Slashdot Mirror
Ben Stein's 'Expelled' - Evolution, Academia and Conformity
eldavojohn writes "Painting the current scientific community as just as bad as the Spanish Inquisition, an extended trailer of Ben Stein's "Expelled" has a lot of people (at least that I know) talking. It looks like his movie plans to encourage people to speak out if they believe intelligent design or creationism to be correct. In the trailer he even warns you that if you are a scientist you may lose your job by watching 'Expelled.' Backlash to the movie has started popping up and this may force the creationism/evolutionist debate to a whole new level across the big screen and the internet."
adholden points out a site called Expelled Exposed, which asserts that 'Expelled' "is simply an anti-science propaganda film aimed at creating controversy where none exists, while promoting poor science education that can and will severely handicap American students."
to Expelled, a movie full of ad hominems, half truths, non sequiturs and promoting ignorance!
Hey! Look a Distraction!
There was a debate? When?
Oh, right, in America. Oh you silly Americans. I guess the age of the American Empire is truly over. You're hell bent on driving your population into the next Christian Dark Age, while China is preparing to whip your ass. Good luck with that.
Isn't one of the points of the movie that while scientists espouse neutrality, lack of bias, objectivity, etc. that they are not actually following it?
(Disclaimer --> haven't seen the movie or any trailers, the above was a genuine question for anyone who has actually seen the movie, and not an attempt to troll. Also the question should not imply that I agree with or disagree with the movie. It really is JUST a question.)
He's missing the issue. The truth is, I believe some form of "intelligent design." But whether or not I believe it or a billion people believe it is irrelevant. Intelligent design, as has been discussed here and elsewhere, ad infinitum, it's NOT SCIENCE and should not be taught as science or as an alternative to evolution.
On the other hand, if they want to teach it in a Religious Studies type class, I'm all for it. Go for it. That's precisely where it belongs.
Meh... As long as both are prefixed with "theory of", who cares?
Um... because evolution can be observed, and any rational mind can understand the mechanisms by which it works, and the magic-man-in-the-sky "theory" make no provision for testing, cannot be evaluated as anything other than wishful thinking, and teaches kids not to engage in critical thinking.
Your willingness to tolerate creationism in school as long as they call it a theory is actually worse than the delusions of the people who put it forward in the first place, because - by themselves - they come across as ignorant loons. You're giving them credibility.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Unfortunately, a lot of people don't understand the distinction, and people like Dawkins don't help. Many religious types treat 'discounting an argument for god(s)' the same as 'advancing an argument against god(s)', and go ballistic. But it's important to note the difference. There's still room to believe in god(s) even if you accept the ridiculously overwhelming evidence that evolution happened and is happening. (I don't believe in god(s), FWIW, but many people do.)
Stein and his ilk really remind me of the worst features of Ned Flanders sometimes. "Well, I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Remember if intelligent design is correct then it can be explained, demonstrated and then analysed further. Until then it is as much a waste of time as it is trying to work out how much flour Flying Spagetti Monster is made up of.
If this were really happening, what would you think?
Isn't it ironic that a whole generation of religious folks are doing nothing more than routing their kids into a backwater. Suspicion of science just means their children will distrust science and math and be shuttled, therefore, into a legion of burger flippers. Teaching your kids that Intelligent Design is the right answer is as close to child abuse as I can imagine.
Because the evidence for evolution is overwhelming?
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Except there is a discussion in academia, Ben Stein just doesn't like the outcome of that debate so he claims it's "unfair". Scientific debate isn't the Skull and Bones society, anybody can join in if they have some good points to make and some good arguments to back them up. All I ever hear from folks like Ben Stein is how they are being unfairly excluded from the debate...yet rarely have I actually seen them making any attempt to join in. Since this is Slashdot, I can't end this post without an analogy...so here goes. Forget we're talking about science and think about the place where you work. Imagine there is someone who shows up late, leaves early and doesn't get a lot done while he's there. Now imagine that person spends basically all his time at the office complaining that it's unfair how he's not getting promoted and that the boss has it in for him. That's how I feel about Ben Stein here.
Let's assume the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Where did the oil come from? Was it created in the ground with the rest of the Earth? If so, is there a way to predict where it might be found? Or perhaps it really did form from plankton (with a few plants and dinosaurs), but about 10,000 times faster than any chemist believes it could? Any way you look at it, a young Earth and a Flood would imply some very interesting scientific questions to ask, some interesting (and potentially extremely valuable) research programs to start. How come nobody's actually pursuing such research programs?
Why don't creationists put together an investment fund, where people pay in and the stake is used as venture capital for things like oil and mineral rights? If "Flood geology" is really a better theory, then it should make better predictions about where raw materials are than standard geology does. The profits from such a venture could pay for a lot of evangelism. Why isn't anyone doing this?
