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”
Pasteur may have accepted “evolution,” if by evolution you mean common descent. That says little if anything about whether he believed in ID. As far as I know, ID per se neither requires nor rejects common descent. I’m no expert on Pasteur, but judging by what he wrote, I suspect he believed in ID.
So many myths in evolution, one being the imperfectly self replicating molecule... subject to some time consistent selection’ arising up out of the morass.
Pray tell sharp, just what molecules can come about except as results of other chemical exchanges?
We will start off real simple, H and O2 for starters
There was peace between science and religion until James Hutton and Lyell. OK, there were skirmishes that necessitated burning Bruno and imprisoning Galileo, but in general there was peace between religion and science as long as religion accepted the rules as found.
You might try reading Denton's more recent book.
If you are a fan of Denton's, you really need to get his latest book.
Gravity took centuries to get from Copernicus to our present state of confusion. Nevertheless, our understanding is useful, if incomplete.
The more we learn about the minimal states of life, the more likely we are to be able to treat and prevent cancer and genetic disorders.
At the moment, tens of thousands of home PCs, including some owned by freepers, are working on understanding protein folding.
Lyell: “The high priest of uniformitarianism.”
Not an unreasonable way to view the world, but not particularly scientific, either. He was arbitrary in his assignment of dates, much as those who accept the premise that physical processes have always taken place at the same rate.
I would say this is correct. JS does a far better job of explaining why this is. Suffice to say that if you start your premise with the idea that God is responsible for the creation of life, there is nothing left to learn (science cannot nor claims to be able to replicate God's work). You can't replicate His work (which, as you know, is a requirement of science).
The proof is in our history: we both know there have been vast numbers of brilliant men that believed in Creation, throughout history. MANY of these men were scientists. Why, then, has ID not flowered? It hasn't flowered because there is no room for science in that approach.
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?
I like this question because it illustrates my point. The important part of the question here (which is unsaid) is this: what do these aliens wish to do with this wreck of a car? Simply determine its origin? If that is the case, you are correct (Who made it? Man made it. End of study). Or do these aliens want to duplicate the car? Determine HOW it was made? Make a smaller version, or partial version? If that is the case, unless the aliens are reasonably certain that we left behind a "how-to" manual, determining who the maker of the car is would be pointless. Determining the materials and methods of contruction, by trial and error, would be what the aliens need.
Think about the reverse: let's say we come in posession of a UFO. Do you think the scientists need to spend their time determining who the aliens were that made it, in order to puzzle out its secrets? Of course not. It is as I said: what are the materials, how do they work together, etc. are the questions we must answer.
Indeed. As you can see, I am trying my best (clumsily) to explain that very point.
That would include Newton, often cited here as a Christian, although in another era, he would have been burned as a heretic for denying the Trinity.
"“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."
Are you sure? (All bolding by me)
Russ P: Also, as I said before, the problem is not just that science hasn’t “figured it out yet,” though evolutionists would have us believe that. The problem is that the random origin of the first cell would be comparable, as Fred Hoyle put it, to having a tornado in a junkyard result in a fully assembled Boeing 747. I use a slightly different analogy. It would be comparable to having the entire text of the Gettysburg Address show up randomly on some desert sands due to random winds.I’ve also pointed out that the entire notion of a random origin of the first cell in unfalsifiable and hence, by the very definitions used by many evolutionists, unscientific. Think about it. Explain to me how one could prove that the Gettysburg Address never appeared spontaneously on the sands of a desert.
It can only be done by probabilistic analysis, but evolutionists routinely dismiss such analyses with a wave of the hand. Hence, the modern theory of abiogenesis is “unscientific” according to the very same criterion that evolutionists claim that ID is unscientific.
Russ P:By the way, the odds of that happening are far greater than the odds of a living cell falling into place at random.
Russ P: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.
Here you talk about the complexity of a cell.
js1138: 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.
Js1138 mentions that that complexity is unrealistic and need not be considered.
Russ P: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.
You reiterate the need to consider a complex cell.
Just so you don't claim I am quote mining, here is the entire exchange from post 134 on:
post 134
post 137
post 138
post 140
post 141
post 144
post 152
post 158
post 160
Looks like you did claim we should be considering the complexity of the cell.
Since no one has ever said that a 'cell' needs be the product of random organisation, but the result of non-directed changes in the chemistry coupled with the guidance of selection, you could be talking of nothing but abiogenesis.
Please, pay attention to your own words.
You are doing fine. It’s the word lawyers that need to learn that imprecision in expression can be embarrassing, but it doesn’t change the facts on the ground.
"Pray tell sharp, just what molecules can come about except as results of other chemical exchanges?
"We will start off real simple, H and O2 for starters
Are you sure you want to do this?
Where did I claim that molecules come about by anything other than chemical reactions?
We are talking to someone who recommends reading Michael Denton without knowing about Denton’s latest book. It’s a bit like talking to someone who thinks ID is compatible with Biblical literalism, or who believes ID rejects an ancient earth or common descent.
What they don’t seem to realize is that all these battles were fought by mainstream biologists a hundred years ago. It’s gets boring hearing the same arguments for a flat earth over and over again.
Newton is more often cited as a Deist. He is another example of one who, as he undertook science, assumed the universe was created by God with established rules to govern it, and so intelligent design was the background against which he pursued his vocation as a student, scientist, and philosopher.
I agree with that, but I believe Newton denied being a Deist. He had his own personal brand of heresy, one that he distanced from his public life.
But Newton’s foibles are of little interest to me. Scientists of his time followed the evidence and expected the evidence to confirm the history of the universe according to Moses.
The split between religion and science began when the evidence diverged from this expectation, and science continued following the evidence.
But the issue, Fester, stems from introducing the supernatural into science. It doesn’t work - it cannot work.
The assumption that nature is constant and consistent in its rules is what makes science possible. People as individuals might care how the rules got that way, but science just searches for them.
All of which makes the propostion of banning intelligent design from scientific discussion fairly preposterous. Just as it is the essence of intelligent design to create and implement orderly materials and processes, it is the essence of science to seek out and explain the details.
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.