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”
OK, for giggles let's go with ID is THE mechanism for the OOL.
We'll also go with your statement that ID is fundamentally unscientific.
So, in effect, we have placed limits on the search for knowledge.
Our problem is that given the proposition that ID is THE mechanism for the OOL, we have placed the truth off limits to science.
You see a problem there?
This assertion is, of course, nonsense. The only Justification us evil creationists are concerned with in matters of faith is that bestowed upon us by God. It's really a pretty simple concept.
No, I do not. Because human science will never, ever, be able to grasp, much less measure or predict, God. Do you see a problem?
Yup, guys like you who seek to place arbitrary limits on those seeking knowledge.
That's really funny. What is your opinion of those seeking to figure out a naturalistic scenario for the origin of life?
While I am convinced that order and complexity are evidences of intelligence and design, I am also convinced that randomness is not evidence of lack of intelligence or design.
The world is chock full of order and complexity that are known to have intelligence as it’s cause. Sometimes we know who the designer is, sometimes just that it’s a human; intelligent nevertheless. This establishes a precedent that can lead one to conclude that where order and complexity exist and the designer is not known, a designer was necessary.
Likewise, randomness is no evidence of lack of intelligence or design. Randomness is used by people in something as simple as a random number generator. It can be designed in systems where variety or unpredictability is needed.
There is no situation where randomness can be used to demonstrate lack of intelligence or design where it is not assumed to start with. The best anyone can do is say that they don’t know if there was intelligence behind either the order and complexity, or the randomness.
You can’t support an argument by assuming the conclusion. It’s not logical to say that because there’s no evidence for a designer, you have to assume there isn’t one and then say that randomness is therefore proof that there’s no designer.
Evos are always looking for *scientific* evidence only for a designer, yet they provide no evidence to disprove a creator, nor do they give any idea of what they would consider *scientific* evidence to show one. What is offered as patently obvious to the most casual observer, that is order and complexity, is considered *unscientific* for some reason. Both can be observed, measured, tested for. What else do scientists want?
And science masquerades as the elitist avenue to enlightenment. Back at ya. What a joke.
Well a bad sense of humor is better than none at all I suppose.
What is your opinion of those seeking to figure out a naturalistic scenario for the origin of life?
The same as it has always been, I don't limit the search for knowledge. I also don't feel any threat by those searches.
Try it, it's liberating.
I’m not quite sure what you mean. I hve consistently asked ID supporters what their research program is, and what theory they would teach to explain changes in populations.
What arbitrary limits have I put? Are you suggesting that science can measure/predict/test God?
I think you are under the assumption that everything which is "true" must be part of science. Is that the case?
“No, I do not. Because human science will never, ever, be able to grasp, much less measure or predict, God. Do you see a problem?”
Science does not necessarily need to “grasp, much less measure or predict, God” to detect evidence of intelligent design. Why some people have such a hard time grasping this concept is beyond me. Does SETI need to identify the source of an message from space to determine that the message came from an intelligent source? Of course not.
Oh, by the way, British Astronomer Fred Hoyle believed strongly in ID even though he also professed to be an atheist. So obviously he didn’t think that ID necessarily implies that God is the Intelligent Designer.
“The fact that you resort to “straightforward testimonials in favor of ID”, when asked for scientific evidence for ID, rather explains your perplexity, don’t you think?”
I have repeatedly offered the complexity of the simplest known living cell as an example of “evidence” of ID. But you and others here steadfastly refuse to pay attention. Perhaps intelligence is required to identify intelligent design, and perhaps you guys don’t have it. I just don’t know how else to explain your invincible ignorance on the matter.
Science certainly cannot explain how the first cell came into existence by purely naturalistic, random mechanisms. And the problem is not just that we “haven’t yet figured it out.” Mathematicians have proved that the first cell is extremely unlikely to have come to be by random mechanisms. And I mean unlikely as in 10**(-10,000,000) or less, or zero probability for all practical purposes.
To my way of thinking, the fact that we cannot explain the cell without resort to ID is strong evidence if not proof of ID in nature.
Perhaps you disagree, but will you at least quit claiming falsely that I have offered no “evidence” of ID? Good grief, am I wasting my time here or what?
So is it your recommendation that scientists give up?
If we are going to use pure logic in this discussion, I would like to point out that one cannot logically assert that an event is impossible simply because it is improbable.
Second, one cannot assert that an event is improbable without knowing what the event in question is, and in what context it occurred. The event and its context must be described exactly and and fully before probability can be assigned. For example, on cannot say winning the lotto is improbable without knowing the conditions of the event, whether cheating might have been involved, and more importantly, whether it has already been won.
The last condition might seem trivial, but it is not. Nearly everyone on this forum agrees that life came from non-life. For believers, it is explicitly stated in the Bible. So the argument is not about whether non-living matter can become living, but rather, under what conditions.
If one could solve difficult problems in chemistry by assigning probabilities of molecules assembling themselves, I daresay research and development laboratories would be different from what they are. The chemical precursors to life are being studied in the conventional way by conventional science. At some point it may be possible to assign probabilities to a sequence of events. But until we have an actual sequence of events, it is irrational to assign probabilities.
In your world of “science” in must be nice to be able to redefine theories whenever convienent or when something unconvienent challenges your theory. You obviously have no idea how complicated it is for life to come into being on its own, let alone complicated or intelligent life. Please, go back to school.
“Evolution deals with changes in the genome since the origin of life.” Even the great evolutionists of our day and history would laugh at that,
If aren’t literate than I probably can’t help you. I’m not a reading instructor.
Good grief, am I wasting my time here or what?
Ignoring your condescension and insults for the moment, I'd say that if what you've offered thus far on this thread is all you have for "proof", then yes, indeed, I think you're wasting your time--and everyone else's.
And fortunately, you aren't a writing instructor.
If aren’t literate than I probably can’t help you.
Let's all just enjoy the irony of that sentence fragment, shall we?
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.