The Colorado Independent - Latest Comments in The Search for Truth, God and Braver Scientists in ‘Expelled’

Re: The Search for Truth, God and Braver Scientists in ‘Expelled’

judithnancy — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 02:47:01 -0000

Wonderful post. It is really not difficult to study your blog.tiffany outlet The information of your site is strictly wonderful, and your blog structure is Simple nice It appears never dazzled. http://www.tiffanyandcooutl... So excellent.

Re: The Search for Truth, God and Braver Scientists in ‘Expelled’

Dan Whipple — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 06:59:09 -0000

Dear Glen, You make some good points. The movie treats many of the questions as though they are brand new ideas. But as you point out, the questions raised by ID proponents have been fought back and forth since the day "The Origin of Species" was published. They haven't been settled exactly, but neither have many new arguments been advanced.

Re: The Search for Truth, God and Braver Scientists in ‘Expelled’

Glen Davidson — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:16:48 -0000

Writer of *Expelled* opposes the very foundation of science There's not much traffic here now, so I'm posting this mostly for Dan Whipple. I hope that such frank statements about how the bunch at "Expelled" oppose science and its well-honed techniques will be of some interest. Here's what Kevin Miller of "Expelled" had to say on one forum:

As for being mystified by "my cause," my main interest in this project is the whole philosophy of science angle. How do we conceptualize science and its implications? How can we know that we know anything? The debate between rationalism and empiricism. Epistemology, that sort of thing. Personally, I see ID as a challenge not just to Darwinian evolution but to the very foundation of the scientific enterprise itself. Will we allow non-material causation into science or won't we? Most people think this question was settled decades or centuries ago. IDers say new evidence in biology and elsewhere compels us to reconsider our answer. I find this intriguing, especially when you bring in philosophers like Michael Polanyi, Alvin Plantinga, and new discoveries in quantum physics that are essentially saying the same thing. I'm not talking about supernatural causation--as in magic. Just non-material causation, such as human consciousness. Right now, I see many branches of science--particularly evolutionary biology--as highly rationalistic. Theory-driven rather than evidence driven. ID seems to be an attempt to call science back to a more empirical approach--at least according to the rhetoric I've heard from ID advocates. (I can't tell you how many times I've heard them say, "Follow the evidence wherever it leads.") So I'm prone to wonder if all the fireworks over ID are really just the most recent manifestation of an age-old scientific debate that's been cloaked in all sorts of modern religious and political agendas. It's just the latest swing of the rationalist/empiricist pendulum. At least that's one way of trying to conceptualize it. I could be way off. It's been a long day.

http://www.antievolu...

I responded at the same site thusly:

As for being mystified by "my cause," my main interest in this project is the whole philosophy of science angle. How do we conceptualize science and its implications? How can we know that we know anything? The debate between rationalism and empiricism.

Not in the slightest. The two necessarily go together.

Epistemology, that sort of thing. Personally, I see ID as a challenge not just to Darwinian evolution but to the very foundation of the scientific enterprise itself.

Of course it is, since ID insists that sticking to the evidence doesn't matter.

Will we allow non-material causation into science or won't we?

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.

Most people think this question was settled decades or centuries ago.

In science, it was.

IDers say new evidence in biology and elsewhere compels us to reconsider our answer.

And we've asked, futilely, for any legitimate evidence that this is so.

I find this intriguing, especially when you bring in philosophers like Michael Polanyi, Alvin Plantinga, and new discoveries in quantum physics that are essentially saying the same thing. I'm not talking about supernatural causation--as in magic. Just non-material causation, such as human consciousness.

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.

Right now, I see many branches of science--particularly evolutionary biology--as highly rationalistic.

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.

Theory-driven rather than evidence driven.

Perhaps such mistakes are why you call evolutionary theory "Darwinism," because you fail to understand that the theory has changed with the evidence.

ID seems to be an attempt to call science back to a more empirical approach--at least according to the rhetoric I've heard from ID advocates.

Perhaps you ought to listen to the other side for once.

(I can't tell you how many times I've heard them say, "Follow the evidence wherever it leads.")

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.

So I'm prone to wonder if all the fireworks over ID are really just the most recent manifestation of an age-old scientific debate that's been cloaked in all sorts of modern religious and political agendas.

