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?
If you don’t think trying to present ID and evolution together is going to be a mess, I’ll submit FR crevo threads as evidence.
That was linked from Expelled's web site in defense of its persecution claim. See, I have done my research. Sorry I characterized that as the movie itself lying, it just uses lies to support its argument. Very Michael Moore.
I see you just can't accept that Gonzalez wasn't worthy of tenure. Of course you can't, because otherwise there is no case for persecution. Fact: his publishing record declined sharply after arriving at the university. Fact: He got only two small grants while there. Fact: None of his graduate students got their doctorates.
You'll say little Leroy deserved to get onto the honor society, that it's only my opinion that he shouldn't have, even when he got straight Ds. The ID card = the new race card in academics.
Red herring. This venue is not my workplace, nor I doubt, yours.
There certainly is. I saw the movie and distinctly saw Dr. Avalos admit to a bias at Iowa State. If he was not authorized to speak for ISU, then they have the opportunity to deny the connection, appropriately admonish Dr. Avalos and present a case that the campaign to cleanse the university of anything to do with ID was of no consequence in the decision to deny tenure to Dr. Gonzalez. Because there definitely was a campaign to rid ISU of any connection, real or imagined, to ID.
People can't seem to keep their emotions in check and their arguments within the generous parameters allowed on this forum, what makes you think they'll be able to do it in an academic workplace?
The assertion is true, part of the definition of slippery slope. The mischaracterization is irrelevant. It wasn't my argument, I only caught your error in the blanket statement that slippery slope is a fallacy. I then continue with a decent example of slippery slope.
Your second paragraph begins with a useless statement followed by another assertion. You follow that with a further mischaracterization of the point plus a straw man argument.
The first statement is a loose characterization of a slippery slope that's not a fallacy. It is followed by the well-documented fact that the ID movement is religious-based. Then you get the evidence, two independent examples supporing the slippery slope.nSuch examples help keep it from being a fallacy by establishing that the connection and slope exist; they are not strawmen.
Neither is a person who prays. Someone passing out a pamphlet on their religion might be proselytizing.
You confuse government-mandated or sanctioned proselytizing with an individual's right to freedom of religion and speech. The former is prohibited, the latter protected (despite what some school administrations try to pull).
You last statement is an unwarranted conclusion, but may be considered your opinion
It follows the reasonable slippery slope. Yes, it is my opinion, but that does not make it a fallacy.
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?
... that you are misrepresenting what was said, of course. I saw the movie!
Yes, I've heard that too. It does not establish a link to this specific case. I'm sure Dr. Avalos has a bias against other pseudo-science as well. Another case in the movie concerns Robert Marks, an ID proponent who continues as a professor at his university despite the university's desire to not be associated with ID as science.
The ID movement picked the wrong poster boy in Gonzalez. They needed an exemplary scholar who deserved tenure, but was denied because of his ID beliefs. What they got was a guy who didn't deserve tenure by any normal criteria and pulled the ID persecution card when he didn't get it.
What do you want, ID affirmative action? ID has saddened me, as it has shown so many examples of conservatives acting like liberals.
Well in your particular example I can understand the warning, but not always, and as far as the ACLU, how long ago was that?
I’d venture to say they get worse by the year or even month!
No, the VAST amount of evidence is precisely the opposite. I’ve personally yet to see a single case where those proponents of ID are calling for BANNING evolution. They’ve merely wanted it ALONGSIDE evolution, and let people make up their own minds, rather they accept one over the other, both or neither.
What I have seen, repeatedly is exactly that from the godless left when it comes to ID though.
IN FACT one school merely wanted the students to know that there were books in the library addressing alternate theories to evolution were available ON THEIR TIME, and THAT too was banned, the books were removed...this is simple information that was to be available OUTSIDE of science class.
Not to mention, Christmas being banned from school calendars, crosses from town logos under attack (L.A., Las Cruces) little pre-schoolers having to sing ‘O Holiday Tree’ instead of ‘Oh Christmas Tree’ (again too offensive).
We’re LOSING freedoms for the false excuse given for fear of prostelytizing. Again, we did BETTER academically when God wasn’t attacked in schools.
That may be true on this forum. But ID/ evolution are not the only things discussed on this forum. Religion and jurisprudence are discussed here with similar results to the ID/Darwinian discussion. Religion and jurisprudence are taught in college and those things do not result in a slippery slope to "food fights".
It seems to me that a purpose of a university is to foster open discussions of controversial subjects. I don't know what could be controversial about Linear Algebra, but I do know that at my university, a seminar on poly-water was presented without producing fisticuffs.
It follows the reasonable slippery slope. Yes, it is my opinion, but that does not make it a fallacy.
You admit that your conclusion is opinion. As I previously stated "You[r] last statement is an unwarranted conclusion, but may be considered your opinion, which makes it as useful as your favorite bogeyman's opinion is to me, worthless."
If it is true on this forum, why would it not be true in an academic workplace? The fact that other topics are discussed in both environments without substantial conflict simply means that this subject evokes emotional responses that the other subjects do not.
It certainly does.
Proponent of intelligent design denied tenure by ISU
In the summer of 2005, three faculty members at ISU drafted a statement against the use of intelligent design in science. One of those authors, Hector Avalos, told The Tribune at the time he was concerned the growing prominence of Gonzalez's work was beginning to market ISU as an "intelligent design school."
I clearly stated that the discussions on other topics here result in actions, which you have described of the ID/Darwinian "debaters", of the "debaters" of those topics. I also point out that that has not happened in the universities.
There are many arguments presented here by proponents of ID, from arguments about “irreducible complexity” to claims that any theory that postulates anyting inconsistent with a biblical 6 day creation is immoral, unethical and has to be considered self-evidently wrong. Do you think all of those arguments deserve an equal consideration in the debate in a academic workplace? If not, who decides who does or doesn’t get to be heard?
Your hypothetical assumes that any opinion expressed in this forum concerning this topic is relevant. I certainly do not think red herring and logical fallacies have any place in a truly fair discussion. Therefore, I would state that everything opined here does not deserve equal time in an academic workplace. Who decides? Those involved in the debate. But that is not the point of the film or my point. The point I believe the film attempts to make, is that there is "censorship" of an idea within the academic community.
Again, that shows some of the science faculty did not like ID. It doesn't show why a substandard faculty member was denied tenure specifically for his ID beliefs.
But I can agree that ID ruined this guy. He was a rising star earlier, until he started working on ID and stopped doing the work that could have gotten him tenure. Do you or do you not believe in merit-based tenure? Or do you think substandard faculty can claim persecution just because they believe in ID?
Yes, but you called it unwarranted when the slippery slope had been shown not to be a fallacy.
The ID movement is based on that result. Not just that, but the changing of all science to be religious-based. You've never seen the leaked "Top Secret," "Not For Distribution" and verified legitimate Wedge Document (PDF) authored by the leader of the ID movement, the Discovery Institute? It states the goal: "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."
The rest I agree, not good. Except I don't accept the causality of "kicking God out of school" (ending indoctrination).
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.