-
Website
http://coloradoindependent.com -
Original page
http://www.coloradoindependent.com/3343/the-search-for-truth-god-and-braver-scientists-in-expelled/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
- John Andrews’ strange, clueless ‘Coloradan of the Year’ column
- Report of ‘secret’ immigration detention centers raises rights concerns
- Stimulus funds aimed at rural areas dumped into metro regions
- Freshman Year, the gay marriage episode: Polis versus Chaffetz
- The pro-government anti-capitalist anti-American worldwide science hoax
Any thoughts on the "press conference?"
But these "laws" aren't perfect. Gravity can be bugger. Just ask anyone who's slipped and fell on ice. And that blood pumping through your body is usually pretty good. But what if you get a form of cancer that quickly spreads through out your body via the bloodstream? How perfect are the "laws" governing them? When you really think about them, they're not perfect. They're neither good nor bad. They just are.
So, after pointing out this out to the movie makers, clearing them of any responsibility to withhold names: Would they please provide a list of everyone they approached so that their claim of encountering legions of timorous scientists could be validated?
If Calculus explains curves so well, where do pig breeders come from!? And what about knitting!?
1) Kudos to Dan Whipple for perfectly capturing the hypocrisy and intellectual vacuity of Stein and his "Expelled" buddies.
2) The only thing I find surprising here is the lengths to which these people will go to shoot themselves in the foot.
3) I detect a certain truculence in your response. Why? Isn't it the first responsibility of a journalist to at least get the names right? Why is this kind of correction less important than the (for all you know) entirely uninformed opinion of a random drive-by commenter?
Since you're obviously well-informed on the topic., e.g., knowing the difference between Behe and Bethe, I thought you might have more to add to the conversation.
No peevishness intended. My apologies if it was perceived that way.
Yes, they also censor their blog. I'm linking below to an instance I documented, where someone called "javascript" had maligned what I had written with out-of-context quotemines and malicious libel, and I was not allowed to demonstrate how javascript was dishonest:
http://scienceblogs....
It might be hard to understand just what's going on there, but the important issue is that I was not allowed to respond to comment #33 of Ben Stein's blog post of Oct. 31, 2007, which has the title of "Darwinism: The Imperialism of Biology."
At that point I quit commenting on their blog (yesterday I finally put a link in the comments, since I'd lose little if they didn't post it, which they did), because if javascript is allowed to malign dishonestly quotemine while I'm not allowed merely to show how dishonest he is, there can be no honest discussion (which the Expelled people hypocritically claims to desire).
Just like Whipple, I'm rather amazed at how they want to claim suppression, when they're busy censoring out whatever they don't like.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2...
'where did the laws of gravity come from. Where did the laws of thermodynamics come from? Where did the laws of motion and, of heat come from?'
...erm, Newton and Carnot?
Mind you, none of these clowns can define 'theory' either, as in 'But this evolutionism is only a theory!'.
I wouldn't mind watching you on a television segment, preferably on the Keith Olberman show. I like that guy, he cracks me up - and not the same laughter i spew when i hear Bill orly speak. :-D
I'm going to bookmark, if i can, your articles so i can read them as they appear.
--genewitch
faith is a Burka for the mind
I say, bring on the war between science and the religious nitwits. The believers embarrassed themselves with Copernicus, Galileo, and every scientist's finding that has called into question a religious tenet and the Ben Steins of the world will continue to make fools of themselves. Let the fun begin!!!
My favorite response to this question come from Douglas Adams:
". . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'"
At least one interview was obtained under false pretenses, showing how low the producers were willing to stoop. PZ Myers describes his interview here:
http://scienceblogs....
Now THAT I would watch.
For people like Stein, the way things are defines perfection because they believe it's God's work so it must be. Circular? Of course ... we're talking about religion here.
The brilliance of Darwin's observations and conclusions lies in their simplicity; it isn't necessary to be a scientist to understand them. In fact I think that perhaps it's easier for a child to grasp them than it is for an adult.
