Ben Stein's 'Expelled' - Evolution, Academia and Conformity 1766
eldavojohn writes "Painting the current scientific community as just as bad as the Spanish Inquisition, an extended trailer of Ben Stein's "Expelled" has a lot of people (at least that I know) talking. It looks like his movie plans to encourage people to speak out if they believe intelligent design or creationism to be correct. In the trailer he even warns you that if you are a scientist you may lose your job by watching 'Expelled.' Backlash to the movie has started popping up and this may force the creationism/evolutionist debate to a whole new level across the big screen and the internet."
adholden points out a site called Expelled Exposed, which asserts that 'Expelled' "is simply an anti-science propaganda film aimed at creating controversy where none exists, while promoting poor science education that can and will severely handicap American students."
Which do you believe? (Score:4, Interesting)
On the other side, we've got.... an ex-Nixon speechwiter/game show host.
*sighs* - I bet he's skeptical about anthropomorphic climate change too (there seems to be an extraordinarily high overlap between the two groups).
Oh, and he Godwins himself at 2:40 in the linked video. Discussion over.
Re:Which do you believe? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Which do you believe? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, the same could be argued for human free will.
Re:Which do you believe? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Which do you believe? (Score:4, Funny)
random is: short term unpredictable, long term predictable.
Nobody studies random chaos, as there's nothing to predict.
Re:Which do you believe? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nitpick: a chaotic system is one where no leve of detail is insignificant. In order to make predictions arbitrarily far into the future, you have to know the state of the system arbitrarily accurately. However, quantum mechanics forbid you from knowing the state beyond a certain accuracy; consequently, a sufficiently chaotic system is impossible to predict arbitrarily far into the future, and no amount of computing power can change that.
Not that any of this has anything to do with free will. That particular hornet's nest results from trying to apply a philosophical concept into particle physics. That said philosophical concept is ill-defined to begin with certainly doesn't help.
Re:Which do you believe? (Score:4, Informative)
Chaos' technical name is "Sensitive Dependence on Initial Conditions." Any time a model is constructed, initial conditions must be fed into it before it is used in a simulation; those initial conditions are based on measurements and are therefore not infinitely precise, nor completely accurate. In certain systems, like weather, a small perturbation in the initial conditions causes a drastic change in the output. These systems are informally called Chaotic, but, in reality, they are just as deterministic as any other system because for a given input they give the same output.
Weather is, after all, still just modeled by a set of equations; in fact, a passable model can be constructed with something like only 8 or 9 equations.
Re:Which do you believe? (Score:4, Insightful)
Before we start our discussion would you be so kind to state with a few rational arguments why your idea of 'Jesus Christ the savior' deserves more attention from me than the flying spaghetti monster?
Re:Which do you believe? (Score:4, Insightful)
2 If I told a lie would it be any less of a lie if millions believed me? Or for that matter wether I tell it now or a long time ago?
3 Same argument... The amount of people that take some guys existence for granted without any proof doesn't give the idea more credibility.
Interestingly both Jesus and the FSM (may his meatballs be ever spicy!) are well documented but you choose to believe a parody to have equal weight to an historic person. Delusional ever?
On that topic... besides that one book those christians keep talking about.... could you show me some actual evidence that he is an actual historic person and not just a mythical figure?
Re:Which do you believe? (Score:4, Informative)
Apparently you need to investigate harder. There is very little argument at this point over whether Jesus existed or not. Wikipedia has an article which details historical sources used to reconstruct the existence of Jesus independent from the religious views about him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus [wikipedia.org]
Whether you believe him to be the Son of God or simply a man who started Yet Another Religion(TM), not too many historians will take the position that he simply didn't exist.
Re:Which do you believe? (Score:4, Insightful)
Attempting to provide alternate explanations without testable hypotheses are not good science. Just so we're clear, every single testable hypothesis produced by creationist scientists has been refuted by experiment.
A subtle but nuanced result of Godel's Incompleteness theorem is that what you call "minds" are no more powerful than sufficiently advanced computer programs. Creationists have produced zero evidence, beyond philosophical musings, that a mind needs anything to function other than the neural activity in the brain, and the fact that brain damage can effectively destroy a mind lends HUGE weight to the theory that a physical brain contains everything necessary to produce minds.
Further, it is quite easy to write computer programs that readily "discover" new information in mounds of raw data. This is called data mining. And spare me the creationist rhetoric about "who wrote the computer program" -- computer programs are NOT biological organisms, though it is known by computer scientists that selection over incremental changes to computer algorithms can produce more complex, adapted algorithms.
No, there is ZERO reason to even suggest that information can only be produced supernaturally. The hypothesis itself is totally unfalsifiable because we have no way of even knowing that the supernatural exists, let alone making absolutist truth-claims about it. This is pseudoscience of the worst kind.
And please stop using the term "evolutionist" if you want to be taken seriously. It's a baseless framing device used by creationists in order to try and place it on an "even keel" with creationism.
Curiosity... (Score:4, Insightful)
(Disclaimer --> haven't seen the movie or any trailers, the above was a genuine question for anyone who has actually seen the movie, and not an attempt to troll. Also the question should not imply that I agree with or disagree with the movie. It really is JUST a question.)
Indeed, Scientific Zealotry Hurts the Cause ... (Score:5, Insightful)
During the whole montage he's writing something over and over on the blackboard and it comes out to be something like "I will NOT question Darwinian Evolution." He interviews scientists and editors who have lost their jobs for printing/writing papers that claim our DNA has a 'code' with information that could not have happened in nature.
Disclaimer, I read a lot of Darwin/Dawkins/Gould so I'm pretty biased here
I think that even though it's 'a waste of time,' it's bad to write these people off or fire them. I'm sure there's sound criticism against these papers and authors but Ben Stein isn't showing that in his movie if there is.
If you have friends who believe in Creationism, respect them and provide for them sound arguments against it. It may be a waste of time to you but it's complete snobbery to write them off. Ben Stein is correct that you may lose friends if you watch that movie and become polarized by it--don't let that happen!
Like a Michael Moore movie, objectivity is raped, killed, gutted and donned over a rich man's face who then can safely tell you what to think.
Re:Indeed, Scientific Zealotry Hurts the Cause ... (Score:5, Interesting)
(1) A BBC reporter wrote a fair, non-biased article on global warming. In one paragraph he stated, "Not all scientists agree that global warming is caused by man-made actions," which is an accurate statement. Not "all" scientists think man caused the problem. Some don't even think it's a problem, saying it's just part of a natural cycle that's been happening for the last 10,000 years.
(2) The reporter published the article on the website, and immediately an email rolled-in from an environmentalist demanding that phrase be expunged.
(3) The reporter and activist went back-and-forth several times, with the activist saying, "There is no doubt," and "We may be uncertain of the cause, but we must not let the common people know that we are uncertain."
(4) The reporter refused to rewrite his article until the activist told him, "If you do not comply, I will rally my group and you will receive thousands of emails demanding the change."
(5) The reporter, obviously concerned about this prospect (and possibly losing his job), immediately deleted the offending paragraph.
And thus:
An activist, acting somewhat akin to a religious zealot, took a balanced BBC article & turned it into a one-sided piece using the tactics of threats and coercion to silence any contrarian views about global warming. It does not surprise me to learn that similar tactics are being used to silence researchers and/or scientists.
