Posted on 11/01/2007 5:53:26 PM PDT by truthfinder9
This will be interesting, a documentary movie by Ben Stein on the new wave of thought police and academic suppression in academia and science:
Ben Stein, in the new film EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed
His heroic and, at times, shocking journey confronting the world’s top scientists, educators and philosophers, regarding the persecution of the many by an elite few.
In theatres near you, starting February 2008
Ben travels the world on his quest, and learns an awe-inspiring truth…that bewilders him, then angers him…and then spurs him to action!
Ben realizes that he has been “Expelled,” and that educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired – for the “crime” of merely believing that there might be evidence of “design” in nature, and that perhaps life is not just the result of accidental, random chance.
To which Ben Says: "Enough!" And then gets busy. NOBODY messes with Ben.
***
At Big Science Academy we take our motto seriously: “No Intelligence Allowed.” And this year, we are proud to report that in every subject but Science, students and faculty are free to challenge ideas, and seek truth wherever it may lead.
But Science is different. In Science, there is no room for dissent, for dissent is dangerous. That is why we at Big Science simply refuse to allow it. Like dancing, “dissent” can lead to other things.
As Class President Richard Dawkins put it so well: “Shut up!”
As you know…last year we had the misfortune of “presupposition of design” rearing its ugly head, with several students challenging Neo-Darwinian materialism, and arguing incessantly for the right to examine Intelligent Design.
They were all Expelled, of course – but still: it just goes to show where academic freedom can lead, if not shut down immediately!
Sincerely,
Charles Darwin Principal, President, Admissions and Diversity Affairs Officer, Big Science Academy “No Intelligence Allowed”
The simplest known living cell consists of several interdependent subsystems, each of which is amazingly complex, and all of which must be in place for the cell to be viable and capable of reproduction. Kindly educate yourself on the matter. I don’t have time to do it for you.
Well, no, you are not correct. One can test the chemical abiogensis hypothesis. So far there has been progress, but as we know, no success. If someone were to somehow create life from nothing, his work would then be subject to verification and all the other rigors of science. Of utmost importance is the purpose of the hypothesis. What will happen if and when the hypothesis is supported by evidence? Certainly the possiblities are vast.
As far as I can tell, none of the above applies to ID. It is purposeless (or as JS stated, vacuous). But, again, let's assume I am wrong. Let's say you have detected the hand of God and design appears to be valid. What, then, is the next step? What is the purpose of further research? What is the proposed benefit of knowing a cell was designed by God?
>>>EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed
I thought this was going to be a story on a DNC convention :P
Both replication and Darwinian evolution have been demonstrated in a very short snippet of RNA, pure naked chemistry with no cellular machinery and no cell membrane.
Find time to educate yourself before lecturing others.
By the way, both RNA and DNA can exist in inert crystalline form. Is it your contention that crystals cannot form by the rules of chemistry?
I don't see it written anywhere, but every science class I ever took was accompanied by a lecture on the utility of hypothesis and theory in guiding research.
This concept seems beyond the reach of the Discovery Institute. After 200 years, ID hasn't seem to generate any suggestions for research, other than the vacuous demonstration of what is already known. Living things exhibit design.
The design crowd, however, shows no interest in formulating a theory of design: how it is implemented, what are its goals, how do you distinguish it from the products of Darwinian evolution? Behe and Dembski have scratched at this without producing any enduring legacy.
There is benefit in assuming all created matter to be designed by the hand of God and then undertaking science with the purpose of discovering the order, manner, and means whereby His creation works. This is how Western science has conducted itself for a much longer period of time than Darwinian philosophy has been around.
Yes, it has already been pointed out that thousands of years of theology based inquiry produced essentially no medicine, whereas modern biology has eradicated smallpox and polio, and has made diseases like mumps a rarity.
Do you mean base elements are created by God? Or everything, such as a computer? At what point does God's direct design cease and other forces take over?
“Well, no, you are not correct. One can test the chemical abiogensis hypothesis.”
I can “test” my hypothesis too. All I need to do is to look up in the sky for messages. And if I really want to get serious about it, I can simulate my own sky in the lab. You are confused about what is and is not “scientific.”
“Let’s say you have detected the hand of God and design appears to be valid. What, then, is the next step? What is the purpose of further research? What is the proposed benefit of knowing a cell was designed by God?”