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
They ignore you because you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
Then they mock you because you expect to be taken seriously without putting in the work to become informed.
Then they fight you, because you won't go away until you've had your fight, and ingrained in your thinking, so deeply you don't know it's there, is the notion that might makes right.
Then you win, because there are so many ignorant, lazy, belligerent people that sooner later sensible people, who want to get something accomplished with their lives, will sooner or later give up on picking sense out of your nonsense.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
There's so much I would like to say here, and I rather doubt that I'll get it all said, but I'll make a stab at it. In the first place, I haven't seen the movie, so can't really comment on Stein's take. However, I have looked at the "sociology" of the Evolution/Intelligent Design/Creationism debate a fair amount, and what I see disturbs me from all sides. One major concern I have is the elevation of Darwinian natural selection as a means of species creation to an unrealistic importance. I just don't see why it's so important in and of itself. One could certainly be a competent physician, for example, and not believe in Darwinism (or neo-Darwinism). It seems to me that one could even be a quite competent practitioner of any of the biological sciences (other than the various sorts of paleontology) without necessarily agreeing with Darwinism. Yet, we are constantly told that a failure to teach Darwinism at the high school level will destroy science education as we know it and result in a US population that is hopelessly ignorant of all science, etc. etc. I just don't buy it. Bluntly, I can scarcely think of a job where a belief in Darwinism is necessary. On the other hand, we have school systems that literally teach absolutely no information science, computer science, etc. etc., and people graduating from college who literally don't know the different between a byte and a gigabyte. It's hard for me to see why this ONE THING is so vitally important, when it has virtually no practical application and there are scientific topics with enormous practical application that go untaught. Could the real problem be social or (speak softly now) political? It seems to me that that is exactly the case. The extraordinary efforts put forth by various scientific bodies to defend Darwinism from all criticism strike me as a knee-jerk reaction to a knee-jerk fear that the Scope's trial will happen all over again. This isn't about science--it's about continuing the Enlightenment project of supplanting all sources of Meaning (capitalization intended) with Scientific Meaning. That doesn't mean that I think that Darwinism is wrong. I actually think that it's as right as you're going to get within the boundaries that it sets itself. But I certainly don't think that the loss of Darwinism would destroy American education or anything along those lines. So ... people... GET A GRIP.
My $0.02.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
Uh... because there is exactly zero evidence supporting other theories? Because other theories are largely unscientific, untestable, and not falsifiable? Because creationists still don't understand that evidence against one theory do NOT automatically equate to support for an alternate theory*? Because evidence from every branch of science, from astronomy to chemistry to geology to physics to zoology all support the currently accepted theory? You know, those sorts of things kind of tend to make people really, really tired of dealing with folks like Ben Stein, who remain obstinately and willfully ignorant.
(*e.g., if this fruit is not an orange, that does not mean it is automatically an apple... heck, could be a kumquat, for all you know).
... is the closing of minds
ideas are dangerous to closed minds.
80 years ago the "establishment" was opposed to teaching the theory of evolution - now the "establishment" doesn't want to discuss the possibility that evolution is "bad" science.
I also like the fact that the "enlightened pro-evolution" people are usually the ones resorting to argumentum ad hominem...
It ain't what they call you. It's what you answer to. http://mylyceum.us/
During the whole montage he's writing something over and over on the blackboard and it comes out to be something like "I will NOT question Darwinian Evolution." He interviews scientists and editors who have lost their jobs for printing/writing papers that claim our DNA has a 'code' with information that could not have happened in nature.
Disclaimer, I read a lot of Darwin/Dawkins/Gould so I'm pretty biased here
I think that even though it's 'a waste of time,' it's bad to write these people off or fire them. I'm sure there's sound criticism against these papers and authors but Ben Stein isn't showing that in his movie if there is.
If you have friends who believe in Creationism, respect them and provide for them sound arguments against it. It may be a waste of time to you but it's complete snobbery to write them off. Ben Stein is correct that you may lose friends if you watch that movie and become polarized by it--don't let that happen!
Like a Michael Moore movie, objectivity is raped, killed, gutted and donned over a rich man's face who then can safely tell you what to think.
My work here is dung.
Because I can find lots of stories that make me I am glad the crazies here don't express their religion by bombing people... like , in, uh wonderfully enlightened Europe.
/. that this qualifies as a story. I guess a few editors need to get their brownie points with the insecure techie crowd... the one that needs to vilify anyone with belief and the willingness to express it. (plus its also good fodder for anti-Bush people who claim some hair brained connection to him however tenous)
Really, do you guys not get the news we do? Burning cars in France, oh I know, the PC word is immigrants. Killing of writers in Europe because they dared to write about someone's god?