Re:Indeed, Scientific Zealotry Hurts the Cause ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you please link to the CNN article? (Score:4, Insightful)
But you don't really illustrate the point - the OP was talking about scientists, and you illustrated the point with a story about a journalist and an environmental activist.
Oh - and can you pls link to the CNN article?
Re:Can you please link to the CNN article? (Score:4, Funny)
"The OP was talking about Christian preachers, and you illustrated the point with a story about a journalist and Jerry Fallwall!
Re:Can you please link to the CNN article? (Score:5, Informative)
Reprinted below:
A talking point among "climate sceptics" on both sides of the Atlantic has been the bizarre tale of how the BBC's chief reporter on climate change censored an item on the BBC website after being harried by a "climate activist".
On April 4 Roger Harrabin posted a story on the fact that world temperatures have not continued to rise in the past 10 years, and this year will fall to a level markedly below the average of the past two decades.
Citing the World Meteorological Organisation, Mr Harrabin accurately reported that "global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory".
This was a red rag to Jo Abbess of the Campaign Against Climate Change (Hon President, George Monbiot), who emailed Mr Harrabin demanding that he "correct" his item.
Mr Harrabin insisted that what he had written was true. There are indeed eminent climate scientists "who question whether warming will continue as predicted".
This only angered Ms Abbess further. She said it was "highly irresponsible to play into the hands of the sceptics", to "even hint that the Earth is cooling down again".
Mr Harrabin, though he has led the BBC's tireless promotion of warmist orthodoxy, stood firm. Even in the "general media", he replied, "sceptics" highlight the lack of increase since 1998: to ignore this might give the impression that "debate is being censored".
His item had, after all, added "we are still in a long-term warming trend".
This was too much for Ms Abbess. She responded that this was not "a matter of debate". He should not be quoting the sceptics "whose voice is heard everywhere, on every channel, deliberately obstructing the emergence of the truth".
Unless he changed his item, she said, "I would have to conclude that you are insufficiently educated to be able to know when you have been psychologically manipulated". She threatened to expose him by spreading his replies across the internet.
At this point the BBC's man caved in. Within minutes a new version appeared, given the same time and date as that which he had consigned to Winston Smith's memory hole.
Out went any mention of "sceptics" who question global warming. After a guarded reference to this year's "slightly cooler" temperatures, a new paragraph said that they would "still be above the average" and that we will "soon exceed the record year of 1998 because of the global warming induced by greenhouse gases".
Of course we have long known where the BBC stands on climate change. But it is good to have such clear evidence that, even when one of its reporters tries to be honest, he can be whipped back into line by a pressure group.
In the end, Ms Abbess still circulated the exchanges on the internet, to show the great victory she had won for the "emerging truth".
Re:Can you please link to the CNN article? (Score:5, Informative)
This statement was widely quoted to discredit climate change/global warming but it's really just a case of cherry-picked data. It was anomalously hot in 1998, and it's deliberately mis-leading to make generalized statements from anomalous data.
It is accurate to claim that global temperatures in every year 1999-2007 have been cooler than the temperatures of 1998*. However, stating that the temperatures "have not risen since 1998" implies that temperatures have been cooling since 1998, which is not true. Temperatures from 2000 through 2005 certainly rose every year.
Here's some pretty graphs [nasa.gov] to back up my statements.
* It depends on the data set (land, ocean, atmospheric, US only etc). For certain data sets, 2005-2006 was hotter than 1998, but on average 1998 wins.
I don't care which side of the argument you're on, I just hate it when someone deliberately mis-represents the data to support their side.
Re:Indeed, Scientific Zealotry Hurts the Cause ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Indeed, Scientific Zealotry Hurts the Cause ... (Score:4, Insightful)
I humor their kids who still believe in Santa, I guess I can pretend that humans magically appeared one day too.
People realize that their own ego is what's preventing them from accepting evolution, right? It's the crap that you've been forced into believing since birth plus the fact that you think you're somehow different than any other animal that makes you think that you're really magical, sorry "created."
Re:Indeed, Scientific Zealotry Hurts the Cause ... (Score:5, Insightful)
You should respect your friends who believe in Creationism and not belittle them. You should respect anyone in a proper debate and maintain a sound sense of decorum.
However, there is no reason to provide arguments for or against Creationism. None at all. Indeed, you would probably do much better if you simply stick with Common Descent, or even Abiogenesis if you wish. Provide sound reasons for this. Be prepared to patiently counter all the very tired and very old Creationist claims against these. But there is no reason whatsoever to tread in their realm. It's their job to provide sound reasons for Creationism, not everyone else's to counter it.
I am saddened both by the poor science of many Creationists and poor theology of many Evolutionists. If you repeat what you feel to be "sound arguments against [Creationism]", you may simply be parroting popular memes of Evolutionists which are easily countered by anyone more familiar with the Bible (or whatever). You may seem as ill informed to them as they do to you. This wouldn't help your goal of persuading them.
Re:Indeed, Scientific Zealotry Hurts the Cause ... (Score:5, Insightful)
And what is "good theology". Is there any theology in the entire world that is based on evidence rather than someone's interpretation of a mythical tradition?
Re:Indeed, Scientific Zealotry Hurts the Cause ... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm both an atheist and a skeptic, and after I got over being a prick about it, I could see that there were a lot of smart, sincere religious people out there doing their very best to lead good lives. And they often feel that the creationists, the religious warmongers, and the nutty god-pushers are guilty of twisting theology for their own sinful ends.
Whatever you think of the core beliefs of a given religion, the world's religious traditions preserve a great deal of pragmatic advice on how to conduct one's life. They provide a structure for examination of what it means to be human, and what kind of world we should strive to make. And they fill a spiritual need that, even if you and I don't have it, the bulk of humanity does.
Re:Indeed, Scientific Zealotry Hurts the Cause ... (Score:5, Insightful)
-birdmanesq
Pretty much sums it up. There's no "debate", only stupid people making movies or otherwise flapping their yaps.
Ben Stain is motivated by the same thing Michael Moore is, profit. Discourse on science doesn't happen on a movie screen, though it might happen at a lecture in a movie theatre.
Nothing to see here, move along.
Except the people who lost their jobs didn't... (Score:5, Informative)
To briefly (and probably not completely accurately) summarize: 1) one guy did get fired, but that's because he wasn't getting published or graduating many students. Sorry you didn't perform. 2) a guy who said "I was fired" from the smithsonian wasn't actually fired (and was never employed there anyway), still has access to the collections and an office there, etc. They did move him to a different office, so the fact that he said "they changed the locks on my office" is true. Even worse, this is the guy who, in his last month as editor of a scientific journal (not because he was fired, but because his time was going to be up anyway) basically took it upon himself to wave a publication into print without peer review, saying that he was the only qualified editor, when there were others who could have and should have been able to review this paper.
So the ID advocates portrayed here seem to be acting in deceitful or unethical ways, and then this movie is compounding their deceit.
There are a lot of interesting questions still to be answered in evolutionary theory; rehashing the same battles over and over again with these people is a distraction at best.
