New Film Investigates Crushing of Dissent from Darwinian Orthodoxy

LifeSiteNews.com ^ | August 30, 2007 | Hilary White

[Shryke]

Just because someone can't tell who set the fire doesn't mean that arson can never be detected. Who set it and his motives for doing so aren't required for the task of detecting the arson. This doesn't mean that all cases of arson can be detected or that something that looks like arson may not actually be just a natural occurrence or a case of arson made to look like a natural occurrence.

And? Do you realize, then, that the "Science" of this arson investigator stops there?

And that is exactly why ID does. It says "It's life! It's been designed!"...and stops. There is nothing else.

I still can't figure out how this is supposed to be useful to anyone, much less "science".

[aruanan]

To use your analogy, the difference between Science and Intelligent Design is that the scientist does want to know who set the fire while apparently you would have us believe that the ID proponent couldn't care less

You're incorrect. And, as so many do, you're begging the question by equating naturalism with science. There are many scientists who are naturalists, but naturalism isn't science.

The naturalist scientist wants to know the materials used to get the fire started while positing a scenario that excludes from the start any possibility of a who as the originator of the fire. The naturalist scientist would say that it may appear that the fire was deliberately set but that since we know there could have been no deliberative agent to set it, the appearance to the contrary must either be chance or projection. For the scientist who is a believer in naturalism, how something something has come to be and how it operates are relevant, but "who" and "why" (in the teleological sense) are simply not in the picture since all is but an unbroken chain of cause and effect back to the beginning of the universe (or just back and back into an unending universe). The naturalist may say that we do see things that appear to have been designed, but that is just illusion imposed on what we see because ours is a mind that seeks similar patterns that it is itself capable of generating, though all of this, including our minds and thoughts and illusion of self, are yet just other links in the unending, nonrational chain of cause and effect.

[Coyoteman]

There are many scientists who are naturalists, but naturalism isn't science.

And if science does not work on the assumption of naturalism, what is it doing instead? Working with divine revelation, scripture, and other religious dogma?

A search on google of "define: science" produces a lot of junk (such is the internet today), but one definition which may be more accurate is:

A systematic field of study or body of knowledge that aims, through experiment, observation, and deduction, to produce reliable explanations of phenomena, with reference to the material and physical world.

Key parts of this definition are "material and physical world" -- and if you don't agree that this is what science works with, what would you put in their place.

[aruanan]

I still can't figure out how this is supposed to be useful to anyone, much less "science".

Really? How about this, given the probability constraints on life having happened to spontaneously generate and evolve to where we are today, the likelihood of its having happened just a single time anywhere else in the universe to a similar degree and to the point where any communication could occur is so close to zero as to be indistinguishable from zero. In this context interstellar radio signals that appear to be intelligently modulated would be a big deal. If it could be demonstrated that they were not the product of irrational, mechanistic forces but were intelligently modified and were not, somehow, just some sort of weird funnelling back to us of something of our own technology, then we would know both that there existed something by which an utter improbability could be overcome and that we were not alone. That seems interesting at least. As far as usefulness is concerned, a lot of discoveries were made the uses of which were unenvisioned at the time. To know something, even a bit of something, is one more datum that can be used to build up a more coherent, and truthful, view of the universe. That's useful.

[aruanan]

A systematic field of study or body of knowledge that aims, through experiment, observation, and deduction, to produce reliable explanations of phenomena, with reference to the material and physical world.

This is pretty accurate as far as it goes. What naturalism, versus science, does is to go on to say that the material and physical world is all that exists and that human reason and understanding of the natural world are products of that natural world and that any appearance of reason having the freedom to know and evaluate and choose and distinguish between truth and error is only that, an appearance, not a reality. This is a philosophical viewpoint that has not and cannot have been reached by means of science.

[fabian]

really...who is the intelligence?

[aruanan]

And if science does not work on the assumption of naturalism, what is it doing instead?

The intellectual tool of science is designed only to make sure that one's measurements be as accurate as one's technology permits, that one's measurements use the appropriate tool for the quantity to be measured, and that one's conclusions follow logically from one's premises. Of course, this doesn't stop you from having screwed up premises from which equally screwed up conclusions can be very logically drawn.

If one works very diligently, then one may be able to separate what one hopes or believes is out there from what actually is out there. That is, one may be able to systematically eliminate one's misconceptions about what is out there in the world by the practice of science and, as a result, be able to exercise control over it and then use it for one's ends. This is the power of science.

The choice of both premises and ends, though, lies outside the field of science because science is limited to reasoning and experimentation based on measurable quantities. The biggest error of the past three centuries has been the assumption that since everything that can be measured exists, nothing exists if it cannot be measured. The belief is that since measurement is but the extension of our senses by technical means, there is nothing that exists apart from that which is open, at least in principle, to our senses; ie, "seeing is believing" or, ostrich-like, "If I can't see it, it doesn't exist." Accordingly, personality, thought, love, and free will are just smiley faces we put on biochemical processes that are irrevocably part of a chain of cause and effect that we only think we control.

[aruanan]

really...who is the intelligence?

You really have missed the point, haven't you?