How sad and dangerous ID/Creationism is is highlighted when it is used to infest and pervert the minds of children. It was precisely this kind of aberrational behaviour which contributed to the ending of the wonderful achievements being made in Mesopotamia in the twelfth century.
Could such a history be repeating itself now in America?
I'm definitely going to steal that line for future discussions :D
"Assuming it all did happen by Random Mutation and Natural Selection, where did the laws of gravity come from. Where did the laws of thermodynamics come from?"
The correct answer would obviously Intelligent Falling and Intelligent Heating.
Great article, Dan, by the way - I wandered over here from Pharyngula :)
In the case of the Orlando Sentinel, all I can say is what their reviewer said, which was that the producers "blanketed" the newsroom with invitations.
'Rule of law' is another neocon canard - as if all laws must be followed regardless of their harm or injustice.
The closer religion tries to ally itself with natural phenomenon, the sooner their followers will face the reality of metaphor. Science seeks to discover the mechanisms by which matter and energy naturally behave. Calling these mechanisms "laws" may be another unhelpful metaphor. Worse actors than Mr. Stein dramatize the wonder and beauty - and horror - of nature in furtherance of their own petty preferences and fears.
"Oh dear, we're trying to dig up falfisied 19th century arguments to back up our belief in Biblical literalism, and we love to complain about how we're persecuted when, amazingly, people won't insert our completely unsupported 'theories' into science classes and, oddly, real scientists mock us for our basic ignorance of biology. They're soooo mean!"
I'm no creationist, no IDer, and have no real problem with evolution, but I have a hard time seeing its practical applications. Science done in labs seems to me far removed from any theories promoted by Darwin, as right as he and his successors surely were. I'm pleading ignorance. Evolution has great explanatory force regarding origins in nature, but does it really play a role in modern experimental biology?
It's enough that the literalists are woefully ignorant of science. Do those on the other side of this argument have to be equally ignorant of religion?
Case in point: Dan's question above. Dan is making a very simple error. He's confusing some people's disagreement with evolution as an all-encompassing theory of the origins of life and the varieties thereof, with a disagreement with the various "developments to which evolutionary theory was indispensable." It's a clever rhetorical trick to make people, whose central problem is with the notion that life originated completely through material processes, look as though they have a problem with all scientific biological discoveries that have some relation or basis in evolutionary theory. The Doonesbury cartoon is another shallow example of what is really just a cheap shot (that Trudeau relies on the tension between mutation and speciation just adds to the problem).
It's one thing to argue that most IDers, creationists, etc. have a weak grasp of the science (notwithstanding the frequent conflation of ID and creationism, which is a logical error in my view). It's quite another to suggest that they have no grounds for accepting areas of science well defined by specific experimentation and testing. Stealing that base should be unnecessary. It's certainly counterproductive.
And you, as well, as making a simple error. You say "evolution as an all-encompassing theory of the origins of life and the varieties thereof". Evolution does indeed address the varieties of life, but not the origins. A theory of abiogenesis would do so, and there are quite a few hypotheses competing with each other as we speak. Lest you say you really meant the latter though, you add: "It's a clever rhetorical trick to make people, whose central problem is with the notion that life originated completely through material processes...". It seems that abiogenesis is what you seek, and you are in the wrong pew.
As for conflating creationism with ID, that was none of science's fault. Barbara Forrest's textual research, using ID's own texts (http://www.creationi...), defined how exactly they are related and by whom, and they are pretty much joined at the replace-text mode in the word processor. Would you argue otherwise, where's your argument?
"It's quite another to suggest that they have no grounds for accepting areas of science well defined by specific experimentation and testing." And what specific grounds are those? I was unaware that the ICR or the DI has published in areas of science "well defined by specific experimentation and testing", but I would sure like to hear about it. Peer-reviewed science is always interesting to me.
