse to let "politicians" dictate to others what they consider to be political. We don't live in a static world.
I am not a scientist, but I refuse to let "scientists" dictate to others what they consider to be scientific. We don't live in a static environment and what some call "supernatural" today, may be just their current inability to comprehend "it" in the way they have been taught. Who knows what the future holds. Anything may be possible when you think outside the box.
So yes, in my view, ID is as much a scientific theory as evolution. Either one does not need the other and neither nagates the other. Neither is close to being proved. Feel free to disagree. Freedom to speak and comment is a wonderful thing.
Karma, You wrote: I
April 20, 2008 - 23:04 ET by hydrodynDMKarma,
You wrote:
I'll quote myself here from a previous post to you
I'm repeating this because you chose to ignore this comment in your posts to me and it is the central point I'm trying to make. Science is unable - unable - to deal with theories that incorporate supernatural agents. ID incorporates supernatural agents and so is the kind of theory scientists do not know how to work with. Notice I didn't say "choose not to work with", I said "do not know how to work with".
I think even you will agree that a scientific theory has to either be directly testable or have uniquely derivable consequence that can be tested, so that we can check to see how accurate the theory is.
Once you include supernatural agents in a theory, this becomes impossible to do. Supernatural agents - by definition - do not have known empirical characteristics. Consequently, we can't quantify their properties or derive unique results from theories that include them.
During the course of the discussion here, I've said this about half a dozen times and not a single person I've said this to has acknowledged it, let alone addressed it.
So I'll ask you directly - how do scientists get around this problem? If you could explain this to me, it would represent a fundamental change in all of science. So please - give me a clue. I'll even split the credit with you.
Is it possible that at some point in the future, these things will change? Sure. But today - the way that science stands as of now - we can't include ID within science.
But please - go right ahead calling ID a scientific theory. You don't have to try to try to actually use it within a scientific context, so what difference does it make to you?
And by the way, if not "scientists" (quotes and all), then who exactly should define what a scientific theory is? Auto mechanics? Lawyers? You? Just wondering.
hydro
April 21, 2008 - 00:05 ET by botgprecisely why, at this time, there is no attempt to identitfy any supernatural agents. ID is that, studying whether or not there is an intelligent design (can you show me where ID proponents call for a supernatural designer?) just as i posted to you before.
first lets see if there is design, and IFF then consider the designer supernatural or otherwise.
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
botg, You say IFF then...
April 21, 2008 - 20:15 ET by hydrodynDMbotg,
You say IFF then... but if you assume (or maybe, given the evidence, convince yourself of) a design - you have to assume a designer from the start.
And for you to suggest that that designer is anything but supernatural is disingenuous.
If you are talking strictly about design in biological systems, then even if you are open to the option that life on Earth was created by an intelligent alien species, you are still left with the problem of where they came from. And since I know you won't accept the idea of a naturalistic organism creating itself, you are going to have to admit a supernatural agent.
And if you are talking about design on the scale of the entire universe, then it goes without saying that the designer in supernatural. You have said as much in another post to me.
It seems to me that proponents of ID are just trying to hide God behind the term "intelligent design". And that's fine - but don't pretend like you're not.
hydro
April 28, 2008 - 21:05 ET by botgread it again, i assumed you would understand:
IFF=if and only if
thus no such assumption of supernatural agency is contained in my reasoning. Now it also does not preclude the possibility as it would be unscientific to eliminate possibile explanations without testing them first. This merely removes your a-priori material only postulate. Why do you play the shell game of being open when it is you who are eliminating possible explanations without testing?
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
botg, I know what “iff”
May 1, 2008 - 14:54 ET by hydrodynDMbotg,
I know what “iff” stands for. I also know that it’s used primarily in math and logic and not science since it loses its meaning in systems that use statements that are not truth preserving – like the empirical statements used in science.
As an example, there is no way to justify the statement like “If and only if Newton’s law of gravity is true, will it be the case that two masses a certain distance apart with feel a gravitational force given by Newton’s formula.” If we verify by experiment that the force is what is predicted my Newton’s formula (i.e. we verify the second half of the above iff statement) that still doesn’t justify the assertion that Newton’s Law is true (the first half of the iff statement). As a concrete example, Einstein’s Law of Gravity (General Relativity) might predict the exact same gravitational force (and in fact, it does for cases where gravity isn’t too large). But Newton’s Gravitational Law and Einstein’s are completely different theories (both in detail and in interpretation). Yet they both predict the same results for many situations.
