He Blinded Me Without Science
Ben Stein has a message for Darwin: "Fuck you!"
It seems incomprehensible that Stein -- former Nixon speech writer, game show host, eye drop pitchman and Neil Cavuto love interest -- could find a way to further cement his reputation as the smartest dumb person alive, but, bless his heart, he's done it. Today sees the theatrical release of a full-length documentary presented and narrated by Stein: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed casts the man with the velvet monotone as a sort of Michael Mooresque troublemaker -- a mischievous imp out to rankle the establishment and challenge the suffocating status quo, all in the name of getting to the truth that they don't want you to know about.
And against which authority figure is Stein playing the role of the uppity insurgent?
Science.
Feel free to stop reading if you've heard this one before, but Expelled assumes the position not only that the theory of evolution and the faith-based hypothesis known as "intelligent design" are on close-to-equal scientific footing, but that there's an Illuminatian cabal among the science community, no doubt sitting in a Star Chamber somewhere, seeing to it that any developmental view but Darwin's is suppressed at all costs. It's a hell of a parlor trick really, and one the religious right has become admirably adept at exploiting these days: to turn the tables on their adversaries by adopting the tactics and lexicon traditionally associated with the mutinous left, casting themselves as the victimized and oppressed -- the little guys, taking up the fight against (literally, as opposed to an omnipotent deity) "The Man."
In the end though, that's all it is -- a really clever trick, and one that's played to the hilt in Expelled.
Creating controversy where there is none is positively pedestrian by now, but taking it to the lengths that this new documentary does, and doing it with such a salient level of panache, borders on genius. The SNL writing staff, circa 1977, couldn't have created a more audaciously comical premise than Ben Stein -- a man so square he craps cubes -- writing "I Will Not Question Authority" on a blackboard while dressed like Angus Young. Stein is a Dangerous Mind only if you see mark-to-market accounting as a ballsy show of defiance, which makes him the perfect impertinent hero for the God-said-it-I-believe-it set.
Unfortunately, no matter how creative the packaging, the lesson being sold in Expelled remains little more than nonsense. Stein and company can wrap themselves in the American flag and the freedom to question that it provides; they can grab a handful of ostensible pop culture street cred by aligning themselves with the likes of Bono; in the end, it doesn't make so-called intelligent design any more logically sound. It's still a religious assertion, and not a scientific one. It doesn't stand up to even the most rudimentary evidential scrutiny, and while it's always important to ask questions and allow for healthy debate, no matter the topic, at some point a line has to be drawn separating fact from fiction -- or distraction. The truth is important because it's the yardstick by which we measure our reality, and Ben Stein -- or anyone else -- trying to pass off spectacular whimsy as legitimate fact is, yes, damaging. Not everything can be up for discussion, no matter how large a segment of the population might believe otherwise.
And that's the best part of all this: Stein and his supposedly rag-tag little group of freedom fighters are neither rag-tag nor little.
In fact, the idea that we're expected to believe that the religious in this country are few and persecuted is laughable, bordering on offensive.
Last Sunday evening, CNN aired something it called the "Compassion Forum." It was a live event, broadcast from Messiah College in Pennsylvania, in which an entire roomful of religious leaders -- mostly Christian -- were granted an audience with the two Democratic candidates for president, one of whom may eventually be the next leader of the free world. For two hours, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama talked not about war, education and the economy, but about how their faith guides them and, to some extent, who loves Jesus more. The fact that either candidate believes that he or she has the luxury right now to spout metaphysical platitudes is nothing short of staggering -- though certainly not surprising. Just a few days prior to the "Compassion Forum," the entire cast of American Idol, dressed in evangelical white, belted its way through Shout to the Lord not once, but twice on national television. And today, the city in which I live, New York, is at a standstill as thousands crowd the streets -- streets which have been shut down by police -- to reverently welcome an unremarkable man in ridiculous robes and a funny hat who believes that he has a hotline to the creator of the universe and who just wrapped up a meeting with the President of the United States.
In other words, don't even attempt to claim that the religious suffer for their beliefs in this country. Hell, as long as you insist that you're doing it in the name of God, you can swap wives and molest children in The Middle of Nowhere, Texas for years before somebody finally comes and hauls your lunatic ass off to jail.