Why didn't you bother to find out, before accusing scientists of numerous calumnies?

It's just the latest swing of the rationalist/empiricist pendulum. At least that's one way of trying to conceptualize it. I could be way off. It's been a long day.

It's not like we haven't actually answered every one of your claims, with evidence, long ago.

Glen D

--------------

http://tinyurl.com/2...

Re: The Search for Truth, God and Braver Scientists in ‘Expelled’

Dan Whipple — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:20:32 -0000

There are lots of people on all sides ... ... who think that there are indeed topics that threaten worldviews. Some scientists and philosophers of science believe that science and religion can't coexist. There are others who believe like the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen J. Gould that they are "non-overlapping magisteria" -- or different ways of trying to delve into the truth.

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.

Re: The Search for Truth, God and Braver Scientists in ‘Expelled’

idiotized — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:37:50 -0000

Praise! and a question: First off, I definitely respect your thoughtfulness on this topic. I'm glad to read something that is of such quality!

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!

Re: The Search for Truth, God and Braver Scientists in ‘Expelled’

shades of Littleton — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 13:23:56 -0000

Gilt edged reply... Hmmmm.... OK, your point is that while the cutting edge of biological sciences rely on evolution as a backdrop (which is the point I was making, even metaphorically) todays experiments don't actually invoke Darwin's thesis except in spirit, is that it? You're probably correct, if that is what you mean. In the same way string theory doesn't actually quote Newton (even though some of it is there based; got to be careful here for quantum mechanics, where it also has roots). I'm cool with that, as long as its clear that such "ignoring" of evolution is not a refutation, but rather an assumption.

Re: The Search for Truth, God and Braver Scientists in ‘Expelled’

djax — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 15:55:08 -0000

Count again..Start with one.. All that seems a bit overboard to me. Too much gilt by association perhaps. The claim was:

"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.

Re: The Search for Truth, God and Braver Scientists in ‘Expelled’

Dan Whipple — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:12:50 -0000

iron sun You can learn about the iron sun here:

http://www.thesunisi...

Re: The Search for Truth, God and Braver Scientists in ‘Expelled’

jmc — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:20:22 -0000

iron ball? hey.

that "sun is a ball of iron" theory sounds RAD. Could you post that?

Re: The Search for Truth, God and Braver Scientists in ‘Expelled’

anonymous — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 16:03:26 -0000

scared scientists if these people exsist i think they might be afraid of having their comments edited in a deceptive way. quote mining, deceptive editing, and just plain making stuff up plagues creationist resources. 'darwin said he made it all up on his deathbed' is a popular one that just doesnt seem to die. Richard dawkins has had to deal with this sort of thing pretty often as well. and even though its not a creationist film its still something that inspires caution- scientists had their words twisted in "what the bleep do we know?" and now its permanently in the movie... i would be scared too, creationists in general have shown themselves to be dishonest over and over again. you dont have to believe in ID for someone to try and use your 'scientist' title to support creationism somehow.

Re: The Search for Truth, God and Braver Scientists in ‘Expelled’

shades of Littleton — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:34:25 -0000

There's a Cartoon Stuck in Your Teeth Oh, yes, I almost forgot. The Doonesbury cartoon. Shallow? Rather not. Why is it a "cheap shot" to point out that creationists use the methods, techniques and brass-plated results of industrial-strength evolution theory, available from their doctors and particularly their pharmacists, routinely while at the same time claiming that evolution can not, does not and will not work, ever, and the contemplation of which is sinful, to boot? While I find the fact of that not terribly profound, how can demoing it in a particularly pointed way be called shallow?

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....?

Re: The Search for Truth, God and Braver Scientists in ‘Expelled’

shades of Littleton — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:15:38 -0000

Some of the Ways... Let me count the ways.

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.

Re: The Search for Truth, God and Braver Scientists in ‘Expelled’

shades of Littleton — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:49:45 -0000

I'm Confused about Your Argument Well, likely you've not seen the movie, as it gets released in April. Perhaps you can tell us your conclusions about it specifically then.

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.

Re: The Search for Truth, God and Braver Scientists in ‘Expelled’

Andrew Oh-Willeke — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 07:51:50 -0000

Forgive me. John Lennon and Yoko Ono simply trumps any story you could write about a so-so evangelical documentary. We insist on a full report in tomorrow's news cycle.

