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]

We determine that my potential arrowhead was identical in every aspect to the sample except the material "used" which results in a different weight and color. We attach the potential arrowhead and the sample arrowhead to identical shafts in an identical manner. We use the same bow to shoot the final arrow at bison(we are cruel testers). The sample arrow penetrates the bison and the bison eventually dies. The potential arrowhead shatters on impact with another identical bison. It fails the functional test. Was it an arrowhead fashioned by intelligence. You evidently would deny that it was an arrowhead. I would disagree. Let others decide.

If one shattered and the other one didn't under identical test circumstances, then there's differences in the material they're made of beyond just weight and color. I'd question the intelligence behind soapstone arrowheads.

[tacticalogic]

No I haven't, see my previous post. I have submitted that the arrowhead was either designed to perform a different function(shoot smaller game), the design was not completely thought out, the design used the materials on hand, or is a pretty paperweight.

There are indeed blunt arrowheads used for small game, and there are known samples of these. When you provided the sample of a known arrowhead, did you provide a sample of the kind of arrowhead you believe this is?

[AndrewC]

If one shattered and the other one didn't under identical test circumstances, then there's differences in the material they're made of beyond just weight and color. I'd question the intelligence behind soapstone arrowheads.

Question all you want. And different material means different material. I mentioned different weight and color as results of the different material. The test itself established different strengths and brittleness. It does not take much to determine weight and color.

[tacticalogic]

Question all you want. And different material means different material. I mentioned different weight and color as results of the different material. The test itself established different strengths and brittleness. It does not take much to determine weight and color.

But you still maintain that it is intelligent to design arrowheads that will not function as arrowheads.

[AndrewC]

When you provided the sample of a known arrowhead, did you provide a sample of the kind of arrowhead you believe this is?

Don't blame me, this was your specification.

I said "known to be an arrowhead". There are rocks we have already established to be arrowheads. Get me one of those.

I had no functional concept in mind. I just thought that it was an arrowhead fashioned by intelligence. I did not say a small game arrowhead fashioned by intelligence.

[AndrewC]

But you still maintain that it is intelligent to design arrowheads that will not function as arrowheads.

Fallacy of equiocation. Definitions 1 and 3.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This

in·tel·li·gent    Audio Help   /ɪnˈtɛlɪdʒənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-tel-i-juhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective

1.	having good understanding or a high mental capacity; quick to comprehend, as persons or animals: an intelligent student.

2.	displaying or characterized by quickness of understanding, sound thought, or good judgment: an intelligent reply.

3.	having the faculty of reasoning and understanding; possessing intelligence: intelligent beings in outer space.

4.	Computers. pertaining to the ability to do data processing locally; smart: An intelligent terminal can edit input before transmission to a host computer. Compare dumb (def. 8).

5.	Archaic. having understanding or knowledge (usually fol. by of).

[tacticalogic]

Don't blame me, this was your specification.

Apparently we can't even have a hypothetical without there being deception involved.

[AndrewC]

equiocation = equivocation

[tacticalogic]

You parse arguments the way liberals parse the Constitution.

[AndrewC]

Apparently we can't even have a hypothetical without there being deception involved

What deception? You have had every opportunity to guide the process. You were given the power to completely state the tests. You haven't. But you will not so much as answer my blood question. It is relevant as to whether functional tests are required to establish identity.

[AndrewC]

You parse arguments the way liberals parse the Constitution.

You are on a roll now, Red herring and Ad Hominem.

[tacticalogic]

What deception?

You've apparently provided a completely different kind of sample than the specimen for comparison, in hopes of producing a false conclusion that you could use to discredit the process.

[js1138]

Are you interested in discussion, or does Ad Hominem fulfill all your interests?

I'm quite interested in a discussion of whether people who believe in or support ID have their careers ruined as a result. I have mentioned a way of studying this in a reasonably objective way. Mainly by looking at the careers of people who have signed the Discovery Institute statement.

Is it Ad Hominem to think, based on evidence, that Ben Stein is lying when he says discrimination is pervasive?

Here's what Reason to Believe has to say on the subject.

In Reasons To Believe's interaction with professional scientists, scientific institutions, universities, and publishers of scientific journals we have encountered no significant evidence of censorship, blackballing, or disrespect. As we have persisted in publicly presenting our testable creation model in the context of the scientific method, we have witnessed an increasing openness on the part of unbelieving scientists to offer their honest and respectful critique.

Our main concern about EXPELLED is that it paints a distorted picture. It certainly doesn't match our experience. Sadly, it may do more to alienate than to engage the scientific community, and that can only harm our mission.

Hugh Ross, Fazale Rana, Jeff Zweerink, David Rogstad, and Kenneth Samples

Source

[antiRepublicrat]

To me someone that really came out well in the film was Michael Shermer.

I generally like Shermer too. He's just an honest skeptic, not a god hater.

[AndrewC]

You've apparently provided a completely different kind of sample than the specimen for comparison, in hopes of producing a false conclusion that you could use to discredit the process.