Genetics has been making huge leaps forward in the last fifteen years; scientific competition is not for nothing! Hardly a day goes by without an announcement of the location for the genes controlling this feature of life, and the genetic basis of that disease. Just as evolution needs genetics to explain the mechanics of mutations and inheritance of same, so genetics relies on evolution to explain its seeming (indeed, real) complexity. If cure of disease is important to you, then evolution is your guide.
Do you care about whether birds are the last living remnants of the biological family Saurischia, of which T.Rex was a member? If you have intellectual curiosity, then evolution is the map you explore.
Does the fact the the old Linnaean classifications of flora and fauna very much needs to be reviewed and rewritten, after 200 years of venerable use? Does that fact that this study is increasing vital in a time of large genus and species loss? We may never know what creatures or plants (or bacteria or fung1!) we shared the earth with, if we can't infer them from their ancestors, neighbors and progeny in the tree of life. Evolution is your bed rock assumption.
This all comes from a humble engineer's mind, off the top of my head. What would E.O.Wilson have to say? I think he would agree, yes, evolution plays as much a role in modern experimental biology as thermodynamics plays in building new machines. It's not so much a question of "does it play a role", as that it provides the building, floor and lab table the experiments play out on.
I must say, though, that your parenthetical comment leaves me curious: in what way is there a tension between speciation and mutation? I assume that they are related by effect and cause. Unless you yourself are of the opinion that the doctor is lying because speciation doesn't actually occur....?
that "sun is a ball of iron" theory sounds RAD. Could you post that?
http://www.thesunisi...
"The rapid advances now being made in the life sciences and in medicine rest on principles derived from an understanding of evolution."
Maybe so. Maybe even likely so. But claims that evolution "provides the building, floor and lab table the experiments play out on"- don't serve to support the original assertion unless you count metaphors as support. Nor does pointing to scientific advances or possible inferring of species help unless you can link it specifically to what we might regard as a principle of evolution. Perhaps it can be done. Perhaps I'm asking too much or misconstruing the claim. I'm intellectually curious.
It's an interesting claim. I'm not sure of its meaning. I don't doubt that there are extremely valuable advances in the "life sciences", but regardless of what they are, what does it mean to they "rest on principles"? Don't they "rest" on demonstrable facts? What does it mean to say that these principals are "derived from an understanding'"? Aren't the principles derived from the observable phenomena ? If this claim posits a connection between evolution theory and modern medicine, it uses a lot of metaphysical stuffing to do it.
Maybe contemplating evolutionary theory puts scientists in the mood to discover. Maybe a scientist stood on the shoulders of Darwin and was thus enabled to discover a new species. Or maybe he just curious and had the means. Or maybe he had an accident. I wonder whether more advances could be traced to evolution theory or to accidents with ever advancing technologies.
While reading your review, a thought occurred to me, and I was interested if you had thought about it before. To quote a portion of your article:
"The concept of "hundreds and hundreds of scientists" afraid to talk about their favorite idea is so unlike real life that I have to question - how to put this politely? - Ruloff's support for this assertion."
Isn't it possible that some viewpoints might be so controversial, or so against the status quo that those in authority might view any work or elaboration on those viewpoints as ridiculous, un-ethical, or offensive?
To illustrate my point in a more potent sense -- suppose you live in a fictional country called "A" - and in this country they believe that you achieve height of human existence by accumulating as many Special Fruits as you can. These fruits are fairly rare and expensive, so the more you have the more respected and powerful you become. They are also very beautiful and exceptionally tasty. Thus, their society revolves around this "fact."
So you, a very smart and thoughtful scientist and of Country A feel that since this is such an important topic to your country, you'd like to find out more about its origins and its function. You start to find evidence that is contrary to this belief of "the more fruit the better!" In fact, lets say that you find that the fruit actually contains a toxin that slowly eats away at the bodies of those that handle it and eat it. Or, suppose you find that there is another variable that contributes to fulfilling the societal values that many people previously attributed to the "Special Fruits."
