Ben Stein Exposes Richard Dawkins (Dawkins admits possibility of ID, Just Not God).

Townhall ^ | April 21, 2008 | Dinesh D'Souza

[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?

[tacticalogic]

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.

The people who opine things here that those involved in the debate within the academic community decide don't deserve equal time are going to tell you they still are. Some people's opinions are going to have to be excluded. The logical basis to decide which ones do and don't get considered is going to be based on who can provide evidence that their opinions have scientific merit. Until the ID proponents can at least propose some methodology to test for positive evidence of ID, that's going to be problematic.

[antiRepublicrat]

as far as the ACLU, how long ago was that?

Not too long ago. I think the reason is that the ACLU isn't just one monolothic organization, but a collection of smaller state organizations too. Some of them must not have the anti-Christian attitude of the national group or other state groups. Most of what the ACLU does disgusts me, but there are those exceptional cases.

[AndrewC]

It doesn't show why a substandard faculty member was denied tenure specifically for his ID beliefs.

You've not provided any evidence from the university outlining his substandard performance. In any case what did the opposition hope to achieve except something counter to academic freedom?

Your other questions are red herring.

[AndrewC]

Yes, but you called it unwarranted when the slippery slope had been shown not to be a fallacy.

No, it is your opinion that you demonstrated something. What you demonstrated is that your opinion fits your opinion.

[antiRepublicrat]

You’re not getting the point.

Most of what we’re doing here is opinion, argument, debate, logic. The point is that I showed a slippery slope relating to proselytization with the elements necessary for it not to be a logical fallacy. Opinion comes into it as my opinion is that religion is not a good thing to teach in public schools, supported by that logical slippery slope.

[AndrewC]

The people who opine things here that those involved in the debate within the academic community decide don't deserve equal time are going to tell you they still are.

I can see ... "The people .... are going to tell you they still are. That sure looks like another form of slippery slope or an assertion. In any case, part of the discussion would be methodology of testing satisfactory to all sides. That cannot be done without discussing it in the first place.

[AndrewC]

The point is that I showed a slippery slope relating to proselytization with the elements necessary for it not to be a logical fallacy.

First your definition of slippery slope is not a logical definition, since "absurd" and "very far reach" are not logical terms. This is a logical definition, "The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question".

You did try to argue your erroneous definition by arguing in a method which would have satisfied logic and coverted an assertion into a logical argument which would not have been a logical slippery slope fallacy. However, your argument included further assertions or opinions which are not acceptable within a logical argument. I pointed that out in post 419. This is one of your assertions(or an opinion) ...ID is religious-based, no matter what the current sanitized propaganda is lately." You follow that by a mischaracterization and a strawman here. "You let ID be taught in its current religious, non-scientific state, you're proselytizing, telling a captive group of kids your religious beliefs are the correct ones. And continue the "argument" with a false conclusion based on the mischaracterization and strawman, Now once you start proselytizing your creation stories, other religions will want to also.

That is not an argument. It is a series of opinions and mischaracterizations.

[tpanther]

I haven’t seen any recently. Only the anti-Christian agenda.

[antiRepublicrat]

You've not provided any evidence from the university outlining his substandard performance.

Here, but you'll need a subscription. It gives him high marks in publishing while doing postdoc at UT and UW, "It looks like it slowed down considerably. It’s not clear that he started new things, or anything on his own, in the period he was an assistant professor at Iowa State." The article also states his low grant rate and lack of graduate students completing their work.

In any case what did the opposition hope to achieve except something counter to academic freedom?

For the publications, academic excellence and prestige. For the students, well, students completing their doctoral work is kind of one of the reasons the school exists. For research grants, schools rely on those for income, plus big grants are likely to produce big results, which brings prestige, which brings more grants... That's how universities work. That's how the tenure system works. If he didn't like it then he shouldn't have been in that line of work.

Your other questions are red herring.

The other questions go straight to the heart. ID proponents are screaming persecution and don't want to see that he was denied tenure for solid academic reasons. It hurts your case. You also can't stand back and look at this rationally to see how this is just like a liberal playing the race card. It looks like IDers would like ID proponents to be a protected class, and I hate protected classes.