Re:Except the people who lost their jobs didn't... (Score:5, Insightful)
Welcome to America, 2008. Deceit and a lack of ethics raise concerns among people who post comments on blogs and news sites, but not necessarily among a majority of people who vote and write letters to their legislatures. We've arrived in an era in which there are two truths: right-wing truth and left-wing truth. You can pick either. Each has its own dedicated news and opinion services dedicated to it, so regardless of which one you pick, you can safely pretend the other doesn't exist until a talking head points out how silly the other side looks.
Here's the catch: most of the emotional advantages are firmly on the side of right-wing truth. Think of what feels good and it's true. America is the best country on earth, and everything we do is therefore moral. Oil production will never peak. The environment will take care of itself regardless of what we do, because it was put there for us by God. What industry lobbyists say about the climate is more correct than what most scientists say, because the scientists are communists. Human beings are special: not a type of animal that evolved along with other animals, but higher beings on a pedestal above animals.
See? Emotionally the right wing is far more satisfying. If you pick right-wing truth, there's no need to apply any scrutiny to it, and it provides a mirror of left wing truth in every respect, aside from a lack of creditability its adherents don't seem to miss.
Re:Indeed, Scientific Zealotry Hurts the Cause ... (Score:4, Insightful)
See, that's going to be a bit of a problem...
That I can do.
I can respect people who do very stupid things, but that does not mean I respect the stupid things people think or do. I respect your right to believe whatever you want to believe, but I don't respect your invisible sky-god. And if you honestly believe the world was created in six days some six thousand years ago, there had better be something else about you that is damned impressive if you want my respect.
I am willing to discuss these things sanely, civilly, even non-confrontationally, but I do still find creationism to be laughable.
You must be a cdesign proponentsist (Score:4, Informative)
It's an unprovable theory (as unprovable as the existence of God).
And as for ID not being the same as creationism, would you like to explain this - http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing_link_cd.html
Re:Indeed, Scientific Zealotry Hurts the Cause ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Indeed, Scientific Zealotry Hurts the Cause ... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Evolutionists with their painfully paranoid agenda"
Yes, because if we can get 50% of the world to believe, the devil wins! Yay!
What the hell is going through your pointy little head when you suggest that "evolutionists", (why not "proofists" or "rightists"?) have an agenda. Like, the main organization sends us a card with monthly talking points when it hands out our anti-god assignments?
You even misunderstood the post you replied to.
It mentioned those who take Genesis literally (creationists) and those who think it's a metaphor (ID - god created the world but not in a literal week). You probably take it as a metaphor.
If there was even one IDer (or creationist - but they know they aren't scientific - their honesty is refreshing) with the answers to these basic question, they might get a modicum of respect.
1) Why your religion? All religions claim be *the* one?
2) You do understand non-falsifiable theories are useless?
But unfortunately, to an IDer, "evidence" is a good insult you can shout at a real thinking person. Go get your sign, dumbass, your team needs your research skills on the street corner.
The shame of all of this is that you don't even understand the big words. Here's a rundown. You have no proof. The bible isn't. You don't even have a theory, as to have a theory you have to have an idea of what could make your idea wrong.
Watching religious people "think" is like watching the tobacco industry lobby. It's not about facts in any way, but about what masses of them want facts to be. Popular answers spread through the group like wildfire, but nobody is willing to support anything with citations or arguments. Also, your main defense is to point out potential failures in the opposition and hope it distracts from your lack of proof. You're far more concerned with the appearance of being right than any actual correctness.
Spend all the time you want showing that many people believe ID. It's not like to makes it look better - it merely gives us a better idea of Scientology's potential user-base. Science and truth aren't popularity based. I don't need the support of a herd of cows to speak the truth - you're all idiots and you have no proof. Not even the hope of proof.
Re:Indeed, Scientific Zealotry Hurts the Cause ... (Score:4, Insightful)
I know that's what they teach you in 4th grade, but as is often the case, it's oversimplified to the point of being absurd.
We commonly depict the Earth as moving around Sol, but that's merely a frame of reference -- Sol could be just as accurately described as orbiting Earth. With both the moon and the sun orbiting Earth, it's not a huge leap to assume that other astronomical bodies do the same. It's not actually true, but it's a logical, intuitive assumption and it takes some relatively sophisticated observations to disprove. Until Galileo, no one had made those observations, and therefore the prevailing model, even outside the political influence of the church, and in full accordance with valid scientific observations, was one of an Earth-centric universe.
Copernicus did model Sol at the center of the universe, but he choose to do so purely for aesthetic reasons -- he had not actually made any observations to disprove a Earth-centered universe, he just liked the way the Sol-centered universe worked out when he modeled it. And while there's some validity to "the simplest solution is often the best" it's a long way from actual science.
The church definitely worked to suppress ideas outside of their line of thinking. And it did act against Galileo, though his astronomical observations are only a footnote in those proceedings -- they wanted to silence him for questioning church dogma (and thus endangering the church's political power) in general, largely outside the arena of science. I'm not saying they liked the church liked his model or wanted to spread it around, but it's hardly the reason they placed him under arrest.
And yes, I keep using "universe" here in the sense that we would commonly use "solar system" nowadays. But I think it's important to point out the difference in perspective that these people had.
Re:Indeed, Scientific Zealotry Hurts the Cause ... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's too vague a question, really.
To understand biology, you absolutely must understand the fact of evolution, at least on a micro scale. You don't have to believe it's the origin of species, but there are certain parts of it that you must at least accept, or you won't understand biology.
But, you see, no one does. And I imagine most people wouldn't put such a disclaimer on these things -- only Evolution gets the "just a theory" stickers.
Your example of Newtonian gravity isn't entirely valid -- Newtonian gravity was disproved by Einstein's Relativity. Do you see similar stickers on Relativity?
That, and Newtonian gravity is still used. It has not been wholly discarded -- Relativity is a refinement of Newtonian physics. If you look at the equations, Newtonian gravity is still there, just with a few additional terms multiplied in that usually end up being close enough to 1 that we can ignore them.
No.
Science itself is supposed to be neutral and unbiased. But a scientist absolutely is allowed to have an opinion, so long as they don't pretend that opinion is science.
Because evolution is generally widely accepted in the scientific community, and if you actually read up on it, it makes sense, and it has been tested. It's pretty much as solid as gravity.
So when someone questions it, there are generally three possibilities:
Which seems more likely?
Yes, it could be #3 -- but that is more like Einstein refining Newton's theory. No one's suggesting that gravity be thrown out, and we go back to Aristotle's (I think) theories of things falling because they are "earthly", and stars not falling because they are "heavenly".
The reason you get this response is that almost every argument against Darwin is exactly like the arguments against Galileo. We all know how that turned out.
Re:Curiosity... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, this is just Ben Stein's great way of capitalizing on fears and preconceptions of the population. He literally produced a film that caters to the ignorant and the blindly faithful... without even a shred of evidence that he himself believes it.
The movie will do great harm to the already eroded image of science and scientists in the U.S., despite presenting very flimsy evidence in the Michael Moore style of film-making (i.e. gross misrepresentations, half-truths, and outright lies, sprinkled with a dose of misplaced truth to prevent it from being rejected outright).
Stein actually told the people he interviewed for the movie that he was making a completely different film (philosophy, I think). This is grossly unethical, but par for the course for current media. Frankly, I just didn't expect Stein to follow suit.