What you have here in America is exaggeration. Look at it this way, if its brought up over and over and made to look silly it probably is. The haters need something to jump up and down about to make themselves feel superior and these ID people are a great target. The ID people are not a great percentage, just a convenient target.
It says even more for
mod to me to hell if you like, but it is true that it takes a big does of exaggeration to make ID people out as a representative of America or religious America.
Bring out the haters, this thread should have lots of them.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I don't agree with this. Ben Stein's opinions aren't worthless because he's not a scientist - they're wrong because they just don't have the necessary support.
Chaos != Free Will. You said yourself (basically) that it will react in a certain way, given certain input. Just because it is too wildly changing does not mean it is not predictable; we just haven't the computing power, nor information, to make such predictions.
Of course, the same could be argued for human free will.
Are we using the same definition of bias? Having a strong opinion is not bias, if it is a sound conclusion of the evidence. Bias is starting with the conclusion and selectively gathering the evidence to support it.
In order for something to be a theory, it must be testable and falsifiable. "My invisible friend did it" is *not* a theory.
And the whole point of the academic system, peer review, having your director check what you publish & most importantly reproduction of results, aim to keep personal bias in check.
After all your not going to spend 5/10 years working on something you think might be wrong.
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
Just because the "establishment" does not want to discuss totally futile nonsense like the squaring of a circle or perpetuum mobiles, this does not mean they have closed minds. Its is just extremely boring and a useless waste of time to go through the same nonsense over and over again.
Creationims is nonsense. It adds nothing to scientific insight. Theism is useless. It adds nothing to scientific insight.
Yes, scientists can be very closed minded and stubborn and even stupid. And "the scientific community" can falsely disregard insights and new ideas for a while. That has happened and still happens all the time.
But creationism is so fundamentally wrong and nonsensical in so many ways that the contrary can be said: somebody actively supporting anything that so fundamentally goes against all scientific rational thinking disqualifies him- or herself as a scientist.
A physicist building a perpetuum mobile should get fired. A biologist teaching creationism or ID should get fired on similar grounds.
so what underlies an otherwise intelligent religious person to resist evolution?
we need to confront the real underlying psychological issue here: faith in humanity
religious folk view something like evolution as a path to meaninglessness, nihilism, cynicism. your typical secular humanist expresses their faith in mankind directly: there is no conflict between evolution and being positive about mankind's future
but religious folk's minds don't work like that. for a religious person, their faith in humanity is indirect. it is tied up in symbols and code words, like god. god is really just a psychological manifestation of an abstract concept: an ideal man, what humanity strives for, progress
and around an idea like god, you get all of these related mythologies that again, are really just props for retaining and reaffirming and indirect positivistic faith in society and mankind
so what really divides the secular humanists and the religious folk are those with no faith in mankind. when you look at something like evolution, and you consider your traditional religious symbology that enforces your faith, you are confronted with a crisis. and you look at some of the nihilism in the world. not the atheists who believe in mankind, but the cynical, empty, boorish loud kind of atheist who sees no meaning in life, and you react to that. and so you react to evolution: it seems to be a path to this sort of empty faithless indolent nihilism
in other words, the negative reaction to evolution by otherwise intelligent religious folk is really a reaction against the idea of meaningless in life
this is the psychological issue which underlies the rejection of evolution by otherwise intelligent religious folk. and so the real way you defeat their resistance is by criticizing faithless nihilism. those who use evolution as a story about how mankind is meaningless, pointless: you attack and reject them
you talk about evolution, AND you talk about faith in humanity and you talk about evolution as reinforcing meaning, not destroying it. and in such a way, you draw down the resistance of intelligent religious folks to evolution, by demonstrating to them that evolution is not a threat to the idea of faith, that plenty of secular humanists with faith in mankind can also beleive in evolution, without some sort of psychological dissonance
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Evolution is based in science. It has evidence and is discovered/researched by way of scientific means. People who believe the scientific method can accurately be used to discover and research things can go so far as to say that they believe in them because science supports it.
ID is based on religion and tradition. It does not come from evidence or from any application of science as we define science. It's presented as an alternate explanation evidenced by religious texts and motivations. People who believe in God or religion and believe what their respective religion tells them to believe about creationism or ID can go so far as to say they believe in ID or creationism because their religion supports it.
The real conflict with evolution versus ID is that ID proponents want ID taught in science class. That would be akin to Darwinism and evolution being taught in a psychology or theology class. It's just out of place. Most reasonable people I know on both sides of this can accept that there's a difference between philosophy and science and that they don't need to be mixed and that one is free to take their own beliefs from one, the other, or some combination of both.