[fabian]

I believe I understand your point after reading one of your posts...but you are sadly deluded by your thoughts. If you see a painting of say, Mona Lisa, and you can obviously deduce that it had to be painted by someone due to the structured complexity of it. So when an actual human is observed we can see the far more complex beauty and economy of him or her...which leads us to know that we had to have a designer. For you to try and divorce a possible God from ID theory just doesn’t fit.

[mdmathis6]

“Facts by themselves lack context and meaning; a usable theory helps to explain those facts. A good theory explains existing and newly discovered facts, and also allows predictions to be made. The theory of evolution is one of the best supported theories in science.”

Hence the issue that many have with Evolution; the predicated bias displayed when facts or data points having no context of their own are strung together like strings of pearls and presented as the NEW TRUTH of EVOLUTION, whose very existence challenges even the notion of divine origin.
It is one thing to look at evidence and say that it appears that an evolutionary process took place; it is quite another to then make a leap and say because this process has taken place, this proves there is no God!

Now I’m not saying you have made that leap, but there are scores of respected Darwinists who do make that leap who go on to champion political and social views that make Communists and Nazi’s look like pious churchmen!

Those are the folks I take issue with! I have no real issues with those who view life in all its interesting varieties in a evolutionary context while being careful not to rule out (or RULE IN) a divine role in the origin of total existence! Let the true scientists practice true science not bigoted anti religion with a Darwinian justified
piety!

[curiosity]

Otherwise you end up with the argument that these very learned and credentialed men are stupid fools.

I have no doubts as to the sincerity of Philip Johnson, an obviously intelligent man.

One doesn't have to be stupid to be deluded. Emotions can prompt some of the smartest people to believe the most absurd things, against all reason and evidence. How else can you explain that a man smart enough to earn a Ph.D. in biology from a top university was deluded into becoming a Moonie?

I know some extraordinarily intelligent Mormons (and I even support one for president) who accept a religion that is almost laughable in its absurdity, though it's not quite as absurd as the cult of "Reverend" Moon.

I suspect the vast majority of the ID and creation "science" crowd, all demonstrably intelligent people, are similarly deluded.

[RightWhale]

• How else can you explain that a man smart enough to earn a Ph.D. in biology from a top university was deluded into becoming a

  FWIW, Kant said that stupidity was incurable by any amount of education and a PhD would emerge just as stupid as he went in.

[curiosity]

it is quite another to then make a leap and say because this process has taken place, this proves there is no God!

True, which is why you will never see a statement like that in a biology textbook or in a peer-reviewed scientific paper.

Freedom of religion and freedom of the press means that athesits are allowed to express their personal views in popular outlets, even if they're scientists.

Now I’m not saying you have made that leap, but there are scores of respected Darwinists who do make that leap who go on to champion political and social views that make Communists and Nazi’s look like pious churchmen!

Scores? No. A handful, yes, but they do this on their own time, and they're not allowed to use scientific publications for such preaching.

Those are the folks I take issue with! I have no real issues with those who view life in all its interesting varieties in a evolutionary context while being careful not to rule out (or RULE IN) a divine role in the origin of total existence!

That would be the way 99.9% of evolutionary biologists approach their work. That is also exactly the way pretty much all mainstream biology textbooks approach the subject.

[curiosity]

FWIW, Kant said that stupidity was incurable by any amount of education and a PhD would emerge just as stupid as he went in.

No, a Ph.D. will not cure stupidity.

However, a stupid individual, by which I mean someone with a low IQ, will not be able to complete a Ph.D. in biology in a rigorous program like Berkeley's. There's no way a stupid person would be able to pass all the required classes and exams, let alone successfully defend a thesis.

Maybe an idiot might make it through a Ph.D. program in a bullsh!t discipline like womyns' studies or something like that. But not biology. It's simply too hard.

[Hacksaw]

Then who is the intelligent designer?

Me.

[Hacksaw]

My daughter’s evolution professor was at least honest enough to say, “and then the magic happens.”

It's another Darwin Miracle!

[Hacksaw]

However, a stupid individual, by which I mean someone with a low IQ, will not be able to complete a Ph.D. in biology in a rigorous program like Berkeley's. There's no way a stupid person would be able to pass all the required classes and exams, let alone successfully defend a thesis.

Out of curiosity, I wonder why some have referred to biology as a "soft" science. Maybe the intro course is, but as you move into higher levels, you need to understand and work with a good deal of chemistry. It isn't just memorizing a book.

[curiosity]

Out of curiosity, I wonder why some have referred to biology as a "soft" science.

Well, physicists, or at least those I know (like my Dad), think anything that isn't physics is "soft."

They have this attitude because only physics attempts to understand the fundamental physical laws that underlie everything. In principle, therefore, if we perfectly understood everything there is to know about physics, we would be able to explain all of biology, chemistry, geology, etc. by simply applying the laws of physics to different contexts. Thus to a physicist, every other science is just applied physics.

[RightWhale]

The hardness is related to math, not difficulty. Physics, and astronomy, cosmology are all math. Maybe a few datapoints and then a pile of differential equations and tensor matrices relating those few datapoints.

[DiogenesTheDog]

This is rich.

I'm certain Holocaust denialists love to complain how their views are being unfairly shut out of university history departments too.