As a scientist who believes in God, I am appalled at this film, and I think Stein should be ashamed of himself. Maybe if not for asshole exercises such as this, people would calm down and realize that unless you take religious texts literally, they address questions that are incompatible with science, and thus cannot possibly be in conflict with the latter.
Re:Which do you believe? (Score:5, Interesting)
Having worked with a great number of scientists in my life, I would not note them for lack of bias or neutrality. In fact, I'd say scientists are noted for their strong opinions and personal bias'.
Re:Which do you believe? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Which do you believe? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is also the filtering of evidence and interpretation of evidence so as to favor one's viewpoint. Quite common in our science today.
Re:Which do you believe? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, had to do that.
Re:Which do you believe? (Score:4, Insightful)
However, the idea that there's an irrational, conspiratorial bias against challenges to the theory of evolution is, to be very polite, dubious. Researchers who cast serious doubt on evolutionary theory using the scientific method, producing results that were consistent and repeatable, would surely get a whole lot of flak at first -- but they'd eventually be given Nobel prizes. That's the kind of thing that makes careers. The kind of thing that destroys careers is making extraordinary claims that fall apart under testing -- or, as in the case of intelligent design, making extraordinary claims that can't be tested at all.
In a lot of ways, ID uses the same "logic" as any classic conspiracy theory: searching the "accepted truth" for any (apparently) unexplained gaps and shrieking Ah-HA! This disproves it all! Trying to fight these theories is a tedious and dispiriting proposition; you often have to try to bring your opponent up to speed on knowledge they'd need to have (and accept) to examine the evidence critically, and they're far from a receptive audience. And even if you manage that, there's going to be another "gap" they can find. And another. And if you have to eventually try and explain that data which isn't accounted by the theory is not the same as predicting a specific outcome which turns out to be wrong? Good luck with that.
Re:Which do you believe? (Score:5, Insightful)
After all your not going to spend 5/10 years working on something you think might be wrong.
Re:Which do you believe? (Score:5, Interesting)
As example, scientists once thought the planets moved in perfectly-circular orbits, but when observations showed that was not true, these same scientists refused to believe the data. It took several years (and the death of the stubborn scientists) for a new generation to propose ellipitical orbits. The refusal to accept new data is called "protecting your paradigm" aka your belief system, even in the face of facts that challenge it.
Scientists often do this to protect their lifelong work and/or career, rather than admit they are wrong.
Re:Which do you believe? (Score:5, Insightful)
Kuhn has been exaggerated, and even his original claims do not fit the history of science well. Scientists tend to be conservative, and wait for strong evidence in support of a new theory so that they don't get taken in by the fringe. What Kuhn does not mention, of course, is that fringe theories that are just dead wrong outnumber valid theories a hundred to one, strongly justifying this approach (ID is an example of the far lunatic fringe.) His story of multiple Copernican Revolutions is also wrong. A Copernican Revolution occurs when a valid scientific theory arrives which brings a solid foundation to further research. There is at most one in each scientific field of research--examples include the original work of Copernicus (which became the basis for Galileo, Newton, and eventually Einstein), Darwin's theory of evolution, plate tectonics, and DNA. Prior to these advances the field is a chaotic mash of data with no means of organization, only guesswork. Einstein's work was not a Copernican revolution, but a refinement of existing physics into the very large and small scales. He did not prove Newton wrong.
What makes Kuhn so popular is the narrative of the lone genius who, in David and Goliath fashion, takes on the powerful and corrupt empire to change the world. According to this narrative, science is just a majority opinion defended by political maneuvering. This is utter bullshit. The fastest way to win a Nobel prize and establish your career is to prove other scientists wrong--but for that, you need evidence. ID doesn't have any. Not a single scrap. ID isn't a scientific theory, but a well financed marketing campaign masquerading as one, presenting this narrative and a soggy heap of postmodernist drivel to encourage and exploit ignorance.
Re:Which do you believe? (Score:5, Informative)
Of course scientists have strong opinions, and of course they have biases. This isn't a problem. Einstein, for example, was a fierce opponent of quantum mechanics -- the 'spooky action at a distance' doesn't fit with c as a speed limit.
But the fact is that one of the primary goals of just about every scientist is to challenge or overturn the conventional wisdom. And to so in a way that is observable and disprovable. You don't get a ticket to Stockholm by echoing the community.
Similarly, every true scientist values being proven wrong, because that is what advances our collective knowledge. A scientist who who has never been wrong, or who doesn't appreciate being proven wrong, is a poor scientist indeed.
But on the same note, challenges to established scientific principles must themselves be scientific, and that is the problem here. This creationist doctrine, whatever term proponents choose to call it, is fundamentally non-scientific -- even anti-science. If a theory can't produce hypotheses, can't be tested, can't be disproven, and can't make predictions, then it's not a theory and certainly not science.
Re:Which do you believe? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am skeptical about evolution. The thing is that right now the majority of evidence is that evolution is real and explains a lot about how life has changed over the history of the planet.
I am skeptical about creationism. So far every talk I have listened to on creationism has had more error in science than I can shake a stick at.
If you are not skeptical then it isn't science. If you are not open to the possibility that you are wrong then it isn't science.
As far as global climate change from human CO2 production. Yes I am very skeptical. I don't think they have nearly enough data to prove it. The way the climate change faithful keep saying this or that disaster or storm was caused by global warming really doesn't help. Snow in Bagdad this winter and record cold and snow in many places this winter also are interesting data points.
Heck I am even for cutting CO2 production just in case because frankly as the old saying goes "It can't hurt".
But the people that claim that Man made global warming is a proven fact are also spouting off bad science.
Being skeptical is a good thing and good science.
subduction leades to orogeny (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, there is a good bit of symmetry here. I often say that the Intelligent Design(ID) people admire how the Man Made Climate Change (MMCC) people have pushed their cause. If you believe in the scientific method [wikipedia.org] you have no problems with anyone challenging a theory. In fact, you'd welcome it because it either disproves the theory or makes it more accurate.
Evolution has advanced in it's "completeness" as a theory because of many challenges made to it over the years, and those challenges have helped science immensely. Just because a theory is wideley accepted however, does not mean that it is correct. Prior to Plate Tectonics being widely accepted it was scorned and rejected [wikipedia.org] by leading scientists who had careers built on "old science." This incidentally what the subject line of this post refers to: subduction is one continental shelf sliding under another, and orogeny is mountain building (of course since this is /. let me point out IANAG).
Yet because the heart of Geophysics is still physics, these great scientists were able to accept challenges and look at the new theory and say "yes -- this fits better." And that's what's awesome (and to me holy) about SCIENCE. You can challenge ANY assertion, and if your model is better, it will persuade people. I'm sure some physicist can help me out and show how the theory of gravity has changed massively since Newton -- even though a lay person would say "yeah, I get gravity."
So here's where Expelled and ID fall down -- we KNOW their theory. What is being taught in schools about evolution is mostly demonstrable. We can show evolution in anti-biotic resistant strains of bacteria, that directly impacts humans and health. ID is being taught in the appropriate places -- houses of worship -- where challenges are heresy. Yet in teaching SCIENCE in schools we want to teach that every assertion CAN be challenged and should be observable. That's what science is -- an attempt to understand the universe through observation and experimentation. If someone wants to challenge something in science and can bring legitimate observations to the table, they should be welcomed for the CRITICAL (pun intended) role they play in the process. ID has to reject the scientific method, science always looks for challenges to make the model more accurate -- but ID is by definition perfectly accurate already, and cannot be challenged.