But that aside, I understand what you are saying – that you don’t assume a designer until you find evidence of design. Well, I’m not going get into a discussion of what defines a “design” – which, to me, seems the major weakness of ID. What I will argue is that ID people do, in reality, already have it in their heads that there is a designer and that that designer is supernatural, whether they want to admit it or not. That’s what my argument in my previous post – the argument you haven’t addressed yet – tries to show.
And supernatural agents (for the hundredth time) can’t be dealt with in scientific theories so it would be “unscientific” to include them in science. Unless you can explain where I'm wrong on this.
You ask “Why do you play the shell game of being open when it is you who are eliminating possible explanations without testing?” So how exactly do you “test” for supernatural agents?
Botg can follow up if/when
May 1, 2008 - 17:45 ET by tracheostomyBotg can follow up if/when he wants, but this really burned me up.
Hydro: But that aside, I understand what you are saying – that you don’t
assume a designer until you find evidence of design. Well, I’m not
going get into a discussion of what defines a “design” – which, to me,
seems the major weakness of ID.
Yes. It sure seems that way, doesn't it? In your little world ruled by your perception only, there is no field of applied mathematics and engineering called Information Theory.
In your little narrow-minded world there "just isn't" any provable thing as Complex Specified Information.
Why?
1. Because of the name behind the papers is a "suspect" of the consensus science community due to his weekend activities.
You say you oppose AGW, but that assumes you got over the consensus science and actually looked at the raw data of global warming theory. So then why aren't you capable of doing this in every case of consensus science? What else is holding you back from investigating? Hm?
2. Also, because CSI "cannot be proven to exist in nature apart from man." But that's the point entirely!!!
Man's ability to design and man's language ability can be used as valid proof. But consensus science arbitrarily chucks it out, because it cannot be measured against a lesser species or plant, or their concept of "nature." As if man were not really a part of nature. Postmodernism really divorced us from this idea.
Hydro: What I will argue is that ID people do,
in reality, already have it in their heads that there is a designer and
that that designer is supernatural, whether they want to admit it or
not.
But at the same time you sit there and name-drop Descartes, also while at the same time you endorse Hume without really specifiying which of the conflicting schools of Hume-theory you cling to. But no one really has the same problem understanding Descartes.
If Descartes could play by the rules and be honest with his ontological arguments, then so can the founders of ID. Both Descartes (for example) and ID proponents' logic stop at a higher intelligence, then they smack the label on afterward.
The hypocrisy of this is crystal clear and is as follows:
- Why is it, when one thinker imagines and can logically demonstrate "the perfect" or "something of which nothing greater can be conceived," that is invalid.
- But when another thinker imagines something from pure induction only, and founded on "holding out for the possibility of," or "chance," then that's valid and then the debate is somehow ended?
So just because there's a name-tag attached doesn't necessarily mean the thinking itself is faulty!
Hydro: And supernatural agents (for the hundredth time) can’t be dealt with
in scientific theories so it would be “unscientific” to include them in
science. Unless you can explain where I'm wrong on this.
Tell that to Sagan. Oh, wait. Pfft. That was just a side-hobby of his.
Oh wait. . .that was actually based on a real project that was at one time funded by the National Science Foundation, NASA, and run by "real scientists."
Hydro: You ask “Why do you play the shell game of being open when it is you
who are eliminating possible explanations without testing?” So how
exactly do you “test” for supernatural agents?
See above. I think you're pre-judging the opposition and disposing it because you assume they'll start the seminar or book or whatever with "In the beginning, God. . ."
That's what I used to think as well. That was the reason I avoided the books and seminars. After a few years, I like it better the way it's really going down. But then you'd have to get over your own phobias and prejudices in order to look into it yourself.