[tpanther]

I think there’s a related causality for kicking God out of school...the Godless have indoctrinated and succeeding with squashing others’ freedoms to the point a knee-jerk reaction develops wherein people react to them the same way they behave in the first place AND their “success” has emboldened and allowed them to get away with no longer teaching but endocrinating, not to mention re-writing history. To the point if WW2 history (for instance) isn’t all together overlooked entirely, the US is to blame.

[antiRepublicrat]

I haven’t seen any recently. Only the anti-Christian agenda.

They just don't seem to hit the news. They defended a Christian protesting against Wal-Mart's favorable gay policies (which is diametrically opposed to the ACLU's gay rights mission). They defended a Mormon who was being penalized for doing his mission, when the school gave leave for other reasons. They defended a kid who wanted to sing a Christian song in a school talent show. They defended kids who wore anti-abortion shirts to school. And they defended at least two street preachers. This was all within the last few years.

[js1138]

There is the rather significant fact that no one involved in hiring and firing decisions can defend their position in public. Whatever their reasons, they cannot discuss them without violatint confidentiality. The “victims” are not bound by any such rules.

But if the victims really are victims, rather that people of diminished competence, let them take it to coure. Perhaps the evilutionists will face another Waterloo.

Like Dover.

But if you want to know whether discrimination is pervasive, there is a large population of PhD level people who signed the Discovery Institute’s statement on the inadequacy of evolution. Let’s see how their careers are going.

[tacticalogic]

In any case, part of the discussion would be methodology of testing satisfactory to all sides. That cannot be done without discussing it in the first place.

Until something gets proposed, what is there to discuss? You can't just come up with a hypothesis, and then someone else to figure out how to test it for you.

[antiRepublicrat]

1. ID is based in religion. See the Wedge Document.

2. ID being religion, teaching with the intent that the students believe it is practically the definition of of religious proselyting.

3. The record clearly shows that other groups are starting to want what Christians have. They are even suing to get those same privileges.

4. Logical conclusion: ID in schools means more than just ID in schools.

It is a very short slippery slope.

[antiRepublicrat]

Let’s see how their careers are going.

Well, one of the people claimed to be blacklisted in the movie finished her teaching contract, held another university job, and even got another science job after having supposedly been blacklisted.

And here I thought blacklisted meant you couldn't get a job or get published.

[antiRepublicrat]

I think there’s a related causality for kicking God out of school

I can see how you can think that, but I am always very wary of assigning causality in such a large system with millions of input factors.

[AndrewC]

Here, but you'll need a subscription. It gives him high marks in publishing while doing postdoc at UT and UW

I specifically asked for evidence from the university since it involves ISU. I don't think Richard Monastersky fits that description. In any case, why should I accept his opinion over yours?

---

Not to introduce a red herring, but I am glad you support my point in another discussion with this statement ...For research grants, schools rely on those for income, plus big grants are likely to produce big results, which brings prestige, which brings more grants... That's how universities work.

---

Your contention is all well and good, but I think that evidence should show a significant rise in the parameters you mentioned at ISU due to the results of the anti-academic freedom campaign involving Avalos against Gonzalez. This significant rise should be over whatever other changes are evident in those parameters at other universities.

It looks like IDers would like ID proponents to be a protected class, and I hate protected classes.

Well, I think your feelings color your view. I don't hate Darwinists, I just think they are wrong. I also think that they, the Darwinists, are protected.

[tpanther]

Here the Georgia ACLU threatened the school board if they didn’t pull the word Christmas off the school calendars.

There are simply too many cases like these to defend them.

Unless of course one’s agenda is the same as theirs.

[tpanther]

Not me, whenever Godless liberals are in charge of anything, it’s soon ruined, often permanently so.

[AndrewC]

Until something gets proposed, what is there to discuss?

Well, something has been proposed. That is that Darwinism fails to adequately explain certain things. I have given a link to analysis by Lynch. And of course you come up with a hypothesis before you decide how to test it. The other party comes into the picture in order to agree that the tests do in fact test the hypothesis.

As a simple analogy, let us say I find a rock(observation step 1). My hypothesis is that the rock is an arrowhead fashioned by an intelligence(hypothesis - step 2). Now tell me what I would have to prove to you that my hypothesis is correct?