I support everything the MMCC people want as an end result -- I'd like to see us embrace alternative energy, stop burning fossil fuels and generally be more conscious of the impact we have on the planet. I also think that there is a real harm being done to science when people with legitimate complaints about the SCIENCE of MMCC are treated as pariahs. Although I tend to think that MMCC is real, and there is certainly no harm in proceeding to curb our carbon emissions, I welcome the legimate claims of people who think that solar cycles are responsible, or that this period is not particularly warm on a geological chart of temperatures. These are legitimate scientific ideas based on observation and empirical data. MMCC as a theory will gain much more respect when it embraces challenges, instead of treating them in the same way ID treats challenges -- by throwing the scientific method under a bus. On the other hand, if the MMCC people do succeed in making challenges to their "science" become heresy, the ID people will be sure to take notes in how that happened.
Re:Which do you believe? (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps climate change wants to be man made?
(seriously, thanks for the correction).
RDS = Re-Direct Script! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Which do you believe? (Score:5, Funny)
A toast (Score:3, Insightful)
Not the issue... (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, if they want to teach it in a Religious Studies type class, I'm all for it. Go for it. That's precisely where it belongs.
Re:Not the issue... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not the issue... (Score:5, Interesting)
Your use of the term "theory" in this context shows that you have no idea what it means for something to be a scientific Theory. People who call intelligent design a "theory" are simply trying to convince your average Joe Sixpack that it is equally as plausible and on the some footing as the scientific Theory of Evolution. It is not. As far as I know, no other Theories currently exist to explain the diversity of life. No one is hiding other theories, because there aren't any. There are some fairy tales that were meant to try and explain it several thousand years ago, which in no way resemble a theory of any sort.
Re:Not the issue... (Score:4, Insightful)
ID is a hypothesis with *ZERO* evidence.
Evolution is a scientific theory with *MOUNTAINS* of evidence.
Let's not mix up one of our best scientific theories with some wild idea someone pulled out of their ass^H^H^H^H^Hbible.
Re:Not the issue... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, first off, you have just shifted your argument from evolution to all observable natural laws. You are also mixing up several things that are not necessarily related; the origin of life (e.g., primordial soup) is a different topic than evolution. Let's just concentrate on evolution for now.
Evolution could be falsified by a single fossil turning up in the "wrong place" in the fossil record. With millions and millions of fossils found, not a single one has been found "in the wrong place" for evolution to be true. In addition, the theory of evolution has predicted transitional life forms that have then been found in the correct geological time frame in the fossil record.
Now, to address your primordial soup comment - the fact that there is not a known answer for this does not necessarily imply that "God did it". Your "God of the Gaps" argument is quite traditional, and typically becomes more and more desperate as continuous increases in scientific knowledge make the gaps smaller and smaller. Read some books, take some science classes, and educate yourself on this issue, because you appear to be talking out of your ass at the moment.
Who the hell is Ben Stein ... (Score:4, Interesting)
So he's a comedian, a writer, a white-house speech writer, a law professor and a believer in intelligent design.
Fine, another one of those scientist who think that being a scientist, they can have a scientific opinion on any subject out there.
He's a lawyer, he can have scientific stances on law (if that's possible anyway
Feel free to believe in an Old Man in the Sky, and to embrace ID. Just don't forget to mention that scientific evidence points the other way.
Re:Who the hell is Ben Stein ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who the hell is Ben Stein ... (Score:5, Interesting)
He is posing questions like, Why do we teach kids the difference between laws, and theory and then act like evolution is a law?
Evolution is really good at explaining how butterflies change color overtime, it does not explain how you get from paramecium to human does that not leave room for some alternate theories?
In what way does the presents of evolution rule out an intelligent designer; might that designer have included an evolutionary mechanism?
All Stein is doing is asking scientists to act like it. They should acknowledge the weak spots in any theory and look to finding the explanations. Stein's documentary could have been about a variety of other subjects. He is simply saying don't close the books until all the facts are in. There is nothing wrong with that its good science. Imagine if people had decided special relativity worked so well we need not bother look at string theory?
Its the same thing. Anyone who takes issue with Steins message is being pretty petty and short sighted.
Re:Who the hell is Ben Stein ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who the hell is Ben Stein ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Academic Oppression (Score:5, Funny)
Given a circle with a radius of 10, whats the circumference? Some would say thats its 10 * 2 * "pi"!
But what is this pi? They can't even define it;its completely irrational! Meanwhile they suppress the controversy. When I put down a much more reasonable answer - 60, because the literal Bible tells me the circumference of a circle is 2*r*3 [biblegateway.com], I was marked wrong! The Nazis used these numbers to build their war machine and concentration camps and its being taught to children far to young to understand its deceptiveness. Inquiring minds are led to a literally endless and patternless series of numbers intended to confuse and dull the mind.
Teach the controversy!
Re:Academic Oppression (Score:5, Interesting)
The point is that the ridiculous "pi equals three because the Bible says so" is just as bad an example of cherry-picking as the folks who will quote specific out-of-context Leviticus quotes to "prove" that the Bible is against homosexuality, or point to Genesis and say it "proves" that the universe was created in 6000 years.
You say everyone recognizes that "pi = 3" was not the point of the Bible, and yet there are thousands of Biblical literalists out there who do that exact same thing with whichever passages they find convenient, while hand-waving away those parts that contradict what they want to believe.
Re:Academic Oppression (Score:4, Insightful)
No one has ever seriously advocated the earth is flat? There's some papal writing you might want to check for that one. A literal reading does require it (Matthew 4:8, Daniel 4:10-11, Job 38:13, Job 37:3) but let's use another example. What about that the earth circles the sun (heliocentric model)? A literal reading of the Bible requires a geocentric viewpoint. See Joshua 10:12-13, Ecclesiastes 1:5, 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalms 93:1, Psalms 19:4-6, etc etc.
Scientists were persecuted for putting forth a heliocentric model despite scientific proof. Indeed, there are those who still advocate a geocentric viewpoint [google.com]. People got over it. In every developed part of the world except the US, evolution is not controversial; their people got over it Its time we did the same. Evolution is fact.
Re:Academic Oppression (Score:4, Insightful)
Heck, you get the argument that all humanity on Earth began from Adam and Eve, despite the fact that Cain is marked by God so that any man who finds him will kill him on sight (Genesis 4:15), leaves to settle in the Land of Nod, and in the very next verse (Genesis 4:17) he "knew his wife". His wife? Where the heck did a wife come from? Were Adam and Eve especially bizz-ay? Did God go around randomly creating other humans, and if so, why aren't they written about in Genesis? You'd think the dawn of the human race was important enough that God would make sure to include a heck of a lot more detail.
My point is that you can't decide that some parts of the Bible are to be taken literally, and others are not -- never mind the fact that what we consider "the Bible" today has been translated and retranslated, by people both benign and malicious. One can argue that every single translator was somehow imbued with the Holy Spirit in the same manner as the original authors and thus produced an infallible translation... but that opens a whole new can of worms, as we have dozens of translations of the Bible right now that occasionally contradict one another.