No, no. You're much safer sitting there asserting the science isn't there. And all day you can go on exploiting those who are only capable of pointing the way.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
hydro
May 1, 2008 - 23:50 ET by botgSo how exactly do you “test” for supernatural agents?
we've covered this; you test for design not supernatural agents
That’s what my argument in my previous post – the argument you haven’t addressed yet – tries to show.
your arguement assumes an answer and rejects it out of hand, it is akin to saying "blaming a black man for this would be racist therefore we will only allow white suspects"
my argument says lets collect the evidence and see where it leads why do you balk at scientific examination?
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
No one is threatening to
April 19, 2008 - 21:18 ET by cleverpigNo one is threatening to tell you what to talk to your kids about at home. No one. That is paranoia. I'm not allowing you to do anything, and you know it. You're just trying to stir up people's fears.
Being open minded does not necessitate that I give credibility to every possible idea, only the reasonable ones. I can't walk into a conference with the spagghetti monster theory of panspermia and expect to be taken seriously, and the people who refuse to take me seriously are not being close-minded.
Incidentally, science is filled to the brim with disagreement, argument, and alternative viewpoints. It is vicious, the fighting that goes on over alternate theories. That's part of healthy science, as several people here have pointed out. One of the big reasons why I distrust ID is because its proponents don't argue with each other. If you look at the literature closely, there is a big disconnect between laypeople who believe in ID and scientists who believe in ID. Laypeople tend to accept evolution on a small scale but reject macroevolution. The scientists on their side tend to accept large-scale changes but not microscopic ones. It is a huge issue that no one ever talks about. I guarantee in any other field, those people would be all over one another. No problem like that, two groups believing the same thing for different reasons, would be allowed to stand for any length of time. But in ID it is never talked about, never addressed. That says to me that these people are more interested in advancing an agenda than really looking hard for the truth.
So no, it isn't elitist for me to say that ID doesn't make the grade any more than it is elitist for you to demand that your doctors have medical degrees or your children's teachers know something about the subjects they teach. There are requirements for scientific theories, and ID doesn't meet them. It isn't testable, it isn't material, it isn't falsifiable. It generates no hypotheses that are falsifiable. Any theory that can fit all possible data isn't a theory at all.
I'm tired of this whole "cult of the amateur" thing we have going on in this country, and I think this is related. We no longer evaluate the qualifications of people telling us things, we just decide if the message sounds good or not. It's lazy, and it is going to get us into trouble very soon. For the sake of the future of this country, let's keep the classroom one place where critical examination isn't left by the wayside.
Clever Pig - Your statements agree with the Documentary
April 19, 2008 - 09:28 ET by Dee BunkYou should watch it. I saw it last night and to my surprise, it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of whether or not to allow it to be taught in schools. It is all about how it should be allowed to be talked about, tested and studied in the Scientific community.
From what you have said here you should be in 100% agreement with what the film concluded. It's whole point is that it's not being allowed to be tested and studied. So any one who believes in Science should be appalled.
It's not the only scientific subject
April 19, 2008 - 09:41 ET by sarcasmoWhere name-calling has displaced intelligent debate. I can think of a few examples, but one of the best in the inartfully named and revealed "cold fusion." No, it's not what was originally claimed, but there are still strange results out there. There's also seemingly 0 curiousity about them.
In part that might be for fear of all the name-calling. And in our past, if we're to believe the History Channel and other sources, there has been government financed name-calling programs against those who got curious about the UFO phenomenon. Again, telling the obvious truth -- that there are unexplained strange phenomena which have been witnessed by many people who tend to have the same descriptions of their experiences -- instantly elicits name calling hysteria instead of scientific intellectual curiousity. Fearless intelligent curiousity has gone the way of the gold standard in an age of media and government-influenced "science."
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
I agree Sarc - I don't "believe" in UFO's myself but think that
April 19, 2008 - 11:28 ET by Dee Bunkpeople should study it and try to get to the bottom of claims. Especially when there are multiple sitings of things. Here in Chicago, a couple years back, there were many people who witnessed what they thought was some type of Alien aircraft hovering near O'hare airport. The FAA explained it away as a weather phenomenon yet produced no scientific evidence to back up that claim. It was all kind of hushed up at not talked about.