The issue I take with this movie is not that it presents ID and/or creationism, but that it makes those who believe in it out to be the victim of oppression because "you can't talk about that in science class" and because the scientific community will shun you for teaching it. Truthfully, the scientific community only wants to make sure it's not presented as science because it devalues work they take seriously. And Ben Stein is using/abusing his reputation for being a very intelligent person convince religious folks that they are being oppressed, so they'll lash out against anyone who says that ID and creationism shouldn't be taught in science class. Everyone's free to believe what they want, but school is not the place for misrepresenting the beliefs of some or even many people as the result of scientific research.
And finally based on all I've said above about my perspective, my reply to you is that Ben Stein is out to make money and nothing else. If he really believes as you say, then he could have skipped this movie. Of course, evolution is not a "answer for why life exists and why the universe works that way that it does" or anything like that. I watched the preview; it was very clearly edited with a single goal in mind: to victimize those who have religious beliefs counter to accepted scientific theory. He is not pointing out that universities don't allow dissenting views. I can't imagine there exists a university without theology or psychology classes to discuss creationism and ID very thoroughly. The failure here is not for professors to teach ID or creationism, but for science professors to validate any education based on ID or creationism with scientific evidence.
-N
I've nothing to say here...
he's a rebel. He's stickn' it to the establishment by conforming to an establishment... He's a tricky one. Thank GOD for people like him that compel us to think inside the box.
BTW on his game show "Win Ben Stein's Money" I recall him doing poorly on the SCIENCE and SPACE categories.
Okay. Thanks for providing a great example of BAD SCIENCE.
I am skeptical about evolution. The thing is that right now the majority of evidence is that evolution is real and explains a lot about how life has changed over the history of the planet.
I am skeptical about creationism. So far every talk I have listened to on creationism has had more error in science than I can shake a stick at.
If you are not skeptical then it isn't science. If you are not open to the possibility that you are wrong then it isn't science.
As far as global climate change from human CO2 production. Yes I am very skeptical. I don't think they have nearly enough data to prove it. The way the climate change faithful keep saying this or that disaster or storm was caused by global warming really doesn't help. Snow in Bagdad this winter and record cold and snow in many places this winter also are interesting data points.
Heck I am even for cutting CO2 production just in case because frankly as the old saying goes "It can't hurt".
But the people that claim that Man made global warming is a proven fact are also spouting off bad science.
Being skeptical is a good thing and good science.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
By extension, do we have free will? Given certain input, much people becomes predictable...
Of Code And Men
I will illustrate your point, with an example I saw on CNN:
But you don't really illustrate the point - the OP was talking about scientists, and you illustrated the point with a story about a journalist and an environmental activist.
Oh - and can you pls link to the CNN article?
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
it's supposed to be observed over millions of years
No, it can be observed hour by hour. If you'd like to do a little test, we can expose you to all sorts of little life forms that used to be easy to kill with simple anti-biotics, but which - in some cases, only months later - are now genetically different, and have adapted to survive that treatment. As those bacteria (and in some cases, parasites) reproduce, there are observable mutations involved. Some of those mutations result in an altered version of the critter that happens to tolerate things that might kill those versions that mutated in a different way. If the chief cause of end-of-the-line death in strains of bacteria happens to be anti-biotics, then we're watching that life form, via simple natural selection, adapt its way around that threat. If you don't have the patience to learn how to look at the longer-term histories of species, and can't muster the simple common sense to see how that would impact more complex organisms over time, then just ask any doctor to explain it to you. Hopefully, for your sake, that won't be in the context of actually having such an infection - because, unlike even just a few short years ago, when such bacteria didn't exist, it's getting very hard to kill them without also killing you. Just like everywhere else in nature, a new pressure must be brought to bear on a species that has evolved (rapidly, in this case) to overcome an older pressure.
Let's not tolerate creationism but at least consider intelligent design
They are the same thing - both suggest the hand of an all-powerful imaginary magic super being with a sick sense of humor.