Ben Stein can rage against the scientific machine all he wants. He can shake his fist and shout, "Don't try to keep me down with your, your gravity, man!" It won't make a spurious assertion -- that intelligent design deserves a seat at the lab station -- any more sound, nor will it make Stein anything more than a rebel without a clue.
Follow Chez Pazienza on Twitter: www.twitter.com/chezpazienza
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The universe is intelligent, and evolution is a product of that intelligence built into the dna. Period. This whole argument is a red herring. I want Ben Stein to tell me why again that it wasn't intelligent aliens that put us here. The term "Intelligent Design" is too broad for people to be using if they want to prove that "god" created it. Even if some kind of "god" did it, science still has the duty to ask "how."
Your post is quite instructive. Among other things, it exposes the fact that Intelligent Design does not have to be based on religious dogma. "Intelligent aliens that put us here" is an ID theory that does not rely on religion; true, it is pure speculation. It's just that some religious followers have grabbed at that straw rather than accept evolution as the driving force. For its part, Darwin's theories don't prove that no one was ever guiding or controlling biological evolution on Earth, just that it might not have been necessary.
Funny, but in the movie, it is Richard Dawkins himself who floats the theory that perhaps life on earth was planted here by some advanced civilization from another part of the universe. Now THAT'S science for you. Another floats the possibility that it arose on the backs of crystals. Say it with enough scientific bravado and it almost sounds true, at least if that's what you would LIKE to believe. Maybe that's the way it happened, but it's not science telling them that. Atheism is a religion requiring the faith of its followers, like any other.
Seems like most posters here are bashing "Expelled" without even seeing the movie. I just got back. You might want to at least check it out if you're going to critique it intelligently. Most of your posts are missing the point of the movie (which is not, by the way, that Intelligent Design is the correct scientific view).
One does not need to see it, if the commercials show that it is based on a false premise about what science is. Your parenthetical remark reveal your ignorance.
ID can not in any way be a "scientific view", because it is does not constitute a scientific hypothesis. That is, it makes no prediction that could in any way be observed as being a consequence of the hypothesis. One can always conclude "God did it", no matter how large or how trivial the question. It provides no prediction as to how, when, where, or why and consequently is of no relevance to science, which is based on the notion that a hypothesis must make some kind of observable prediction inherrent in the hypothesis. Even if you assume that "GOD DID IT", ID tell us nothing about the nature of god (substitute your favorite ones here), nor who or what might have inspired him/her/them/it to do it.
With respect to evolution it also fails to account for the fact that there is no evidence in the natural world that anything has actually been "designed", even though to the untrained or uneducated eye, it may seem so. This is what makes it irrelevant, certainly not the notion that somehow scientists conspire to keep these folks confused and uneducated. They seem quite capable of doing that all by themselves.
Again, the movie does not hold forth a false premise about what science is. Making that assumption without seeing it reveals your ignorance on the subject.
See it, and see if there is any validity to what some very brilliant and committed scientists have to say on the issue. These aren't half wits from a backwoods creation museum. Some of the scientists in the movie will take your side with elegant, persuasive arguments. The others might have some valid points for you to consider. I wasn't threatened by either side.
This movie "Expelled" is no better than picking up the "National Enquire" instead of the NYT for for ones news. It Expelled is a without any creditability.
This film should be boycotted and demonstrations should be held at every theater that has the nerve to show it!
Personally I am not going to patronize any theater that runs it ever again.
and here i thought that liberalism had something to do with freedom...silly me
I didn't bash the movie, I bashed ID. Why would I see a movie when I'm offended by the promos except for the parts where I'm patronized or bored. I've never cared for Ben Stein other than "Ferris", so I'm glad to see my instinctive reactions validated - didn't he invent the boring Jimmy Kimmel on the boring "Take my money if you can, but- I'm smarter than everything" or whatever it was?
Studying history back during my school days I never understood the nature of religious persecution. I couldn’t fathom why people would want or need to persecute others based on religion, but given the path this country has taken over the last thirty years I now see why historically some have felt motivated to act harshly against religion. American Christians are not content with their own souls going to heaven. They want nothing short of the creation their Christian heaven here on earth. They want to use the levers of government to enact laws in conformance with their religious principles thereby imposing their religion upon us all, which is in fundamental conflict with the tenants of a free society. The Pope’s visit should serve as a reminder that the Christian church had its chance, and in those 1500 or so years they made a real mess of things. It took secular enlightenment to dig the world out of the hole the church created. At some point I fear, the silent non-Christian masses will have had enough, and when that point is reached Christians may long for these days of imagined persecution.