While I don't think aliens or other life forms exist, I have no problems with people studying or doing scientific tests that would assume that they did. In fact people should do it. Science shouldn't be about declaring anything that can't be proven or explained by current science is stupid and unworthy of consideration. It's crazy that, that's what it has become. They think that testing these type of things threatens science but it's really not testing them that does. What do scientist have to do if we know it all already?
What gets me is all the name calling...
April 19, 2008 - 12:04 ET by sarcasmoIt's not about belief, it's about a forced lack of curiousity, and as you say that is antithetical to the basis of what used to be good about science. These days you need tenure or the words "professor emeritus of" next to your name to question just about anything.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
I agree Sarcasmo and if you see the film, tenure can't even
April 19, 2008 - 13:14 ET by Dee Bunkalways protect you. It can protect you from being fired but not from having your research shut down
cleverpig
April 19, 2008 - 10:20 ET by botgperhaps your 'science' can explain abiogenesis
perhaps your 'science' can show us your forcing agent that causes the punctuated equilibrium spurts to occur only at some brief (geologically speaking) time periods and not at other.
Do you teach that similarity does not necessitate causality? Or do you allow the changes within species which can be shown to imply the same conclusion (without proof) for the geological tree? Is that scientific?
My good woman you teach in the field with the whole of the accepted dogma of the scientific academy at your back and you have not yet been able to satisfactorily answer some electrician?
When our pet theories are disproved, we don't get to keep them. "Hey, it was a really good idea, and we know it is important to the way you see the world, so we'll just keep it in the textbook for you anyway." wow isn't that exactly what was done with Haeckel's embryos and recapitulation theory?
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
Actually...
April 19, 2008 - 12:38 ET by Syriusbotg,
With all due respect, you are asking someone to "prove" your theory exists...
"...perhaps your 'science' can show us your forcing agent that causes the
punctuated equilibrium spurts to occur only at some brief (geologically
speaking) time periods and not at other."
It is for you to prove your theory and for others to prove it wrong if they can. If the results by the scientific community negate your findings, you must throw it into the dust bin of history. As I have said in the past- Without GD, PE does not exist. If you are to cling to a PE theory, you must acknowledge GD as true and as a working model for your PE theory.
There are no scientific authorities, only experts in their particular fields of studies. There are authorities of religious doctrines. There is a difference. Once you understand it, you will always be allowed at the table of science whereas if you were to question a religious authority, you will be shown the door and told to go away. Religion cannot explain science, nor can science explain religion. Simple yet so complex...
Civility in a response or a personal attack...What will it be?
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
i'll wait for cleverpigs
April 19, 2008 - 13:42 ET by botgi'll wait for cleverpigs answer, you don't understand the question if you assert PE to be my theory. Also if you assert that GD is able to account for the fossil record without PE you are either disingenous or don't know the facts. Again your argument is with Stephen J Gould not me. Perhaps cleverpig will enlighten you on the current state of evolutionary theory??
You will one day know that science and religion are compatable and complimentary fields, i just hope for your sake that you come to this knowledge in time.
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
Syrius is perfectly capable
April 19, 2008 - 21:50 ET by cleverpigSyrius is perfectly capable of discussing this issue intelligently on his own, as he's shown in the past. Please don't use me to belittle other posters. Thanks.
do you truly believe that
April 19, 2008 - 22:14 ET by botgdo you truly believe that you and Syrius agree on this subject?
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
Whether or not Syrius and I
April 21, 2008 - 01:54 ET by cleverpigWhether or not Syrius and I agree is completely irrelevant to the question of whether he can carry on the discussion on his own. I don't reserve my respect only for people who agree with me.
botg, I'm curious - and
April 19, 2008 - 18:25 ET by hydrodynDMbotg,
I'm curious - and forgive me if you have already answered this in one of our previous conversations on this topic - but you do know that even if evolution is shown to be 100% wrong, that doesn't prove that ID is right, don't you?
Also, I'm not sure what your point is in pointing out problems with evolution? Are you suggesting that it shouldn't be taught or that it should be rejected outright? Are you suggesting that scientists in evolutionary science will never be able to address the issues you bring up?
I ask because, as far as I know, every scientific theory - every one - has its flaws and weaknesses.