If you look at the genetic code, the similarities the re-use of design patterns
Don't you see? Of course commonly useful bits of DNA are commonly found. The stuff that works, at the basic level of providing for things like nerve growth, or respiration, or enzyme production, doesn't need to be evolved away from... mutations that shut down things like that tend to kill the offspring, and thus don't get passed along. The stuff that works, stays, and stuff that works better becomes more prominent through simple natural selection. If your ability to live long enough to reproduce depended on your ability to sprint to the nearest tree to avoid being eaten, then a mutation in your DNA that happens to produce a fractionally greater dose of adrenaline when you sense danger will give you an advantage over your brother, who might have a different, but less (for the circumstancecs) useful mutation. Guess who passes along the DNA after the predatory animals have come through your part of the woods? Mr. Faster Tree Climber. It might be a hundred generations before something even slightly as useful crops up again in that particular part of your clan's DNA, but as long as it's an advantage, it gets passed down the line. If its a liability (say, it also happens to increase your sensitivty to the sun, and thus causes early cancer), then it dies off. Of course, you know all of this. You're just invested, for social reasons, in the mythology side of things, and it's awkward for you to admit it.
In truth, I think scientists are afraid. They're afraid that if they admit there are aspects and evidence of design that they will be condoning creation as a whole rather than the simple design aspect.
No, they're just afraid of an entire new generation of kids growing up thinking that supersition, and belief if supernatural cause and effect might endanger our culture's ability to produce rational thinkers. You know, the sort of rationality that allowed us to build the systems over which you're reading this message, right now. You're proposing that we embrace a world view more or less like that which fueled the Dark Ages, or which applauded the burning alive of women, as witches, who knew that willow bark contains aspirin or who gave birth on the wrong day of the week, when it happened to rain really hard an
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Actually... it's much more likely that they don't know what "theory" means.
"Having a strong opinion is not bias, if it is a sound conclusion of the evidence. Bias is starting with the conclusion and selectively gathering the evidence to support it."
It is also the filtering of evidence and interpretation of evidence so as to favor one's viewpoint. Quite common in our science today.
The reason they don't get published is because their work isn't science. That's the problem with ID as a scientific hypothesis -- there's no way to test it.
IDers present stupid arguments, and then complain they are being persecuted by scientists. Apparently, idiots hate it when you call them idiots.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
This isn't a problem as long as you restrict God solely to the metaphysical, which is what most religious scientists do. (This is, I think, the effective stance of Catholicism.) If you don't use religion to make disprovable statements about reality, they're quite compatible.
Actually, there is a good bit of symmetry here. I often say that the Intelligent Design(ID) people admire how the Man Made Climate Change (MMCC) people have pushed their cause. If you believe in the scientific method you have no problems with anyone challenging a theory. In fact, you'd welcome it because it either disproves the theory or makes it more accurate.
Evolution has advanced in it's "completeness" as a theory because of many challenges made to it over the years, and those challenges have helped science immensely. Just because a theory is wideley accepted however, does not mean that it is correct. Prior to Plate Tectonics being widely accepted it was scorned and rejected by leading scientists who had careers built on "old science." This incidentally what the subject line of this post refers to: subduction is one continental shelf sliding under another, and orogeny is mountain building (of course since this is /. let me point out IANAG).
Yet because the heart of Geophysics is still physics, these great scientists were able to accept challenges and look at the new theory and say "yes -- this fits better." And that's what's awesome (and to me holy) about SCIENCE. You can challenge ANY assertion, and if your model is better, it will persuade people. I'm sure some physicist can help me out and show how the theory of gravity has changed massively since Newton -- even though a lay person would say "yeah, I get gravity."
So here's where Expelled and ID fall down -- we KNOW their theory. What is being taught in schools about evolution is mostly demonstrable. We can show evolution in anti-biotic resistant strains of bacteria, that directly impacts humans and health. ID is being taught in the appropriate places -- houses of worship -- where challenges are heresy. Yet in teaching SCIENCE in schools we want to teach that every assertion CAN be challenged and should be observable. That's what science is -- an attempt to understand the universe through observation and experimentation. If someone wants to challenge something in science and can bring legitimate observations to the table, they should be welcomed for the CRITICAL (pun intended) role they play in the process. ID has to reject the scientific method, science always looks for challenges to make the model more accurate -- but ID is by definition perfectly accurate already, and cannot be challenged.
I support everything the MMCC people want as an end result -- I'd like to see us embrace alternative energy, stop burning fossil fuels and generally be more conscious of the impact we have on the planet. I also think that there is a real harm being done to science when people with legitimate complaints about the SCIENCE of MMCC are treated as pariahs. Although I tend to think that MMCC is real, and there is certainly no harm in proceeding to curb our carbon emissions, I welcome the legimate claims of people who think that solar cycles are responsible, or that this period is not particularly warm on a geological chart of temperatures. These are legitimate scientific ideas based on observation and empirical data. MMCC as a theory will gain much more respect when it embraces challenges, instead of treating them in the same way ID treats challenges -- by throwing the scientific method under a bus. On the other hand, if the MMCC people do succeed in making challenges to their "science" become heresy, the ID people will be sure to take notes in how that happened.