And if you aren't going to be super literal about the origin of man... then there's no argument. It's all semantics. God could easily have designed the Big Bang and the formation of the cosmos and the evolution of life to work out exactly as it has.
In fact, that makes far more sense to me; why would He create this complex universe with its incredible mesh of physical laws, only to break them with miracles and supernatural occurrences? I'd think He'd work within the confines of what He had created.
Evolution doesn't disprove God(s)... BUT... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, a lot of people don't understand the distinction, and people like Dawkins don't help. Many religious types treat 'discounting an argument for god(s)' the same as 'advancing an argument against god(s)', and go ballistic. But it's important to note the difference. There's still room to believe in god(s) even if you accept the ridiculously overwhelming evidence that evolution happened and is happening. (I don't believe in god(s), FWIW, but many people do.)
Stein and his ilk really remind me of the worst features of Ned Flanders sometimes. "Well, I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
It isn't science. (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember if intelligent design is correct then it can be explained, demonstrated and then analysed further. Until then it is as much a waste of time as it is trying to work out how much flour Flying Spagetti Monster is made up of.
Another American obsession (Score:5, Interesting)
This whole debate seems pretty strange to European eyes. I consider myself to be a fundamentalist Bible believing evangelical Christian, but, in Britain, people like me take the view that Genesis describes the evolutionary process pretty well. Although many Evangelicals support Intelligent Design or Young Earth Creationism, there's little opposition within Christian circles to full acceptance of the scientific explanation of the origins of life.
Between this and support for a right-wing social and foreign policy agenda, I sometimes wonder if American evangelicals read the same Bible that I do.
'Intelligent Design' Advocates Make Kids Idiots (Score:4, Insightful)
Sometimes (Score:5, Insightful)
Then they mock you because you expect to be taken seriously without putting in the work to become informed.
Then they fight you, because you won't go away until you've had your fight, and ingrained in your thinking, so deeply you don't know it's there, is the notion that might makes right.
Then you win, because there are so many ignorant, lazy, belligerent people that sooner later sensible people, who want to get something accomplished with their lives, will sooner or later give up on picking sense out of your nonsense.
So much to say... (Score:5, Insightful)
The irony is thick in this one (Score:5, Informative)
I think he is right (Score:5, Funny)
He's totally right, science in academia should be more about discussing what you believe and less about what science people have found out after observation and experimentation.
For example the other day when my chemistry teacher told me that material stuff is made of atoms, I really couldn't believe him. I think I should have been given the right back then to discuss with them about my theory that everything is conformed by milk derivatives.
I shouldn't really have to prove my theory or even get the smallest amount of evidence pointing to the certainty of my theory before being given the opportunity to have kids at school discuss about it.
And all what I said in this post is the truth, because if you read this post you may lose your job.
ben stein seems smart (Score:5, Insightful)
we need to confront the real underlying psychological issue here: faith in humanity
religious folk view something like evolution as a path to meaninglessness, nihilism, cynicism. your typical secular humanist expresses their faith in mankind directly: there is no conflict between evolution and being positive about mankind's future
but religious folk's minds don't work like that. for a religious person, their faith in humanity is indirect. it is tied up in symbols and code words, like god. god is really just a psychological manifestation of an abstract concept: an ideal man, what humanity strives for, progress
and around an idea like god, you get all of these related mythologies that again, are really just props for retaining and reaffirming and indirect positivistic faith in society and mankind
so what really divides the secular humanists and the religious folk are those with no faith in mankind. when you look at something like evolution, and you consider your traditional religious symbology that enforces your faith, you are confronted with a crisis. and you look at some of the nihilism in the world. not the atheists who believe in mankind, but the cynical, empty, boorish loud kind of atheist who sees no meaning in life, and you react to that. and so you react to evolution: it seems to be a path to this sort of empty faithless indolent nihilism
in other words, the negative reaction to evolution by otherwise intelligent religious folk is really a reaction against the idea of meaningless in life
this is the psychological issue which underlies the rejection of evolution by otherwise intelligent religious folk. and so the real way you defeat their resistance is by criticizing faithless nihilism. those who use evolution as a story about how mankind is meaningless, pointless: you attack and reject them
you talk about evolution, AND you talk about faith in humanity and you talk about evolution as reinforcing meaning, not destroying it. and in such a way, you draw down the resistance of intelligent religious folks to evolution, by demonstrating to them that evolution is not a threat to the idea of faith, that plenty of secular humanists with faith in mankind can also beleive in evolution, without some sort of psychological dissonance
Dear Ben Stien, et al. (Score:4, Interesting)
I too have asked the same exact questions that your trailers ask. But I do have answers. I've followed the I.D. vs evolution debate, and I come down firmly on the evolution side. But that is not what you ask about...
Scientific inquiry first clashed with religion when a man innocently attempted to determine the motion of the heavenly bodies in an effort to determine God's intent. This man was Newton, but he started a long battle of God giving up ground to science. For as long as science is practiced, the domain of God has reduced. It is likely that at some time in the future that we have "God" reduced to the fundamental constants of the universe. (Only in terms of a mechanical sense, not spiritual) This can only be the case if scientific inquiry is allowed to continue.
The problem I have, and as it seems schools (public and private), and government have as well with I.D. people being key in scientific discovery , is that it threatens further scientific discoveries. The threat is not intentional, or, at least I believe in most cases it is not intentional (but the Dover school district it was quite intentional). The reason why it threatens scientific discovery, was shown in the Dover court case. The cellular structure that was heralded as 'irreducible' was actually shown to be reducible. Once the researcher was content with the idea that the structure was irreducible, scientific inquiry ended. This is not acceptable. It is not acceptable in projects funded by public or private grants. I fear if I.D. was ever accepted as a viable answer, all sufficiently complicated systems would be described as I.D. and we'd throw our arms up and declare ourselves done. I could imagine a time when all things are attributed to I.D. and such a time scares me.
I do not think that all professors who suppose I.D. would be haphazard, but it is not a risk we do not have to take. The question is if there is room for I.D. and a mind that is willing to probe deeper. Can someone have reverence and probe deeper? Newton did, so it is possible, but I doubt all of the I.D. proponents could.
The biggest failure of I.D. is to factor in the value of processes. And really this is what it boils down to. With I.D. there is no process, and it is all design. With science it is all process and no design. For the past 400 years, we've had nearly every process that has been attributed to God be re-attributed to a process. The question then is God a process, or is God designed? If God is a process then there can be no irreducible complexity, and I.D. effectively eats itself. Processes happen in the domain of time, so the question then becomes what is the domain of time for life on earth. We see evolution happening here on earth, so when did that start? And then the question is what was the process for earth? Answering that question is a question of celestial processes arising in planet formation and going back to the beginning of the universe.
