Posted on 04/21/2008 7:23:01 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
In Ben Stein's new film "Expelled," there is a great scene where Richard Dawkins is going on about how evolution explains everything. This is part of Dawkins' grand claim, which echoes through several of his books, that evolution by itself has refuted the argument from design. The argument from design hold that the design of the universe and of life are most likely the product of an intelligent designer. Dawkins thinks that Darwin has disproven this argument.
So Stein puts to Dawkins a simple question, "How did life begin?" One would think that this is a question that could be easily answered. Dawkins, however, frankly admits that he has no idea. One might expect Dawkins to invoke evolution as the all-purpose explanation. Evolution, however, only explains transitions from one life form to another. Evolution has no explanation for how life got started in the first place. Darwin was very clear about this.
In order for evolution to take place, there had to be a living cell. The difficulty for atheists is that even this original cell is a work of labyrinthine complexity. Franklin Harold writes in The Way of the Cell that even the simplest cells are more ingeniously complicated than man's most elaborate inventions: the factory system or the computer. Moreover, Harold writes that the various components of the cell do not function like random widgets; rather, they work purposefully together, as if cooperating in a planned organized venture. Dawkins himself has described the cell as the kind of supercomputer, noting that it functions through an information system that resembles the software code.
Is it possible that living cells somehow assembled themselves from nonliving things by chance? The probabilities here are so infinitesimal that they approach zero. Moreover, the earth has been around for some 4.5 billion years and the first traces of life have already been found at some 3.5 billion years ago. This is just what we have discovered: it's quite possible that life existed on earth even earlier. What this means is that, within the scope of evolutionary time, life appeared on earth very quickly after the earth itself was formed. Is it reasonable to posit that a chance combination of atoms and molecules, under those conditions, somehow generated a living thing? Could the random collision of molecules somehow produce a computer?
It is ridiculously implausible to think so. And the absurdity was recognized more than a decade ago by Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the DNA double helix. Yet Crick is a committed atheist. Unwilling to consider the possibility of divine or supernatural creation, Crick suggested that maybe aliens brought life to earth from another planet. And this is precisely the suggestion that Richard Dawkins makes in his response to Ben Stein. Perhaps, he notes, life was delivered to our planet by highly-evolved aliens. Let's call this the "ET" explanation.
Stein brilliantly responds that he had no idea Richard Dawkins believes in intelligent design! And indeed Dawkins does seem to be saying that alien intelligence is responsible for life arriving on earth. What are we to make of this? Basically Dawkins is surrendering on the claim that evolution can account for the origins of life. It can't. The issue now is simply whether a natural intelligence (ET) or a supernatural intelligence (God) created life. Dawkins can't bear the supernatural explanation and so he opts for ET. But doesn't it take as much, or more, faith to believe in extraterrestrial biology majors depositing life on earth than it does to believe in a transcendent creator?
But of course that doesn’t address the fact the it is a lie to say anyone was fired for their beliefs. You can’t be fired if you don’t have a paying job, and there is no particular law against shunning someone you think is dishonest.
There is no particular reason why a university cannot refuse tenure to someone who is likely to be an embarrassment in the future.
Now if you want to do an honest survey of the effects on one’s career of advocating ID, take a good look at the careers of those who have signed the Discovery Institute’s petition. There are quite a few hundred signers, enough for a good statistical sample.
I won’t discuss the movie with you until you answer whether you saw it or not. Otherwise, thanks for your comment and goodbye.
I’m not discussing the movie. I’m discussing the promotional material, which clearly states people have lost jobs for supporting ID.
I merely request that people who argue this should do a little research on the career paths of a large sample of people who have publicly signed the Discovery Institute statement. Have they been fired in disproportionate numbers?
Perhaps they could be compared to the biologists named Steve, who have publicly supported mainstream evolution.
Well, I saw the movie and have not paid much attention to the trailers. So please enlighten me on where I can view what you allege.
As to your request for someone who would argue that people lost jobs for supporting ID, I find it rather presumptuous. Do you mean to imply that there is an acceptable number of people who could be fired for their beliefs when ostensibly the belief is not counter to the employment?
What job did Sternberg lose? People have lost jobs -- real paying jobs -- as a result of opposing creationism. Start with Texas. Sternberg lost nothing.
Expelled -- at least the promos -- seem to argue that the victims are all on the side of God, and the villains are all proponents of Big Science.
I merely offer to study the charge of discrimination by comparing the career paths of people who signed the Discovery Institute statement with a similar sized group who signed a statement opposing ID.
By the way, before you oppose my suggestion, you might consider that I don’t know the outcome of my proposed study. I could lose big. For all I know, the typical person who goes to church and publicly argues that God created “kinds” without evolution is unemployable and languishing in poverty.
My suspicion is, however, that many of the people who signed the DI statement have normal careers, even publishing in peer reviewed journals.
Well the article you presented was not promotional material, but I will accept the citation as discussion material. Stein does say people were fired and did say Sternberg lost his job.
Your example of people losing their positions I will also accept as losing a job, however, Ms Comer evidently resigned. Taking that as an example Dr. Sternberg also resigned from the editorship of the publication at the center of his controversy. He indicates so on his site, but unlike Ms. Comer he does not indicate pressure from the journal. He does indicate pressure from the Smithsonian. To make a long story short, the U.S. OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL does indicate pressure from the Smithsonian on Sternberg due to his activities as the editor. This is validated by a simple reading of the email traffic. This pressure would be illegal had Sternberg been an employee, but due to recent legal decisions he was not considered to be covered by the law which protects the "employees" of the Smithsonian. Somehow Darwinians justify that treatment simply because he was not an employee, because it was legal. It is also legal to have an anchor baby, but is that activity right? Be that as it may, his treatment was worse than your example. Your article indicates that Ms Comer was legitimately treated for activities counter to the workplace from the workplace.