Re: The Search for Truth, God and Braver Scientists in ‘Expelled’

Bill M. — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 09:21:51 -0000

A further nit to pick To follow up: Aquinas, Paley and Kung were making metaphysical, not scientific, arguments. Obviously, the existence of a transcendental Supreme Being is not, by definition, susceptible to either scientific proof or disproof. Nor is the proposition that such a Being created the universe and all that's in it. This leaves the ID people in the awkward position of trying to prop up theology with science, the same kind of error made by those who imagine that science has somehow displaced or dispensed with theology.

Re: The Search for Truth, God and Braver Scientists in ‘Expelled’

CB — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 09:08:29 -0000

Confusing the Argument I've not seen the "Stein" movie and it may very well be the flimiest piece of crap ever filmed, but I would think that some of the lovers of "science" and "rational thought" here might want to speak with a little more charity, given some of the logical inconsistencies present.

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.

Re: The Search for Truth, God and Braver Scientists in ‘Expelled’

Bill M. — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 09:07:02 -0000

On "nitewit" religion Just to be clear, here: This lifelong committed Catholic has no problems with evolution, but lots of problems with "ID." So do most of the folks I see around me in church on Sunday. In fact, only a small percentage of Christians disagree with Darwin--unless you count only Biblical literalists as Christian.

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?

Re: The Search for Truth, God and Braver Scientists in ‘Expelled’

djax — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 09:05:56 -0000

Really? How So? "The rapid advances now being made in the life sciences and in medicine rest on principles derived from an understanding of evolution."

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?

Re: The Search for Truth, God and Braver Scientists in ‘Expelled’

mofolotopo — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 07:29:13 -0000

The Missing Scientists I would hazard a guess that Ben can't tell the difference between a scientist who won't talk to him because he's afraid of the mythical "establishment" and scientist who won't talk to him because he is making a contemptible piece of propaganda aimed at the willfully ignorant.

Re: The Search for Truth, God and Braver Scientists in ‘Expelled’

Dan Whipple — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 08:16:21 -0000

Dear DrFrank Thanks. I should also add that there were no nondisclosure agreements handed out at the screening I attended. No one was asked to sign one. There was at least one other writer there, though I'm not aware of any story coming out of it from them.

Re: The Search for Truth, God and Braver Scientists in ‘Expelled’

DrFrank — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 06:50:20 -0000

Oh, you have to be kidding I think it's hilarious to accuse Dan of having a persecution complex when, let's face it, the entire of Expelled is based on a huge persecution complex!

"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!"

Re: The Search for Truth, God and Braver Scientists in ‘Expelled’

jeroboambramblejam — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 06:10:34 -0000

'laws of nature'... ... As if 'laws of nature' were something that had to be written, and therefor obeyed under penalty of... what, eternal suffering in a lake of fire? (And what laws govern that scenario?)

'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.

Re: The Search for Truth, God and Braver Scientists in ‘Expelled’

Dan Whipple — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 03:59:12 -0000

Sorry, but this interpretation of events is incorrect The invitation from the Expelled people to attend the screening was sent to an editor, who was identified as such. When I got to the screening, I introduced myself to Paul Lauer before the show as a representative of Colorado Confidential. His response was, "Great!" Everything was perfectly aboveboard.

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.

Re: The Search for Truth, God and Braver Scientists in ‘Expelled’

DAC — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 03:25:08 -0000

Be truthful please The Expelled crew weren't targeting journalists at those screenings with those NDAs, and you know it. Everyone had to sign them, b/c they were test screenings of an unfinished film, not screenings for the press. They were done primarily to gauge the reaction of what they believe to be their grassroots audience. Journalists were not supposed to be there yet, but you snuck in and wrote a review and think you're clever for doing it. Then you go into a persecution complex over it. All you're really doing is revealing yourself to be a snide, dishonest person with no sense of honor.

Re: The Search for Truth, God and Braver Scientists in ‘Expelled’

DrFrank — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 01:53:28 -0000

Genius! "If Calculus explains curves so well, where do pig breeders come from!? And what about knitting!?"

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 :)