There is simply no "religious persecuction" by the scientific community at all. The premise of the film simply reflects the confusion by the film makers about what science is and what scientists do. They charge perscution not to enage in science rather they do so as political ploy and marketing gimic. Such tactics gain traction in America only as a result of a broad ingorance about science.
The filmakers seem to think that scientist are putting them down, because in their minds scientists can't answer heir question, "why can't I believe god is reponsible for creating everything instead?".
Their confusion stems from a failure to see that "yes, you can", but "it doesn't tell you anything about anything". It makes no prediction as to the nature of "god", whatsoever or how many, or what size, or what weight, or what color, or how she/he/it works, ... None whatsoever.
Science is not about asking questions that can not be answered. Rather it is a way of knowing that stems from questions that can be asked AND answered. This is done through hypothesis testing and experimenal observation. If your question makes no predicition, then you can test the assumptions in your hypothesis.
They do not understand that ID is not science, because it makes no predictions, a confusion that stems from a lack of education.
It would be a lot more illuminating if HuffPo would get some one who actually knew something about The theory of evolution. Like why do they call it a theory in science?
Hmm...the answer to your question is a part of what makes science, science. See if this helps.
What is the ``scientific method''?
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between hypothesis and experiment and/or observation.
When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.
This whole problem with ID would have ended long ago if it were not for the incompetence of the science community. To see what should be done and arguments to use see the chapter
Does the word God exist?
in the book
Our Almost Impossible Universe:
Why the laws of nature make the existence of humans extraordinarily unlikely
and the blog
randomabsurdities.wordpress.com
It is not the role of the scientific community to debunk pseudo-science. Lacking a foundation it eventually collapses on its own.
Point well taken. Non-scientists often seem to think that science engages every conceivable question, and that scientists, like philospher's, ponder every imaginable outcome.
Scientists do not do this. Rather, they restrict themselves to those aspects of reality that require explanation and then use only methods that rely on observation to assess the results of the application of these methods.
Lots of silly don't get tested by scientists, largely because it would be a complete waste of time to do so, without any positive evidence that such issues are actually relevant.
For this reason scientists are dissmissive of the ignorance diplayed in the film, not because they somehow have conspired to "expell" the ignorant or maintain an elite class to keep the clueless down. Rather, they do so because they have already moved on to more interesting questions and predicitve ideas about the reality of our natural world, including the origins of the universe and the origins of life than the confusion evident in the minds of the makers of this film. The filmakers simply misunderstand science and attempt to cast it as some kind of alternative religion.
The burden of proof is on the believers, not on the scientists.
If I conjure up some kind of story, cult, or scam, and then expect the whole world to live by it, should the scientific community be burdened with proving me wrong?
Wonderfully written and freakin' hilarious. Thank you.
I think I have a way to settle this controversy once and for all.
All the ID believers should use their all powerful prayers and ask god to come down here to earth and go on the Fox News network point his finger at one of their anchors and create something like a new Jesus or maybe take a dog or cat and turn it a dinosaur or two.
Just imagine the outcome.
People of the whe world would be forced to become believers and the question would be settled once and for all.
C'mon all you believers. Let's see you make it happen.
C'mon, I'm waiting.
LMFAO.
Unfortunately, this experiment has already been performed in a more limited way.
Sick patients at a number of different hospitals suffering from the same classes of illnesses were divided into groups. These groups consisted of 1) those who were prayed for and were told they were being paryed for, 2) those who were prayed for and were not told they were not prayed for, 3) those who were not prayed for and were told they were not prayed for, and 4) those who were not prayed for an not told they were not prayed for.
A number of congretations were then approached and in a double blind experiment were assigned to pray for one of the various groups, without actually knowing precisely who they were praying for other than that they were sick.
Sinceists then monitored these patients to see if prayer helped them. As you might expect, all groups but the first showed no difference in the state of their health that might be inferred to have occurred in the event that prayer actually worked to help them get well. The first group actually showed got well less often, presumably because of the stress induced by the expectation that they needed to get well to answer the peoples prayers.