Again, forgive me if I'm reading way to much into your posts.
hDM
April 19, 2008 - 18:28 ET by BlondeI saw this thread go on and on the other day....and thought of your forum post on the topic...of course, I was too lazy to go find it.
But I wanted to recommend it to those who have strong ideas on ID vs evolution. I found it to be very interesting. Perhaps you could ressurect it (oops)...by finding it and adding a new post.
Just a thought.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde, Thanks for the
April 19, 2008 - 18:46 ET by hydrodynDMBlonde,
Thanks for the suggestion - I posted the links below.
hydro
April 19, 2008 - 18:44 ET by botgteaching in schools should include the legitimate concerns/problems with the theory. I also am at odds with the censoring of ID theory in the schools. Does ID have it's problems? surely so teach them. I don't believe that evolutionary theory has the goods to explain what it purports to explain, but it is proposed as THE explanation. If the schools are teaching kids that something is true and undisputed as such while in truth it is not, isn't that scary to you?
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
botg, I can't speak for
April 19, 2008 - 18:55 ET by hydrodynDMbotg,
I can't speak for every science teacher, but I would imagine the responsible ones do point out the problems within evolutionary theory.
As far as science is concerned, evolutionary is the only available theory. ID isn't a scientific theory for the reason I pointed out to you before and which I've restated in a post (above) to Karma.
No scientific theory is "true". The problem is, most people (as evidenced by the comments I've seen here) don't realize that. A competent science teacher shouldn't suggest that any theory (be it evolution or relativity or quantum mechanics) is "true". If one does, that isn't the fault of science - any more than it's the fault of all of religion if one particular priest misstates the meaning of some religious doctrine.
It doesn't "scare" me that there are teachers out there like that - but it does bother me.
even if evolution is shown
April 19, 2008 - 21:52 ET by cleverpigeven if evolution is shown to be 100% wrong, that doesn't prove that ID is right, don't you?
My apologies, I'm totally echoing points you've already made further down on the thread! That's what I get for failing to notice discussions that happen above the arguments I'm in!
cleverpig, I was thinking
April 19, 2008 - 21:55 ET by hydrodynDMcleverpig,
I was thinking about saying something but ... it's Saturday night and it's all good.
Your insistence that I
April 19, 2008 - 20:54 ET by cleverpigYour insistence that I prove the perfection of evolutionary theory is ridiculous and tangential to the discussion. The question at hand is not "is evolutionary theory perfect and whole in every way," but "is ID a theory of equal merit?" Showing that evolutionary theory still has areas that need study does not in any way address the problems with ID. So I will politely decline to answer, it's off topic.
Your insistence that I
April 19, 2008 - 21:06 ET by botgYour insistence that I prove the perfection of ID theory is ridiculous and tangential to the discussion. The question at hand is not "is ID theory perfect and whole in every way," but "is ID a theory of merit?" Showing that ID theory still has areas that need study does not in any way address the censorship rather than engaging the issue. So I will politely decline to answer, it's off topic.
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
Um, I didn't ask you to
April 19, 2008 - 21:36 ET by cleverpigUm, I didn't ask you to prove anything. Have you really sunk to mimicking my words instead of responding? In your head, did you say that to me in a nasally sing-song? Did you point, for extra emphasis? Perhaps next you can try "I know you are but what am I?"
why not at all cleverpig
April 19, 2008 - 21:48 ET by botgjust allowing you to see the credibility of your logic by switching the sides. If it is a valid argument for the one it is valid for the other. Perhaps you are engaging in 'special pleading'?
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
ID isn't a theory of merit
April 19, 2008 - 21:51 ET by balboaID isn't a theory of merit in a science class.
answer number 2
April 19, 2008 - 21:09 ET by botgthis thread is about Ben Stiens movie on Evolution? How does a critique of evolution become off-topic and tangental? I know you have better answers than that!