For starters, we use it to get people like you to quit regurgitating nonsense. That alone would make it all worthwhile.
Your hostility to “theoretical,” as opposed to “applied” science still mystifies me.
However, I can see that this discussion is going nowhere fast.
Theology and science do not need to force the dichotomy you are inclined to deduce. You are wrong in asserting that ancient theologians were disinclined to practice medicine or study God’s creation. They were not half as superstitious as certain johnny-come-lately Darwinian philosophers.
Science works best when it assumes an underlying order, and is not at all harmed by assuming the underlying designer behind that order is a Higher Being. The advances in medicine you cite are a case in point, where the underlying philosphy is that God created all things and established rules, and that it is the business of science to discover what those rule are.
Is there a scientific reason to assume otherwise? If so, please provide it.
“Yes, it has already been pointed out that thousands of years of theology based inquiry produced essentially no medicine, whereas modern biology has eradicated smallpox and polio, and has made diseases like mumps a rarity.”
Here we go with whack-a-mole. Louis Pasteur, the father of modern biology, was a committed believer in ID, although he didn’t use the actual term “ID.” He refuted the evolutionists of his day who did not understand the complexity of the cell, and who believed in “spontaneous generation” of living matter.
After Pasteur refuted “spontaneous generation,” the evolutionists didn’t quit give it up entirely. They decided that if it happened only one time, billions of years ago, nobody could disprove it. Hence, the modern “hypothesis” of abiogenesis. The only problem is that, since it cannot be disproven, it is unscientific. Oops!
You have no idea about the complexity of the cell. I highly recommend you read the chapter “The Enigma of Life’s Origin,” from a book called “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” by Michael Denton.
Yes, although science has yet to determine precisely what those are.
Or everything, such as a computer?
A computer must be derived from the basic elements, as well as the individuals who took those basic elements and, by further design, put them to work.
At what point does God's direct design cease and other forces take over?
I would say at the point where other intelligent beings impose their will upon the substances involved, and yet even these may be subject to both direct and indirect intervention from God.
I agree. And you research's purpose would be what?
You are confused about what is and is not “scientific.”
Maybe. However, I have not claimed that evolution covers the origin of life (it cannot), as it appears you do. So maybe we are both on shaky ground.
For starters, we use it to get people like you to quit regurgitating nonsense. That alone would make it all worthwhile.
You have, for perhaps the 6th time, failed to answer that simple question (with any meaningful answer), and managed to become insulting as well. I'd ask why, but I suspect I will get more insults. Let's just agree you've won the argument with a saavy, ad-hominem retro-grade approach.
Your hostility to “theoretical,” as opposed to “applied” science still mystifies me.
You only need to propose a purpose behind your hypothesis.
“You have, for perhaps the 6th time, failed to answer that simple question (with any meaningful answer), and managed to become insulting as well. I’d ask why, but I suspect I will get more insults. Let’s just agree you’ve won the argument with a saavy, ad-hominem retro-grade approach.”
You’re asking what the benefit is of scientific inquiry that has no practical benefit. First of all, scientific research is done all the time for the sake of pure knowledge with no anticipated practical benefit. When physicists study gravity, do you think they imagine that they will produce an anti-gravity machine? Of course not. When cosmologists study the big bang, do you think they have a practical application in mind? If so, they must be smoking some pretty strong stuff!
As for the insults, I’m just a jerk. That’s what my wife says, anyway. I usually try not to be one, but the tricks used by evolutionists and their hostility to ID really annoy me. I’ll work on it though.
Surely you don't need me to list all of the pracical benefits and applications of gravitational theory? Do you realize just how much of physics has its foundations in gravity? I don't think this is a good example for your argument. Also: anti-gravity has been researched - I even recall some Russian scientist claiming he can slightly descrease gravity. It has massive potential benefits if it is possible. Space travel/colonization (and complete space dominance) being one of them.
Your second example, the Big Bang, is a better example. However, I, as a layman, could name many practical applications that arise from studying the proposed "bang" origin of the universe. First and foremost: a better understanding of physics. Perhaps even a unification theory for Quantum and Newtonian physics, which we lack. Gains such as these may give us our replacement to nuclear energy. Or, as you stated, an anti-gravity device. I will admit that these are obviously "down the road" benefits to a theory that may never be validated. But many such prior endeavors have lead to some incredible gains. Thus scientists pursue some things they know may never be fully understood.