Hence science suggests that for at least some kinids of illnesses, it may not be a good idea to tell a sick friend that you will pray for them.
There's no way to conduct that experiment correctly. Each individual would need to be physically identical, with an identical illness. There is no control in that "experiment" rendering it useless.
Hey, I think there is reason to believe that the folks at Faux News have become dinosaurs.
O'Reilley seems a lot like plodding sauropod, whereas Hannity is more like one of the less intellignet, but nonetheless dangerous hadrosaurs, while Ruppert is more like a tyranosaur.
hadrosaurs were plant eaters, but then Hannity could be replaced by a potted plant with no loss. Mr. O'Reilly seems to me a less than clever fellow who knows he has intellectual limitiations and does everything possible to hide that fact. There are more intelligent vegetables.
okay, just as soon as you evolve something...anything...c'mon, i'm waiting...
see, i can be just as ignorant as you!
Great article Chez, I can only add: I don't believe for a moment that Stein is serious; he is simply involved in a commercial enterprise. The human species is superstitious, they will buy the nonsense of any pied piper who claims knowledge compatible with their notions of eternal salvation. If we take a look at human history, the greed, corruption, death and destruction that we have visited upon one another, we must conclude that Intelligent Design has been lacking in intelligence.
You shouldn't denigrate Darwin like that. Even though many of his suppositions have been proven wrong, the "theory" still stands.
intelligent design is similar to creationism, both ideas based off a supernatural force creating the universe. Lewis Walsh wasn't refering to evolution, which is still concluded as the most likely cause of humanity by scientist world wide.
Please name, with citations, the 'suppositions' of Darwin that have been proven wrong.
Which of Darwin's "suppositions" have been "proven wrong"--hmmm?
Unfortunately...
Stein is dead serious.. he's been a born-again hard-core believer since Nixon's days.
And, BryantG was on-spot.. if "Science" de-bunked every crackpot theory and half-baked
"philosophy", we'd all still be reading by candlelight.
This article underscores why I became so cynical about mainsteam organized religion. "Intelligent design" is just another ruse to rally the ignorant masses to ignore empirically proven fact and replace it with cult myths that are disproven by historical evidence. Chuck Darwin himself was a devout Christian, albeit a relatively level-headed one. Obama to his credit has been forthright & modest every time I've heard a college student ask how his faith influences his politics. He incorporates his commitment to Christianity into his non-sectarian broad-minded view of progressive change & solidarity that invites all views & ethnic backgrounds into the fold. Ben Stein was mildly funny as a history teacher on "The Wonder Years" & in the film "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" but he's rather backward in the political world & should quit while he's way behind.
ID does not just mean Intelligent Design
ID stands for IGNORANCE DEIFIED.
Giving IGNORANCE a name like, let's see, God, does not transform ignorance into knowledge.
"There is only one good, knowledge and one evil, ignorance" - Socrates
I've always been amazed at the caricatures hoisted on Christians and other faiths by unbelievers. Much of it is certainly deserved. But might there be at least a few sincere, unbiased, intelligent people with a high regard for scientific truth who look at the current evolutionary answers and find them lacking? (I submit that there are far more than "a few"). Is even asking the question, "Does random chance alone provide a probable explanation for all we can observe, regardless of origins?"
I have a very high regard for science, but I find myself responding to the ever-evolving scientific theories with the same reaction I have to late-night televangelists..."Give me a break!" The former is certainly as religious as the latter. Science and scientists DO delve into origins. As do most thinking people at some point.
Really good movie. Posters might consider seeing it in order to make a valid comment on it. It also contains a great segment showing some of the practical results of societies dismissing moral absolutes.
There...your raving fundamentalist post of the day. :)
Science a methology of studying observable facts. Calling it a religion doesn't make it one.
Certainly calling science a religion doesn't make it one. But if scientists do cross the threshold from studying observable facts to making concrete assumptions from unobservable, unrepeatable occurrences, it has become a religion.
A true scientist would stop at the point that science can no longer be applied. (Is a certain book a good piece of literature?) Maybe a question becomes subjective, maybe it becomes religious. In either case, it would likely be scientifically irrelevant. But scientists like Richard Dawkins and others in the movie seem to make a statement equivalent to, "I've looked at the Mona Lisa and she's just an ugly woman with a double chin. It's not art an all. And Bill Evans is musically incompetent." They go past the boundaries of science, and they are attempting to take as many people with them as possible.