Given then that we are the result of processes, how relevant or prevalent is I.D.? Is there any I.D. still left? It would seem that if the I.D. of our creator was irreducible, then we could never replace any part of the design. This would mean we could only add-on to make alterations (adaptation) and this would create more complication from the base simplicity. The neat feature is that any design is completely mutable. You can bury the original design so deep it could not be discerned. What I am describing of course is DNA. However the smallest number of genes for an independent organism is 1500 genes. This would be a boon for I.D. as until there are 1500 genes, there is no way to evolve and combine 1500 genes at once. However, these genes do contain junk DNA, showing that they were created by a process. The only thing I can conclude, and indeed others should be able to conclude, is that we don't understand the process. This is where scientists who don'
That Ben Stein... (Score:4, Insightful)
BTW on his game show "Win Ben Stein's Money" I recall him doing poorly on the SCIENCE and SPACE categories.
Good review (Score:4, Informative)
Flock of Dodos (Score:5, Informative)
The comments here indicate the movie was a success (Score:5, Informative)
This is a lie. The whole movie is a lie. The irony of both invoking Nazis, yet so successfully implementing the "Big Lie" strategy has to set some kind of reprehensible high water mark.
The three "expelled" people presented in the movie -- these are the worst stories the filmmakers could find -- involved a professor who failed to get tenure because he wasn't good enough, a woman who had her contract run out and didn't have it renewed, and them someone who said he was "fired" from the Smithsonian, despite actually being an unpaid research assistant whose term ran out.
Compare [expelledexposed.com] and contrast [sunclipse.org].
This movie makes utterly baseless claims that the academic freedom of ID proponents is under attack.
This is a lie.
Yet, they tell the lie, and then you look at comments about the movie, and you have people assuming that the truth is "somewhere in the middle", or that "both sides need to be considered", or some other trite cliche.
Why do they get a free pass here? Seriously, the production of this movie has been filled with lies by the makers -- these allegedly religious people -- and yet, people still take the movie at face value.
They lied to the interviewees, they attempted to pirate animations used in the movie, after being humiliated during the pre-release screenings they lied to cover it up, they lied to the people who wanted to see screenings -- they're liars.
And then you look at comments here, and people talk like the movie makes valid arguments -- it does not. Aside from lies about academic suppression, it's just one long Godwin -- "there's a very tenuous link between social Darwinism and the philosophy of the Nazis, therefore believing in Evolution leads to the Holocaust".
If, in an argument, someone tells baseless, reprehensible lies about a subject, the truth isn't "somewhere in the middle". The liars are really just lying [richarddawkins.net].
Zealotry (Score:4, Interesting)
Cheers,
_GP_
RD's Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying (Score:4, Interesting)
The creationism / evolution debate has been done many times here on Slashdot. There'll be comments making one or more of the hundreds of old and refuted creationist arguments [talkorigins.org](1). It's possible that a couple of comments will use arguments even the Answers in Genesis creationist group says not to use [answersingenesis.org](2). Someone will say there's no evidence for Macroevolution and someone else will point out 29 plus evidences for Macroevolution [talkorigins.org](3).
The point of Expelled is to make people think they've learned about the creation / ID / evolution debate, but to feel that Darwin= Holocaust. Note how they interview scientists of all sorts, but they don't interview academics who cover antisemitism in pre-20th century Europe. Even one hint or reminder that, say, Martin Luther wrote On the Jews and Their Lies [humanitas-...tional.org] in 1543 would ruin the Darwin -->Holocaust propoganda.
----------
(1) "evolution requires faith," "Piltdown," "Midocean magnetic anomalies are not reversals"...
(2) "there are no beneficial mutations," "no new species have ever been produced"...
(3) Even if there were no fossils, how to explain how biochemistry matches phylogeny? It's one thing to claim the designer re-uses code to explain similarity, but why would a designer reuse broken code?
What Stein Wants (Score:4, Insightful)
His purpose in Expelled is not to promote creationism, either in and of itself or in comparison to evolution. His intention is to point out that SOME OF the scientific community is participating in the same sort of hair-on-fire hysteria as the most vocal creationists. While the latter are widely know and fairly expected to employ this as a tactic, or just emotionalism, the scientific community "should" be above it, but isn't.
He rightly shows that the "evolution/creationist debate" isn't. He shows that it is instead a construct. Creationists claim it in order to put their ideas on equal footing with science, and science unwittingly helps them when some of its members react to what they expect rather than what's actually being said. His movie is a case study in precisely this, both within itself and as a social phenomenon, and you can bet your ass this is exactly what he intended.
It's easy to poke holes in the highly vocal creationists' stance, and quite popular to do so. It's more difficult to poke holes in their scientific counterparts, and supremely unpopular if you assume his intention is to promote creationism. Promoting creationism is his tool, exposing intellectual bigotry is his intention, and before the movie even premiers, he is succeeding admirably.
If one isn't convinced, consider the fact that he's targeting only those that overreact to the situation. For the most part both religious and scientific adherents (and those who hold to both) coexist and even discuss their viewpoints without any acrimony or "debate". They see no contradiction because the two thought systems are orthagonal -- entirely independent and incomparable. It's those in science who can't grasp this due to perceived peer pressure or fear that overreact and so unwittingly lend credence to that which they oppose by the sheer act of opposing it.
And keep in mind that although the movie pokes at one side, that doesn't mean he considers the other side to be right. He's going after the one target too few have the balls to attack. My money says that when it's died down, he'll make a statement that he has no intention of supporting creationism, only that he intended to do what I've described above.
The movie is a masterful piece of agitprop (agitating propoganda). It gets its targets to react wildly to it as though it were their traditional perceived enemy, while its true intent to show that those targets are themselves reacting wildly when they, as the supposed intellectuals, should be reacting with due consideration, if at all. And at this point it doesn't matter if the movie even comes out; it's already done exactly what Stein wants it to.
Re:Controversy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Um... because evolution can be observed, and any rational mind can understand the mechanisms by which it works, and the magic-man-in-the-sky "theory" make no provision for testing, cannot be evaluated as anything other than wishful thinking, and teaches kids not to engage in critical thinking.
Your willingness to tolerate creationism in school as long as they call it a theory is actually worse than the delusions of the people who put it forward in the first place, because - by themselves - they come across as ignorant loons. You're giving them credibility.
Re:Controversy? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it can be observed hour by hour. If you'd like to do a little test, we can expose you to all sorts of little life forms that used to be easy to kill with simple anti-biotics, but which - in some cases, only months later - are now genetically different, and have adapted to survive that treatment. As those bacteria (and in some cases, parasites) reproduce, there are observable mutations involved. Some of those mutations result in an altered version of the critter that happens to tolerate things that might kill those versions that mutated in a different way. If the chief cause of end-of-the-line death in strains of bacteria happens to be anti-biotics, then we're watching that life form, via simple natural selection, adapt its way around that threat. If you don't have the patience to learn how to look at the longer-term histories of species, and can't muster the simple common sense to see how that would impact more complex organisms over time, then just ask any doctor to explain it to you. Hopefully, for your sake, that won't be in the context of actually having such an infection - because, unlike even just a few short years ago, when such bacteria didn't exist, it's getting very hard to kill them without also killing you. Just like everywhere else in nature, a new pressure must be brought to bear on a species that has evolved (rapidly, in this case) to overcome an older pressure.
Let's not tolerate creationism but at least consider intelligent design
They are the same thing - both suggest the hand of an all-powerful imaginary magic super being with a sick sense of humor.