This is hypothetical. You were given the opportunity to provide the tests and the specifications. My only limitations were the things that I observed. I saw a shaped rock that I thought was an arrowhead. You were to provide tests that would allow us to test the validity of my hypothesis. I think I have shown that the hypothesis comes before the tests. You have to see the thing and hypothesize things before you specify the tests. I do not think that functional tests would determine anything since my hypothesis did not include a functional requirement. If you don't like my functional test, then go and specify your own. I did not stop you from doing that. So don't accuse me of things you dream up due to your lack of participation. Answer my blood question, if you want to show that you are interested in discussion rather than "name-calling".

[antiRepublicrat]

Who started the food fight is another question.

The first action was the creation of the Polanyi center without any of the normal process. The reaction was the faculty calling for it to be ended. We'll probably disagree on the question of which one of these actions constituted the first throw of food. I do believe that it would have been made part of the IFL if it had gone through the normal process in the first place, and the whole mess could have been avoided.

Evidently the Polanyi center began as an offshoot of the IFL.

Nope, see above. If it had been part of the IFL, then there would have been no purpose in the independent review board deciding it become part of the IFL as the Program in Science, Philosophy and Religion. The administration worked hard to defuse the situation and make sure everyone was happy, or at least accepting, of the resolution.

I do not encounter any active efforts of Dembski to attack other faculty and sow discord.

He was still director after the decision to be part of the IFL. Then he unnecessarily restarted the food fight with his letter that antagonized the faculty, and that's what got him demoted. There's no way anyone can reasonably claim persecution or witch hunt (but then this is Dembski), because Dembski had gone so far that his main defender, the one who got him the job, was the one to demand he retract his statement.

There's disagreement/agreement, and then there's not being able to stand someone. Dembski is belligerent and always looking for a fight, dumbing down the debate with childishness, and completely lacking in graciousness, so I can't stand him. OTOH, I agree with a lot of what Dawkins says, but I can't stand him for pretty much the same reasons.

[AndrewC]

Here's what Reason to Believe has to say on the subject.

Why should I be concerned with what their experience is? They are five in toto. I'm glad that they have not been discriminated against.

It is not Ad Hominem to think what you think. It is Ad Hominem to attack the person instead of the argument. It is also fruitless to attack a person's opinion, just don't accept it as your own and leave it at that.

[AndrewC]

The first action was the creation of the Polanyi center without any of the normal process. The reaction was the faculty calling for it to be ended. We'll probably disagree on the question of which one of these actions constituted the first throw of food. I do believe that it would have been made part of the IFL if it had gone through the normal process in the first place, and the whole mess could have been avoided.

The process is Baylor's business and evidently the president and others had the power to do what they did. I heard arguments made here that employees do not determine university policies during the discussion of "hiring and firing". So beefs by the employees of the university are just beefs.

In using offshoot, I meant that it was fulfilling some purpose of the IFL and not some purpose of other parts of Baylor(to include the science departments). I don't know if your argument would be valid if the center was made explicitly a part of the IFL other factors remaining the same. I feel that the reaction would have been the same. But that is all hypothetical.

He was still director after the decision to be part of the IFL. Then he unnecessarily restarted the food fight with his letter that antagonized the faculty,

True, but the genesis of the food fight was not his fault. And Dembski was the target, since the center in function, no longer exists.

Okay on your Dembski feelings. I have no reason to challenge your opinion, but I also have no reason to support them except for the failure to retract his statement at the request of his mentor. That is wrong. He should have resigned at that point, said thanks, and not remained to be demoted.

[js1138]

They are five in toto.

All the more reason to examine a large and diverse group, such as the signers of the Discovery Institute statement.

I might mention that what Ben Stein is charging is McCarthyism. That was a dubious kind of victimhood, even when it was the real thing. Hollywood really did shut down careers, pretty much monolithically. But talented people worked around it.

But neither you nor Ben Stein have named anyone who has become unemployed or who has been forced to take a menial job outside the realm of biology. Or mathematics, as the case may be.

[AndrewC]

All the more reason to examine a large and diverse group, such as the signers of the Discovery Institute statement.

All the more reason for you to do the work on the subject which obsesses you since you brought both of them up.

I might mention that what Ben Stein is charging is McCarthyism. That was a dubious kind of victimhood, even when it was the real thing. Hollywood really did shut down careers, pretty much monolithically. But talented people worked around it.

Okay, so you are justifying or trivializing this discrimination.

But neither you nor Ben Stein have named anyone who has become unemployed or who has been forced to take a menial job outside the realm of biology.

I told you Sternberg. RA is not RC. Crocker lost a job. Your complaint is that the discrimination does not rise to your level of expectation. You have already demonstrated that you trivialize that discrimination.

Email traffic on Sternberg.

As he hasn’t (yet) been discovered to have done anything wrong, particularly compared to his peers, the sole reason to terminate his appt. seems to be that the host unit has suddenly changed its mind. If that’s OK w NMNH, let me know and I'll send him a letters stating so. However, as you decided originally, the political downside of that is costly.

Looks like a witch hunt to me.