Here's the thing. With science the point is to get at answers and refine current "truths". If we all just give in to the creationists then there is no point in being a scientist when the answer to every question is "because god did it."
Somehow me being able to say "well the genome of C. perfringens SM101 is in its current fragmented state because it spent most of its history as a gut commensal organism and significant changes to its chromosome were tolerated because f the relatively minimal selective pressure it faced in that environment. this is in contrast to C. perfringens ATCC 13124 which has existed as a soil microorganism in a much more stringent environment where significant alterations to its genetic composition could be lethal." gives me much more satisfaction than "because god made it that way 6000 years ago."
Additionally, it certinaily helps explain the differences in virulence and pathogenicity between the two organisms. And such information can be applied to newly microorganisms.
You can be dismissive of it "GIve me a break!" if you so choose. Thankfully for society enough people reject that way of thinking so that society and technology have been able to progress.
to me, it is as simple as this: religion talks about why, science discusses how. when religion wants to discuss how, or science why, then they begin to stumble over themselves.
there is no way to 'prove' intelligent design. you can't just point to it, and say 'there it is.' however, there are techniques and methodologies available to encounter this intelligence. and, worldwide, people who have followed similar methodology have encountered remarkably similar experiences. most people who scoff at these ideas have never, themselves, actually tried and applied these methodologies with any seriousness. this, to me, is exactly like the old scholars who would not look through gallileo's telescope, claiming it was absurd at the outset.
an analogy of how i think of intelligent design: there is a chance, every time you shuffle a deck of cards, that they will fall in perfect order by number and suite. however, if you came upon a deck of cards, and found it to be in perfect order, your first assumption would not be that it happened by accident. sure, it is possible. but it is very improbable.
however, i don't actually think intelligent design should be taught in school science classes. it is not truly relevant to the study of science that there is an intelligent designer, nor is science prepared to discuss or interpret the radical reality of transcendent unity one inevitably finds when delving into the depths of their consciousness.
Nobody (here at least) said the answer to every question is "because god did it." Nobody (here) said it was 6,000 years ago. Nobody, including the seemingly qualified scientists featured in the move, is being dismissive of science.
Unless and until science becomes biased. Is it biased? That's what the movie explores.
You used big words, and poor little old me didn't get them all. Or did I? No, I haven't done the research on the genome, but I'm at least astute enough to understand the arguments, on both sides. I get your points. To me, it still smacks of design versus random selection.
If I had to become an expert in every realm to make a decision, I wouldn't appreciate art, music, law, or any other field of study. I have to look at all the data I can find and make a call. As a "religious" person, I don't check my brain at the door. I can recognize the bias and fallacy in much of what poses as religion. And also the bias in "objective", secular science.
Hope you'll see the movie.
"But might there be at least a few sincere, unbiased, intelligent people with a high regard for scientific truth who look at the current evolutionary answers and find them lacking?"
Certainly, skepticism is the lifeblood of science. What does that have to do with inventing a different explanation from whole cloth?
There is simply no question of the fact of biological evolution in science and there is no "lack of "evolutionary answers." Those that find such "doubts: amongst the scientific community are delusional--it does not exist. 150 years of the Darwinian model has reinforced its soundness in all modern science. There is ittle or nothing intelligent, in the intelligent design cult.
I don't believe the scientists in question, at least in Ben Stein's movie, are attempting to invent a different explanation from the whole cloth. If anything, they're embracing everything they understand about scientific truth, and continuing to push that envelope as far as possible, yet not dismissing any possible conclusions about what those facts can tell us.
That seems much more open minded than a scientist who might negate the remotest possibility or evidence of design from the outset.
The "sincere, unbiased, intelligent people with a high regard for scientific truth" also need to know something about evolution before dismissing it. For instance, natural selection is pretty much the opposite of random chance.
If you need to believe in a creator, go right ahead. But don't sell Her short by assuming She couldn't come up with a mechanism as elegant as evolution.
Again, the casual dismissal of all people unlike us. So no believers know anything about evolution? Really? None of them? There are no brilliant minds who might sincerely dissent? Of course this is incorrect. I'm not saying I'm the expert, but certainly there are those who seek to, without bias, study all the facts. And these people come to differing conclusions, often without regard to religion at all.