If you look at the genetic code, the similarities the re-use of design patterns
Don't you see? Of course commonly useful bits of DNA are commonly found. The stuff that works, at the basic level of providing for things like nerve growth, or respiration, or enzyme production, doesn't need to be evolved away from... mutations that shut down things like that tend to kill the offspring, and thus don't get passed along. The stuff that works, stays, and stuff that works better becomes more prominent through simple natural selection. If your ability to live long enough to reproduce depended on your ability to sprint to the nearest tree to avoid being eaten, then a mutation in your DNA that happens to produce a fractionally greater dose of adrenaline when you sense danger will give you an advantage over your brother, who might have a different, but less (for the circumstancecs) useful mutation. Guess who passes along the DNA after the predatory animals have come through your part of the woods? Mr. Faster Tree Climber. It might be a hundred generations before something even slightly as useful crops up again in that particular part of your clan's DNA, but as long as it's an advantage, it gets passed down the line. If its a liability (say, it also happens to increase your sensitivty to the sun, and thus causes early cancer), then it dies off. Of course, you know all of this. You're just invested, for social reasons, in the mythology side of things, and it's awkward for you to admit it.
In truth, I think scientists are afraid. They're afraid that if they admit there are aspects and evidence of design that they will be condoning creation as a whole rather than the simple design aspect.
No, they're just afraid of an entire new generation of kids growing up thinking that supersition, and belief if supernatural cause and effect might endanger our culture's ability to produce rational thinkers. You know, the sort of rationality that allowed us to build the systems over which you're reading this message, right now. You're proposing that we embrace a world view more or less like that which fueled the Dark Ages, or which applauded the burning alive of women, as witches, who knew that willow bark contains aspirin or who gave birth on the wrong day of the week, when it happened to rain really hard an
Re:Controversy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Monkey's uncle? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the evidence [talkorigins.org] for evolution is overwhelming [talkorigins.org]?
Re:Monkey's uncle? (Score:5, Informative)
Now I admit there are a lot of atheists out there who understand science just as badly as some Christian fundamentalists and have turned it into some kind of religion, but that says nothing about the validity of the science itself, just like idiot Christians say nothing about the validity of the Christian faith.
Re:Monkey's uncle? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Research Papers" (Score:4, Insightful)
IDers present stupid arguments, and then complain they are being persecuted by scientists. Apparently, idiots hate it when you call them idiots.
Re:Monkey's uncle? (Score:5, Insightful)
(*e.g., if this fruit is not an orange, that does not mean it is automatically an apple... heck, could be a kumquat, for all you know).
What other theories? (Score:5, Insightful)
In order for something to be a theory, it must be testable and falsifiable. "My invisible friend did it" is *not* a theory.
Science. It works, bitches! (Score:5, Informative)
Intelligent Design cannot be falsified, therefore it is not science. ID can explain Pegasuses, dragons unicorns and cyclopses just fine. That makes it useless, since that also means it cannot predict anything. Without predictions, you cannot have new scientific insight.
Re:Monkey's uncle? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:One point... (Score:5, Insightful)
An honest question for the young-Earth types. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's assume the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Where did the oil come from? Was it created in the ground with the rest of the Earth? If so, is there a way to predict where it might be found? Or perhaps it really did form from plankton (with a few plants and dinosaurs), but about 10,000 times faster than any chemist believes it could? Any way you look at it, a young Earth and a Flood would imply some very interesting scientific questions to ask, some interesting (and potentially extremely valuable) research programs to start. How come nobody's actually pursuing such research programs?
Why don't creationists put together an investment fund, where people pay in and the stake is used as venture capital for things like oil and mineral rights? If "Flood geology" is really a better theory, then it should make better predictions about where raw materials are than standard geology does. The profits from such a venture could pay for a lot of evangelism. Why isn't anyone doing this?
Re:An honest question for the young-Earth types. (Score:4, Informative)
Most of them go bankrupt and financially ruin their investors, a few of them are simply fraudulent from start to end, and there's one or two that employ actual geologists, but still aren't very successful.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/01/let-there-be-light-crude.html [motherjones.com]
Look to your own backyard, thank you (Score:4, Insightful)
Really, do you guys not get the news we do? Burning cars in France, oh I know, the PC word is immigrants. Killing of writers in Europe because they dared to write about someone's god?
What you have here in America is exaggeration. Look at it this way, if its brought up over and over and made to look silly it probably is. The haters need something to jump up and down about to make themselves feel superior and these ID people are a great target. The ID people are not a great percentage, just a convenient target.
It says even more for
mod to me to hell if you like, but it is true that it takes a big does of exaggeration to make ID people out as a representative of America or religious America.
Bring out the haters, this thread should have lots of them.
that is the impression theists want you to have .. (Score:5, Insightful)
Creationims is nonsense. It adds nothing to scientific insight. Theism is useless. It adds nothing to scientific insight.
Yes, scientists can be very closed minded and stubborn and even stupid. And "the scientific community" can falsely disregard insights and new ideas for a while. That has happened and still happens all the time.
But creationism is so fundamentally wrong and nonsensical in so many ways that the contrary can be said: somebody actively supporting anything that so fundamentally goes against all scientific rational thinking disqualifies him- or herself as a scientist.
A physicist building a perpetuum mobile should get fired. A biologist teaching creationism or ID should get fired on similar grounds.
Re:Win Ben Stein's Attention (Score:4, Insightful)
ID is based on religion and tradition. It does not come from evidence or from any application of science as we define science. It's presented as an alternate explanation evidenced by religious texts and motivations. People who believe in God or religion and believe what their respective religion tells them to believe about creationism or ID can go so far as to say they believe in ID or creationism because their religion supports it.
The real conflict with evolution versus ID is that ID proponents want ID taught in science class. That would be akin to Darwinism and evolution being taught in a psychology or theology class. It's just out of place. Most reasonable people I know on both sides of this can accept that there's a difference between philosophy and science and that they don't need to be mixed and that one is free to take their own beliefs from one, the other, or some combination of both.
The issue I take with this movie is not that it presents ID and/or creationism, but that it makes those who believe in it out to be the victim of oppression because "you can't talk about that in science class" and because the scientific community will shun you for teaching it. Truthfully, the scientific community only wants to make sure it's not presented as science because it devalues work they take seriously. And Ben Stein is using/abusing his reputation for being a very intelligent person convince religious folks that they are being oppressed, so they'll lash out against anyone who says that ID and creationism shouldn't be taught in science class. Everyone's free to believe what they want, but school is not the place for misrepresenting the beliefs of some or even many people as the result of scientific research.
And finally based on all I've said above about my perspective, my reply to you is that Ben Stein is out to make money and nothing else. If he really believes as you say, then he could have skipped this movie. Of course, evolution is not a "answer for why life exists and why the universe works that way that it does" or anything like that. I watched the preview; it was very clearly edited with a single goal in mind: to victimize those who have religious beliefs counter to accepted scientific theory. He is not pointing out that universities don't allow dissenting views. I can't imagine there exists a university without theology or psychology classes to discuss creationism and ID very thoroughly. The failure here is not for professors to teach ID or creationism, but for science professors to validate any education based on ID or creationism with scientific evidence.
-N
Re:Debate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No need for debate (Score:4, Funny)
Re:No need for debate (Score:4, Informative)