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
No one has ever seriously advocated the earth is flat? There's some papal writing you might want to check for that one. A literal reading does require it (Matthew 4:8, Daniel 4:10-11, Job 38:13, Job 37:3) but let's use another example. What about that the earth circles the sun (heliocentric model)? A literal reading of the Bible requires a geocentric viewpoint. See Joshua 10:12-13, Ecclesiastes 1:5, 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalms 93:1, Psalms 19:4-6, etc etc.
Scientists were persecuted for putting forth a heliocentric model despite scientific proof. Indeed, there are those who still advocate a geocentric viewpoint. People got over it. In every developed part of the world except the US, evolution is not controversial; their people got over it Its time we did the same. Evolution is fact.
Fine; disregarding the PI=3 thing, and any discussion of homosexuality in the Bible, the ID debate still boils down to taking the Bible (specifically the origin of man) literally versus taking it as an allegory. I still see strict literalists arguing that the universe was created in exactly 144 hours, six thousand years ago. I see people swearing that the Earth literally ceased rotating for a day in Joshua 10:13, and that all humanity except Noah and his wife were obliterated in the Great Flood (thus making every one of us their descendants and incredibly incestuous to boot).
Heck, you get the argument that all humanity on Earth began from Adam and Eve, despite the fact that Cain is marked by God so that any man who finds him will kill him on sight (Genesis 4:15), leaves to settle in the Land of Nod, and in the very next verse (Genesis 4:17) he "knew his wife". His wife? Where the heck did a wife come from? Were Adam and Eve especially bizz-ay? Did God go around randomly creating other humans, and if so, why aren't they written about in Genesis? You'd think the dawn of the human race was important enough that God would make sure to include a heck of a lot more detail.
My point is that you can't decide that some parts of the Bible are to be taken literally, and others are not -- never mind the fact that what we consider "the Bible" today has been translated and retranslated, by people both benign and malicious. One can argue that every single translator was somehow imbued with the Holy Spirit in the same manner as the original authors and thus produced an infallible translation... but that opens a whole new can of worms, as we have dozens of translations of the Bible right now that occasionally contradict one another.
And if you aren't going to be super literal about the origin of man... then there's no argument. It's all semantics. God could easily have designed the Big Bang and the formation of the cosmos and the evolution of life to work out exactly as it has.
In fact, that makes far more sense to me; why would He create this complex universe with its incredible mesh of physical laws, only to break them with miracles and supernatural occurrences? I'd think He'd work within the confines of what He had created.
I don't.
Before we start our discussion would you be so kind to state with a few rational arguments why your idea of 'Jesus Christ the savior' deserves more attention from me than the flying spaghetti monster?
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
Actually, that was a scientist, Galileo, who didn't have the math to explain elliptical orbits and fudged his data. Since even the idea that planets moved around the sun was very unpopular at the time, and Galileo didn't have any peers, the peer review process didn't actually exist to check his work. When Newton shot this down, nobody complained.
Kuhn has been exaggerated, and even his original claims do not fit the history of science well. Scientists tend to be conservative, and wait for strong evidence in support of a new theory so that they don't get taken in by the fringe. What Kuhn does not mention, of course, is that fringe theories that are just dead wrong outnumber valid theories a hundred to one, strongly justifying this approach (ID is an example of the far lunatic fringe.) His story of multiple Copernican Revolutions is also wrong. A Copernican Revolution occurs when a valid scientific theory arrives which brings a solid foundation to further research. There is at most one in each scientific field of research--examples include the original work of Copernicus (which became the basis for Galileo, Newton, and eventually Einstein), Darwin's theory of evolution, plate tectonics, and DNA. Prior to these advances the field is a chaotic mash of data with no means of organization, only guesswork. Einstein's work was not a Copernican revolution, but a refinement of existing physics into the very large and small scales. He did not prove Newton wrong.
What makes Kuhn so popular is the narrative of the lone genius who, in David and Goliath fashion, takes on the powerful and corrupt empire to change the world. According to this narrative, science is just a majority opinion defended by political maneuvering. This is utter bullshit. The fastest way to win a Nobel prize and establish your career is to prove other scientists wrong--but for that, you need evidence. ID doesn't have any. Not a single scrap. ID isn't a scientific theory, but a well financed marketing campaign masquerading as one, presenting this narrative and a soggy heap of postmodernist drivel to encourage and exploit ignorance.
Your mind is squeezed by a blast of pain!
Someday's Slashdot mods... you.
Briefly...
There is some evidence that the people who wrote the bible wrote what they knew to be true (so they were credible witnesses as far as it goes since many of the verifiable parts of their stories check out).
There is some evidence that the supernatural stuff about jesus was already rumbling around that area in several other countries attached to several other dieties.