And like every other system that would carry the adjective, if evolution is elegant, it's because it's designed. Certainly a creator could come up with a mechanism that elegant. That's EXACTLY why it doesn't ultimately ring true to me. It's COMPLETELY elegant. It's amazing. Random? Not so much. I love that science that tells me more about it, and I'm not threatened by that at all. But when science oversteps its bounds to say that evolution disproves any concept of design or God, it has crossed the line into religion. And it's not a very good one, IMHO.
I bet all the short-necked giraffes who starved to death would quibble with the use of "elegant."
Natural selection's great and all, but it was pretty rough on 99.999999% of everything that ever lived.
Check out the scientific method. An accepted 'theory' is, given all the objective evidence obtained so far, the most likely explanation for whatever is under study. At one time, when the earth was considered the center of the universe, the orbits of the planets was explained by retrograde motion - and, it served to explain observed phenomena, so it was a 'theory', which did not make it a fact - actually there are no scientific 'facts'. Then somebody came up with the idea that the earth and all the other planets orbited the sun, then that explained the observed phenomena without any retrograde motion being added in. As the simpler explanation it became the new 'theory'. Still didn't make it a fact, just the most likely explanation. So, although I'm skeptical, your theory of ID may be true, and it may even fit in somewhere with the theory of evolution - so your best bet is to try and fill in the holes in evolution to either disprove it or show where ID fits in. I don't deny it's possible or even necessarily unlikely, depending on how you define intelligence, that some intelligent force is behind the universe, but I think it's absurd to claim we can discern its nature - if we could, then it wouldn't be God.
Actually I'm an atheist - not an agnostic, because if someone else hadn't come up with the idea it would never have occured to me that there was someone watching what
You may be an Atheist, but you are no scientist, and your argument can only be dismissed as a logic fallacy. As a matter of *Fact* it must be one of the most ludicrous arguments I've see in quite some time, I sorry to say.
Critical thinking has alluded you.
2 of 2
It is a fallacy argument on its face, and quite illogical. Not a product of well thoughtout critical reasoning skills or by using sound scientific methology.
And that is not the only mistake in richw23 argument, there is others, but I don't have to waste my time with them, as my point of His argument being a logic fallacy has been established.
I may have over looked (just bypassed) richw23 argument except for the important *FACT* that that *Facts* absolutely can be established, and this type of argument by richw23, out of clear ignorance of that to which He speaks *IS* and has been of great import, especially within the framework of the author's article, which started this exchange of science v. religious constructs.
Science has clear objective weight, religion has no weight, and is completely subjective and is based on how one emotionally feels, only supported by sophism. Big difference!
1 of 2
richw23, makes a *CLAIM* in response to: walking's comment.
That claim is: "Check this out for "Scientific Method" - richw23. (?)
Then His argument convolutes by conflation a bad antiquated Theological and philosophical construct (that was created before "Scientific Method" was established, in any real practical sense as we know it to be today) with the modern established *real* truism found by scientific method after the method was put into place.
*"At one time, when the earth was considered the center of the universe, the orbits of the planets was explained by retrograde motion - and, it served to explain observed phenomena, so it was a 'theory', which did not make it a fact - actually there are no scientific 'facts'. "*
*[A "theory", in what sense of scienticic method?] The the theological construct. (?)
Hopefully, Mr. Stein will use whatever modest recompense he derives from this sad little film to investigate why he was compelled to work for one of the most unbalanced leaders this country has ever had. And he was a young man when he did this. You have some resolving to do, Ben. Good luck.
Ben is a cynic (Hates humanity for how "Stupid" they are) and hence, allows himself to be sold to the highest bidder to say whatever pays him the most.
He has betrayed his species many times over, form speech-writing for Nixon on up. He certainly has betrayed the very concept of intellectualism. He makes a sham of it, re-enforcing ignorance and stupidity. Not a brilliant move, just a clever one. Like the raccoon, he's just a natural thief. No more. His film is not robbing me of my $10.