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
† Please botg
April 19, 2008 - 21:14 ET by Cool ArrowCan't you see? The topic is "evolving"
♣ a seal
√ please waiter we're
April 19, 2008 - 21:30 ET by botg√ please waiter we're done with dessert
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
It's Ben Stein's movie about
April 19, 2008 - 21:40 ET by cleverpigIt's Ben Stein's movie about how ID is a theory that merits discussion. Even if evolution was proven to be completely wrong, that wouldn't make ID any better of a theory. Therefore, you cannot support the movie's assertion by attacking evolution, only be shoring up ID. Any discussion of particular contentions in evolutionary theory will be long, complicated, and in the end do nothing to change the facts about ID, so I am saying it is tangential and threatens to take us way off topic.
the first step in a defense
April 19, 2008 - 22:07 ET by botgthe first step in a defense of ID is to debunk the 'strawman' arguments against it. It is also a request for an even field. To say prove ID before we allow it while evolution is not held to the same standard is special pleading. To then say we shouldn't talk of evolution misses the point since if evolution is fully correct ID is not. Showing the holes in the evolutionary explanation shows a need for additional explanitory power in a theory. They do not have to be mutually exclusive and both could be wrong. Perhaps i need to do a forum on the positive case for ID? First would be a 'philosophy of Science' forum.
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
Here's my beef: evolution at
April 19, 2008 - 22:20 ET by balboaHere's my beef: evolution at least has evidence that scientists have cited and can provide. What evidence does ID have?
bal
April 19, 2008 - 22:24 ET by botgwhat books on ID have you read?
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
None. That's why I asked.
April 19, 2008 - 22:38 ET by balboaNone. That's why I asked.
As a math teacher, I can
April 20, 2008 - 03:27 ET by PeskyDaneAs a math teacher, I can tell you that the odds do not favor evolution, but do favor a designer. It is the nature of the designer that belongs in philosophy class, whereas the design product belongs firmly in the realm of science and in the science classroom.
As for evidence, most paleontologists will tell you that there is no where near enough evidence in the fossil record to teach evolution to the degree of certainty with which it is presented in many classrooms.
PeskyDane, As a science
April 20, 2008 - 14:54 ET by hydrodynDMPeskyDane,
As a science teacher, I'd be interested to know how exactly you would calculate the odds of a scientific theory being a good empirical model.
That aside, I fully agree with your comment on which classes are appropriate for which topics.
The more I read about the
April 20, 2008 - 15:10 ET by tracheostomyThe more I read about the general topic, the more I understand the mistakes being made on both sides.
- Rank and file atheists and agnostics popularly assume ID theory "identifies" the designer as a Judeo-Christian God.
- Rank and file Christians and Jews popularly assume ID theory "identifies" the designer as a Judeo-Christian God.
Both are wrong. Because ID is not an "ID card" for anyone in particular. Thus, the evangelical right loses their back-door gospel*, and consensus scientists lose their appeal to motive fallacy.
Yet the theory remains.
-PJ
*Which I myself am more than willing to part with.
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
You are spot on. ID
April 20, 2008 - 15:15 ET by PeskyDaneYou are spot on. ID is just an assertion that there is a guiding hand along the way.
PeskyDane, And what is
April 20, 2008 - 15:29 ET by hydrodynDMPeskyDane,
And what is that "guiding hand" if not supernatural in nature?
tracheostomy, Um, I never
April 20, 2008 - 15:28 ET by hydrodynDMtracheostomy,
Um, I never said that ID theory identifies the designer in any way.
I do, however, think that at its core, ID does assume a supernatural agent of some kind. If I'm wrong on this, please explain it to me.
But if I am correct on that, then ID isn't scientific.
But that doesn't mean it isn't a worthy field of study.
Hydro: Um, I never said
April 21, 2008 - 00:30 ET by tracheostomyHydro: Um, I never said that ID theory identifies the designer in any way.
Um. . .I never said you did. It's the popular opinion of those who aren't really that well read on ID.
Hydro: I do, however, think that at its core, ID does assume a supernatural
agent of some kind. If I'm wrong on this, please explain it to me.
No, it doesn't "assume" it. See what I'm saying? For one thing, it necessarily depends on information theory. This is something you can actually measure and something unique only to intelligent beings.
Hydro: But if I am correct on that, then ID isn't scientific.
That's the consensus assumption. The wiki on this is particularly bent.
Hydro: But that doesn't mean it isn't a worthy field of study.
Please don't be patronizing. If it's founded on an a priori assumption that cannot be proven at the outset, then it really should be thrown out completely.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07