There is some evidence that some of the books of the bible were not written by one person.
There is some evidence that some books of the bible were suppressed by the early church.
There is a lot of credible evidence that modern christians are anti-truth because they ignore vast mounds of physical evidence because it contradicts genesis. They have been caught lying and suppressing the truth. They are not acting christ like.. or even disciple like. They do not value the truth. They do not respect honest seekers of truth.
Why the hostility? Well as a non-believer, I had people trying to ram religion down my throat for most of my life-- it generated a lot of hostility on my part. I just wanted to be left alone to live my life.
Could christianty be true? Sure. Could several other religions be true? yes. Did the followers of failed religious believe them to be true? absolutely. Would some of them have died for their faiths. absolutely.
"Going to heaven" is very different than most people think. If your entire personality ceases to exist and only an animating spirit/soul sans personality goes to heaven, then most people would view that as the same as death. So most people really don't believe christianity anyway... they engage in a mental kung-fu and think that if some part of them survives completely sans their personality then that's okay... heck, let me clone their bloody cells and keep those alive forever-- would that be immortal life? Christianity is always portrayed in the media as if the people's personality survives.
There is only hearsay evidence that he "paid" for sins. John Smith has a great little religion going based on hearsay information too. Do you believe his religion?
Still. the moderation was probably unfair. That's life.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
"Evolution" is as much a law as the first law of thermodynamics, and the laws of thermodynamics are theories in exactly the same way as evolution is. And anyone who spends any time in science knows this. It's all a work in progress. Do you know what evolutionary biologists do? They poke holes in evolution! They spend their whole time finding weaknesses, writing them up, discussing them, and trying to find better theories. That's science. By swallowing what the film says, you're giving the creationists - who have been rehashing the same arguments since the 1980s with no modification - a free ride.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Welcome to America, 2008. Deceit and a lack of ethics raise concerns among people who post comments on blogs and news sites, but not necessarily among a majority of people who vote and write letters to their legislatures. We've arrived in an era in which there are two truths: right-wing truth and left-wing truth. You can pick either. Each has its own dedicated news and opinion services dedicated to it, so regardless of which one you pick, you can safely pretend the other doesn't exist until a talking head points out how silly the other side looks.
Here's the catch: most of the emotional advantages are firmly on the side of right-wing truth. Think of what feels good and it's true. America is the best country on earth, and everything we do is therefore moral. Oil production will never peak. The environment will take care of itself regardless of what we do, because it was put there for us by God. What industry lobbyists say about the climate is more correct than what most scientists say, because the scientists are communists. Human beings are special: not a type of animal that evolved along with other animals, but higher beings on a pedestal above animals.
See? Emotionally the right wing is far more satisfying. If you pick right-wing truth, there's no need to apply any scrutiny to it, and it provides a mirror of left wing truth in every respect, aside from a lack of creditability its adherents don't seem to miss.
Sorry, had to do that.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Nitpick: a chaotic system is one where no leve of detail is insignificant. In order to make predictions arbitrarily far into the future, you have to know the state of the system arbitrarily accurately. However, quantum mechanics forbid you from knowing the state beyond a certain accuracy; consequently, a sufficiently chaotic system is impossible to predict arbitrarily far into the future, and no amount of computing power can change that.
Not that any of this has anything to do with free will. That particular hornet's nest results from trying to apply a philosophical concept into particle physics. That said philosophical concept is ill-defined to begin with certainly doesn't help.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Don't apologize for the snark; it's actually a very valid question. There are examples of filtering and interpreting evidence so as to favor a given viewpoint in the publishing of even ostensibly peer-reviewed scientific papers, but these examples are nearly always driven by money, not by ideology: a pharmaceutical company or an oil company or a tobacco company funds research on a new drug or on climate change or on smoking, and darned if that research doesn't support the company's position.
However, the idea that there's an irrational, conspiratorial bias against challenges to the theory of evolution is, to be very polite, dubious. Researchers who cast serious doubt on evolutionary theory using the scientific method, producing results that were consistent and repeatable, would surely get a whole lot of flak at first -- but they'd eventually be given Nobel prizes. That's the kind of thing that makes careers. The kind of thing that destroys careers is making extraordinary claims that fall apart under testing -- or, as in the case of intelligent design, making extraordinary claims that can't be tested at all.
In a lot of ways, ID uses the same "logic" as any classic conspiracy theory: searching the "accepted truth" for any (apparently) unexplained gaps and shrieking Ah-HA! This disproves it all! Trying to fight these theories is a tedious and dispiriting proposition; you often have to try to bring your opponent up to speed on knowledge they'd need to have (and accept) to examine the evidence critically, and they're far from a receptive audience. And even if you manage that, there's going to be another "gap" they can find. And another. And if you have to eventually try and explain that data which isn't accounted by the theory is not the same as predicting a specific outcome which turns out to be wrong? Good luck with that.