I understand the real concern scientists have about ID, but the argument regarding ID is not about science, religion, or the founding of the universe; it's about curriculum design and pedagogy, and, most importantly, who controls knowledge at the secondary and primary public school levels. Until scientists, specifically in academia, begin to focus on vertical curricular development with their primary and secondary teaching counterparts, they will remain frustrated with the culture's acceptance of ID and their students' belief in it (some of those students still believe women have an extra rib despite the fact that there isn't even a biblical basis for that let alone a physiological one), and their counterparts will remain toothless against the proponents of ID in their school districts. The problem here is that scientists continue to debate or deny the scientific merits of ID while ID proponents continue to argue that public education curriculum is just as much about the rights of the public as it is about the outcome of scientific debate. Scientists need to reframe the debate if they want to declaw ID.
So, the public has a right to be told something is a valid scientific theory even though it meets none of the requirements of one?
Put ID in the philosophy class because that's what it is, a philosophy. I have no problem with it being taught as a philosophy. It's not a science and students should not be told it is one just to make extremists happy.
Actually, ID is not a philosophy. It is a Theological Doctrine, or Dogma. There is a difference.
Philosophy is a love for [in the 'searching after' sense of the word] knowledge. ID is neither searching after nor knowledge. It is, in fact, its opposite. It should be taught, if at all, in the seminary.
ID is not "philosophy" or "religion" or anything rational, any more than scientology has a basis in reality. We are all free to be as idiotic as we wish and believe anything we wish--I personally like the notion of a flat Earth and a planet on the back of a gigantic tortoise. ID and its proponents are akin to flat earthers and the Roswell crowd. Ther is zero scientific merit to the ID arguments. I suspect that to imply "philosophy" is less rigorous than science is equally absurd.
If you're responding to my post, then I have to point out that I am not arguing ID should be taught at all. I am suggesting that if you want to keep it out of a high school biology class, you have to understand how it's being framed to school boards and in courts in order to do so. One of the ways you don't do that is by attempting to establish a hierarchy between science and religion. A jury of your peers is only filled with scientists if your'e in a university biology (or other scientific field) department.
Wouldn't it make more sense to put ID in a Myths and Legends class, or to preach it in a fundamentalist church, rather than a Philosophy class? As I remember it, philosophy class acutally required some pretty thorough, logical, rigorous thinking. ID would not get much attention, if some religious groups hadn't decided to push for it to be taught with tax money.
Speaking as at least one representative scientists (Biology, Genetics Ph.D) - you are incorrect in one specific assertion you make.
Real scientists do not continue to debate the scientific nerits of ID as there are no scientific merits of ID to debate. ID is repackaged Creationism, substituting 'Intellegent Designer' pretty much word for word with "God".
ID isn't science. ID cannot be tested or refuted. ID is faith. ID is Theology and Philosphy and merits only being taught as such.
Now,.... if the proponents of ID want to push for equal represenatation of ID in theology classes - I am good with that. But it isn't science.
Debate Long Since Over.
There's no need to parade your degree around to try to pull rank and dominate the issue. Perhaps that sways some people, but I would guess that most value an insightful comment over an appeal to authority any day.
The same arguments you make about ID not being science and belonging in a philosophy class can be made against abiogenesis. And abiogenesis IS taught in some high school science classes.
If you want to make that argument, you should be intellectually honest enough to say that 'Origins' lectures belong in philosophy class too, and support removing them from the science curricula nationwide.
Good points. The same is true from the perspectives of paleobiology, vertebrate paleontology, invertebrate paleontology, geology, and paleoanthropology. ID is not, never was, and never will be "science" and has most aspects of cultism. There is little intelligent or scientifically valid in intelligent design, whatever that term actually means.
If the counter-arguments do not emerge from the scientific community, folks like Mr. Stein and others will merrily continue to be delusional and impact other people.
See, I would say that by arguing ID is not science, you're engaging in the scientific merits of the argument, which is not what I am engaging in. I am just suggesting that scientists and/or other opponents to ID reassess their arguments against it because at least in some regions of this country the proponents of ID are winning. And if the debate was "Long Since Over," we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.
It seems to me it's kinda insulting to claim ID isn't faith, since historically speaking, fait is supposed to b more important than science (has a longer history as a subject and all "natural philosophy" was a branch of theology). These ID folks seem kinda bitter that science is definied in such a way that they cannot play and claim supremacy anymore so they want to change the definition of science, which is why scientists don't see this as worthy of debate.