The move came shortly after Comer forwarded an e-mail announcing a presentation being given by the author of Inside Creationism's Trojan Horse. In the book, author Barbara Forrest says creationist politics are behind the movement to get intelligent design theory taught in public schools. Comer sent the e-mail to several individuals and a few online communities.
Here the TEA indicates one of the reasons for her treatment.
"Ms. Comer's e-mail implies endorsement of the speaker and implies that TEA endorses the speaker's position on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral," the officials said.
It is up to the TEA to decide what the policy is for TEA employee's and not the employee. I work for the government and there are things that I cannot do. One of which is exactly what she did(notice the word politics in the description of the book). I would have broken the law had I done what she did, but she is a state employee. There are other activities of Ms Comer noted in the article that also are not beneficial to a career.
I don't have time to take your suggestion, but I think it might be very interesting. But I can also provide evidence that real or not there is a perceived danger to espousing ID within the centers of learning.
Nature 434, 1062-1065 (28 April 2005)
doi: 10.1038/4341062a
In contrast, William Dembski, a mathematician at Baylor University in Texas and another prominent intelligent-design researcher, says that he is no longer allowed to teach on campus. "Essentially I've had about a five-year sabbatical," he complains. Stories such as Dembski's make some intelligent-design supporters fearful of expressing their views in public. One researcher, approached by Nature for this article, declined to be interviewed because he did not yet have tenure.
Addendum
Comer said she paused for a moment before forwarding the Forrest e-mail, but she felt sending it was OK because of Forrest's credentials.
Why did she pause?
See my previous point. And I agree with you on the post to which this is a reply. Academic freedom is academic freedom.(Except for Ward Churchill)
Ben Stein is the primary spokesman for the movie. He traveled the country giving promotional interviews. Quibbling over whether interviews — most of which were made into Internet videos — constitute promotional “materials” is equivocation.
You haven’t yet said what job Sternberg lost. Nor have you named anyone else who was fired. Sternberg’s term as editor expired. The article he greased through was in his last issue. What job did he lose?
You also have failed to respond to the suggestion that we look at the careers of people who publicly signed the Discovery Institute statement. That is a large and representative sample of academics. It would be interesting to compare their career success or failure with the similar sized list of Steves who signed a counter statement.
From the Baylor University mission statement:
“Baylor is founded on the belief that God’s nature is made known through both revealed and discovered truth. Thus, the University derives its understanding of God, humanity, and nature from many sources: the person and work of Jesus Christ, the biblical record, and Christian history and tradition, as well as scholarly and artistic endeavors. In its service to the church, Baylor’s pursuit of knowledge is strengthened by the conviction that truth has its ultimate source in God and by a Baptist heritage that champions religious liberty and freedom of conscience.”
Are you suggesting that a university is forbidden by law from deciding what gets taught and who gets to teach it? The fact the Dembski was paid for five years for doing nothing will surely affect tenure applications of people who oppose empiricism in science. Can you think of a legal or rational reason it shouldn’t?
His job as Research Associate.
From "UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM"
The staff investigation has uncovered compelling evidence that Dr. Sternberg’s civil and constitutional rights were violated by Smithsonian officials. Moreover, the agency’s top officials—Secretary Lawrence Small and Deputy Secretary Sheila Burke—have shown themselves completely unwilling to rectify the wrongs that were done or even to genuinely investigate the wrongdoing. Most recently, Burke and Small have allowed NMNH officials to demote Dr. Sternberg to the position of Research Collaborator, despite past assurances from Burke that Dr. Sternberg was a “Research Associate in good standing” and would be given “full and fair consideration” for his request to renew his Research Associateship.
Are you blind? It is directly above these words "From the following article:"
Yes, I know all about Baylor University. My pastor was on the board of regents.
Maciel is the son of former Baylor regent Eleazar "Charles" Maciel, pastor of Ambler Baptist Church in Abilene
And no, your red herring was not my suggestion. My evidence shows unfair treatment, even though the university is a Baptist university. If anything, that shows the scope of the unfair treatment.
Research Associate is an unpaid position. What job did he lose?
How is it unfair to prevent someone from teaching something the university does not want taught? As a conservative, is it your position that an employer has no right to determine what employees do in their official capacities?
Suppose Baylor found itself with a tenured professor who wished to teach Mark Twain’s Letters From the Earth as the primary source in an introductory religion class. Or a tenured history professor who wished to deny the Holocaust?
So is charity work, but it is work.
So you admit that the universities are lying about the reason for the "non-termination" terminations? And about the employers, reread my answer to you about Ms. Comer.
Volunteer work is not a job that losing merits a congressional investigation.
But are you suggesting — as a conservative — that a charitable organization cannot manage its volunteers and restrict what they say in public about the work of the organization? Could a church not remove an unpaid deacon for writing books promoting atheism? Could a corporation not withhold promotions to an employee who writes books denouncing the products of the corporation?
Are you suggesting that an employer such as Baylor cannot determine which of its faculty it wishes to include as classroom teachers and which it wishes to exclude?
Are you suggesting that a tenure committee cannot project a prospective teacher’s value to the university based on whether he accepts the consensus definition of the work to be done?
The comments being made in regard to the “expelled” sound like new-age postmodernist gook to me. They suggest that people cannot chose their associates and that employers cannot require employees to promote the fundamental work of the institution.
Once again, I have to ask for an example of a person who is unemployed or who has fired from a paying position for supporting ID.
I think it would be useful to look at the careers of people who have signed the Discovery Institute statement on evolution.
Where have I said this? I have no inside knowledge of these cases, and I will thank you in advance for not putting words in my mouth.
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.