Intelligent Design, as far as I can tell, does not offer this. Intelligent Design begins and ends with God, who is above the realm of man and science.
"“Yes, it has already been pointed out that thousands of years of theology based inquiry produced essentially no medicine, whereas modern biology has eradicated smallpox and polio, and has made diseases like mumps a rarity.”"
"Here we go with whack-a-mole. Louis Pasteur, the father of modern biology, was a committed believer in ID, although he didn’t use the actual term “ID.” He refuted the evolutionists of his day who did not understand the complexity of the cell, and who believed in “spontaneous generation” of living matter."
"After Pasteur refuted “spontaneous generation,” the evolutionists didn’t quit give it up entirely. They decided that if it happened only one time, billions of years ago, nobody could disprove it. Hence, the modern “hypothesis” of abiogenesis. The only problem is that, since it cannot be disproven, it is unscientific. Oops!
That is quite the revisionist history and a rather 'imaginative' interpretation.
You might want to read the FAQ the following excerpts have been taken from.
What Louis Pasteur and the others who denied spontaneous generation demonstrated is that life does not currently spontaneously arise in complex form from nonlife in nature; he did not demonstrate the impossibility of life arising in simple form from nonlife by way of a long and propitious series of chemical steps/selections. In particular, they did not show that life cannot arise once, and then evolve. Neither Pasteur, nor any other post-Darwin researcher in this field, denied the age of the earth or the fact of evolution.Emphasis mine.
In his later years, Pasteur was forced to modify some of his views (not about spontaneous generation). He had thought that microorganisms retained their virulence indefinitely. But in 1881, he was forced to admit that virulence could attenuate spontaneously (and he made it the foundation of his anti-rabies vaccine). Debré says, "And now, at the age of sixty, Pasteur was once again facing facts that did not fit in which his concepts. Attenuated virulence conflicted with his biological philosophy. He had to renounce his dogmas and enter the debate on the evolution of species." He had to choose between Darwin's view that selection was in operation, or Lamarck's that the environment directly influenced the species of organism, and chose Lamarck. But he did accept transmutation of species, as is demonstrated by his comment quoted in Hilaire Cuny's biography, unfortunately not referenced, from Pasteur {Cuny 122}:
"Virulence appears in a new light which cannot but be alarming to humanity; unless nature, in her evolution down the ages (an evolution which, as we now know, has been going on for millions, nay, hundreds of millions of years), has finally exhausted all the possibilities of producing virulent or contagious diseases - which does not seem very likely."Although he shortly afterwards refers to "the myriad species of Creation", it is clear that he accepted the reality of evolution. Moreover, he characterised the interaction between microbes and hosts as a "struggle for existence" (a phrase, it must be remembered, invented by the Swiss botanist Alphonse de Candolle, and borrowed by Darwin). However, I doubt he accepted that evolution occurred by natural selection, as the French rarely did until the 1950s and Jacques Monod's writings. However, he was not a creationist, at least at this point in his life.
Now, do you still want to use Pasteur as an anti-evolution authority given that he was a Lamarckist?
So, you insist on playing with your strawman version of abiogenesis? Interesting.
Abiogensis does not require that a modern cell spontaneously arise, what it does require is an imperfectly self replicating molecule subject to some time consistent selection.
The only reason I can see for you to ignore the requirements determined by science is to enable you to produce some ridiculous and poorly defined calculation that has no resemblance to anything in reality.
BTW, is the 'spontaneous' creation of molecules such as amino acids unlikely?
You seem to be saying that even if life is intelligently designed, that fact is irrelevant to science. Frankly, I am baffled that anyone could seriously entertain such a notion.
The main objective of science is to understand nature. The question of whether it is intelligently designed is certainly significant. If it weren’t, naturalists would not go apoplectic over the notion that it is.
Suppose space aliens land on earth and find a old junk car that was abandoned out in the desert. They decide to study it to determine all they can about it. Do you suppose they would be interested in knowing whether it was designed or whether it came together by some unguided process?
“Abiogensis does not require that a modern cell spontaneously arise, what it does require is an imperfectly self replicating molecule subject to some time consistent selection.”
Nor did I say it does. You’re not paying attention.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.