Reframe the debate? What debate? Scientists are not debating the scientific merits of ID. Scientists finished ID off back before it was called ID. There were a couple of papers published but those papers did not create a scientific debate, they created PR for the religous groups that want the Bible version of creation taught in public schools so they don't have to pay for private schooling based on the Bible.
Amen.
Scientists need to reframe the debate about whether ID should be taught in primary and secondary school classrooms. You'll note also I said scientists debate OR DENY the scientific merits of ID.
You put your finger on the biggest problem in science today.
Not only is the curriculum across the country completely disorganized, there is no continuity between high school and college. They need to standardize the curriculum first, and then move beyond it. The teaching curriculum is only one very small part of science, actually. A college degree in science is essentially a "science trivia" degree. Sure, you may know a lot ABOUT science, but do you really know science? No.
Science isn't about trivia. Observational science is the lowest rung of the ladder. Just because you see something and define it adds very little to scientific knowledge. And just because you learned the scientific trivia of the day doesn't make you a scientist. I think this disconnect between learning science trivia and learning how to design experiments and test hypotheses and actually carry out scientific inquiry is the most fundamental flaw in our high schools and colleges.
I also think there's a fundamental disconnect between "teaching" colleges and "technical" schools. Considering that to be a successful scientist, you need both a theoretical understanding AND technical knowledge and skill, why would we compartmentalize them in such a ridiculous way?
Considering the strangle hold that Ivory Tower intellectuals have had on science for decades, I think it's time to bring reform to the system. We must improve our science education system, because right now it's horrible.
Yeah, we need to give more control of science to preachers, eh?
So we improve our science education system by removing the current "scientific method" and replacing it with "because God did it." How's that going to improve anything?
Also can you explain the "teaching" college and "technical" school disconnect to me? I got my BS at a 4 year school (a catholic school no less) where I took coursework and performed undergraduate research, then got my PhD at a large state university (where I continued to learn the technical aspects while taking course work, and where I taught during my graduate career). Which is the "teaching" college and which is the "technical" school?
I am also amused that you consider my degrees to be "science trivia" degrees. I guess where you come from taking ~60 hours in 1 field (plus ~60 other hours) including lab classes means you're good at trivia. I guess all those theses and whatever people right are just trivia?
This is about as silly as it is untrue. Also betrayed isa a lack of understanding of "science" never mind evolution, Darwin, paleontology or the fossil record. There is no room in this complex world for nonsense such as "creationism," even under the guise of "intelligent design," which lacks anything that can be seen as intelligent. We may as well teach alchemy, astrology, and UFOs as comparable bodies of knowledge.
The biggest problem in science today isn't the mixed up curriculum. There are way more qualified people than there are jobs in theoretical science. These qualified people developed skills despite the curriculum. Maybe the biggest problem for getting your kids a job in science is the curriculum at your school. There arn't any jobs in science for students of the bible because you can't apply bible knowledge to science problems. Most people will not become scientists, and won't be able to spend the time and energy needed to keep up with scientific debate and advance. People who demonstrate abiltiy and get a bit lucky will move into the Ivory Tower of Science because they are elite, just like any other form of endeavor. There is an Ivory Tower for Athelitcs, Medicine, Business, Government. Well ok I guess any idiot can get into government, bad example. What is the Popes' Tower made of?
No, it's not "about curriculum design and pedagogy" or "who controls knowledge at the secondary and primary public school levels." Most scientists don't care if ID is mentioned in the schools -- so long as it's not taught as science.
Ummm...you pretty much made my point for me: "so long as it's not taught as science." Where to teach the topic is about curriculum design. Who teaches it is about the control of knowledge. Scientists, then, do care about ID being taught in schools if they are engaging in policing the discipline of science (which, of course, they should be doing).
What's driving this whole debate are two huge fears, regardless of what the particular alleged issue is. The one fear haunts religious people, that scientific discovery will so discredit received religious meaning as to cause the loss of all that religious faith historically has sustained. The other fear, on the side of 'science', is that religious nuttiness will use political muscle to oppress scientific research ($) and teaching. War of the rage-virus zombies.
"The other fear, on the side of 'science', is that religious nuttiness will use political muscle to oppress scientific research ($) and teaching."
You make it sound like that hasn't already been happening for the past 7 years.
I hate to be annoyingly anal but I think you mean "mark-to-market accounting" rather than "market-to-market accounting."
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