1 It doesn't matter who thought of it first or why... That doesn't make it any less or more credible.
2 If I told a lie would it be any less of a lie if millions believed me? Or for that matter wether I tell it now or a long time ago?
3 Same argument... The amount of people that take some guys existence for granted without any proof doesn't give the idea more credibility.
Interestingly both Jesus and the FSM (may his meatballs be ever spicy!) are well documented but you choose to believe a parody to have equal weight to an historic person. Delusional ever?
On that topic... besides that one book those christians keep talking about.... could you show me some actual evidence that he is an actual historic person and not just a mythical figure?
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
You need to know Stein's background to see what he's after. Although a conservative, he's also an exceedingly intelligent iconoclast aiming to reveal problem behavior where it's typically not admitted.
His purpose in Expelled is not to promote creationism, either in and of itself or in comparison to evolution. His intention is to point out that SOME OF the scientific community is participating in the same sort of hair-on-fire hysteria as the most vocal creationists. While the latter are widely know and fairly expected to employ this as a tactic, or just emotionalism, the scientific community "should" be above it, but isn't.
He rightly shows that the "evolution/creationist debate" isn't. He shows that it is instead a construct. Creationists claim it in order to put their ideas on equal footing with science, and science unwittingly helps them when some of its members react to what they expect rather than what's actually being said. His movie is a case study in precisely this, both within itself and as a social phenomenon, and you can bet your ass this is exactly what he intended.
It's easy to poke holes in the highly vocal creationists' stance, and quite popular to do so. It's more difficult to poke holes in their scientific counterparts, and supremely unpopular if you assume his intention is to promote creationism. Promoting creationism is his tool, exposing intellectual bigotry is his intention, and before the movie even premiers, he is succeeding admirably.
If one isn't convinced, consider the fact that he's targeting only those that overreact to the situation. For the most part both religious and scientific adherents (and those who hold to both) coexist and even discuss their viewpoints without any acrimony or "debate". They see no contradiction because the two thought systems are orthagonal -- entirely independent and incomparable. It's those in science who can't grasp this due to perceived peer pressure or fear that overreact and so unwittingly lend credence to that which they oppose by the sheer act of opposing it.
And keep in mind that although the movie pokes at one side, that doesn't mean he considers the other side to be right. He's going after the one target too few have the balls to attack. My money says that when it's died down, he'll make a statement that he has no intention of supporting creationism, only that he intended to do what I've described above.
The movie is a masterful piece of agitprop (agitating propoganda). It gets its targets to react wildly to it as though it were their traditional perceived enemy, while its true intent to show that those targets are themselves reacting wildly when they, as the supposed intellectuals, should be reacting with due consideration, if at all. And at this point it doesn't matter if the movie even comes out; it's already done exactly what Stein wants it to.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Attempting to provide alternate explanations without testable hypotheses are not good science. Just so we're clear, every single testable hypothesis produced by creationist scientists has been refuted by experiment. NOBODY has ever demonstrated that information can come from *any* other source than a mind. Um, maybe not to your liking, or to your narrow definition of "information" and "mind". DNA is simply code triplets for amino acids. It could conceivably be called information, but in reality it's just a simple chemical isomorphism. Further. it has been shown experimentally that bacteria can easily re-evolve the lactase enzyme when that gene is removed.
A subtle but nuanced result of Godel's Incompleteness theorem is that what you call "minds" are no more powerful than sufficiently advanced computer programs. Creationists have produced zero evidence, beyond philosophical musings, that a mind needs anything to function other than the neural activity in the brain, and the fact that brain damage can effectively destroy a mind lends HUGE weight to the theory that a physical brain contains everything necessary to produce minds.
Further, it is quite easy to write computer programs that readily "discover" new information in mounds of raw data. This is called data mining. And spare me the creationist rhetoric about "who wrote the computer program" -- computer programs are NOT biological organisms, though it is known by computer scientists that selection over incremental changes to computer algorithms can produce more complex, adapted algorithms.
No, there is ZERO reason to even suggest that information can only be produced supernaturally. The hypothesis itself is totally unfalsifiable because we have no way of even knowing that the supernatural exists, let alone making absolutist truth-claims about it. This is pseudoscience of the worst kind.
And please stop using the term "evolutionist" if you want to be taken seriously. It's a baseless framing device used by creationists in order to try and place it on an "even keel" with creationism.
Life would be easier if I had the source code.