When you are ready to publish these results -- and you have a entire society that depends upon these fruits for their social class, their understanding of their identities, and most importantly... their lifestyle -- would you still believe that this society and group of people would openly welcome your findings? If they found out what sort of research you were doing, would they actively support you?
I think, ironically enough, we can find our answer to this fantasy scenario in a real scenario; that of the "Church" or many religious organizations. Aren't those that question often ostracized and thrown out? Aren't there very heated debates on theological topics that actually create great divisions amongst denominations, sects, and general religions? I believe some families are also a great example of this.
So, the question is, WHY are scientists eager to share their findings? Is it because they are so morally consumed by truth and fact? Or is it because their findings contribute to their identity as an academic? Is it because what they have discovered allows them to be held in high esteem? Or is it because if they are successful, it means that they make money, garner grants, and are published? I can imagine that it is a mixture of all of these things, and in different quantities for different people.
In most people's reality, threatening somebody's worldview often means alienation. Sometimes it means being publicly humiliated. Sometimes it means you get killed or jailed (civil wars, anyone? terrorism? the red scare?). It isn't always about truth and fact. I'd argue that it rarely is, because truth and fact are not as important as our personal realities which often depend upon our society (see the entire field of sociology).
So in short: isn't it possible that there are some topics or themes that modern science could approach that would threaten worldviews, values, identities, etc...? Couldn't intelligent design be one of those world views? ... Just as Darwinism/evolution has been for many Christians? Isn't it possible then, that many of the scientists that approach intelligent design could be alienated from the scientific and academic community?
Sorry to be so long winded! I am certainly not a scientist or a journalist, and I'm not claiming any sort of rightness here. I just thought it was a legitimate idea, and supposed that someone as talented and thoughtful as yourself would find it interesting.
I'd be glad you hear what you think!
As to whether "many of the scientists that approach intelligent design could be alienated from the scientific and academic community," the scientists who are actually doing work in this arena (how good the science might be is another issue) like Michael Behe and William Dembski don't seem to be particularly intimidated by their evolutionist colleagues. They just haven't persuaded many of them of their case, based on the strength of their evidence.
It is undeniably true, as you note, that there are hazards to going against the grain of opinion. "Freedom of expression" protects your right to express your opinion. It doesn't protect you from a punch in the nose from someone who disagrees with you. In this context, that's one more reason to make sure all your evidence is watertight.
http://www.antievolu...
I responded at the same site thusly:
Not in the slightest. The two necessarily go together.
Of course it is, since ID insists that sticking to the evidence doesn't matter.
If you ever find evidence for "non-material causation," we will allow it into science. What you're calling "material causation" is what we call "causation" in science. Matter itself is at issue as to origin and meaning.
In science, it was.
And we've asked, futilely, for any legitimate evidence that this is so.
That's just nonsense. By all of the evidence we have, human consciousness does not violate any physics, including the laws of thermodynamics. What is more, it appears evolved. It's merely a presupposition of IDists that consciousness is "non-material," whatever that phrase is supposed to mean.
Besides which, human consciousness has never been excluded from science as a causal phenomenon. So you're attacking a strawman.
Actually, it's ID that tries to use rational means such as mathematics to deny the typical inferences of descent by observed processes of all of life from a single source (if perhaps a population rather than an individual or pair of conjugators). We rely on the evidence to come up with explanatory models.
Perhaps such mistakes are why you call evolutionary theory "Darwinism," because you fail to understand that the theory has changed with the evidence.
Perhaps you ought to listen to the other side for once.
Oh, so the fact that we've pointed out time and again that they fail to follow the evidence has been ignored by you. I guess that explains why the movie is so full of errors and false accusation.
Why didn't you bother to find out, before accusing scientists of numerous calumnies?
It's not like we haven't actually answered every one of your claims, with evidence, long ago.
Glen D
--------------
http://tinyurl.com/2...