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”
If that is the "best" of your "knowledge," trying doing some research, the scientists over at the RTB think tank have postulated a testable design model that specifies those things, see:
Creation As Science: A Testable Model Approach to End the Creation/evolution Wars
http://www.amazon.com/Creation-As-Science-Testable-evolution/dp/1576835782/
and:
Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off
http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Life-Biblical-Evolutionary-Models/dp/1576833445/
Evolution has completely failed to describe or explain the initial origin of life. Kind of undermines the whole theory deosn't it?
And another problem evolution consistently fails at explaining, is man's origin:
Who Was Adam?: A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man
http://www.amazon.com/Who-Was-Adam-Creation-Approach/dp/1576835774/
And where are they to bring it cman when all the doors are closed to them. When to mention "design" is career suicide.
I've always felt you are an honest observer and respect the way you defend your position, however, perhaps the adherents of your position could benefit from some sincere self examination.
The acadamie is held in low regard, and science, heretofore above the fray, is being dragged down w/ it. The same ostracization that is heaped on ID is being heaped on critics of climate change. The same iron grip. The same "junk".
The only thing evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
No. And you know better than to ask such a silly question.
Evolution deals with changes in the genome since the origin of life.
Here are five hypothesis regarding the origin of the first life forms.
b) Aliens from another planet and/or dimension travelled to this planet and -- deliberately or accidentally -- seeded the planet with the first life forms.
c) In the future, humans will develop a means to travel back in time. They will use this technology to plant the first life forms in Earth's past, making the existence of life a causality loop.
d) A divine agent of unspecified nature zap-poofed the first life forms into existence.
e) Any method other than the four described above led to the existence of the first life forms. Source
And where are they to bring it cman when all the doors are closed to them. When to mention "design" is career suicide.
Perhaps there has not been sufficient evidence presented of a "designer." In the mean time, science has accumulated a huge amount of evidence, while dealing with the natural world, that suggests evolution could have occurred naturally.
I've always felt you are an honest observer and respect the way you defend your position, however, perhaps the adherents of your position could benefit from some sincere self examination.
Appreciate the compliment.
The acadamie is held in low regard, and science, heretofore above the fray, is being dragged down w/ it. The same ostracization that is heaped on ID is being heaped on critics of climate change. The same iron grip. The same "junk".
But there is a difference here. There is evidence either for, or against, the idea of man-made climate change. Like ID, the idea of man-made climate change has been largely pushed by political means. But in the case of man-made climate change, the scientists who oppose the idea are beginning to be heard, and the whole thing is going to crumble in a couple of years.
ID, on the other hand, is really a religious idea masquerading as science. The whole sordid scheme was laid out in the Wedge Strategy, a planning and fund-raising document which unfortunately leaked from the Dyscovery Institute. For additional evidence of this, just use the Wayback Machine and look at the DI website in its early years.
Or, here is a good blog on the subject: Uncloseting the Discovery Institute: The IDea that Dare Not Speak Its Name (Part 1).
Saved me the trouble, AND did a better job than I had planned.
Mainstream science does, however has done a lot of productive research on the origin of life, and progress in recent years has been encouraging.
One minor thing that creationists seem unaware of is that replication and Darwinian evolution has been observed in naked RNA molecules — no cellular machinery or cell membrane at all.
And what is the alternative? Stop asking questions? stop being curious? Stop all research on the subject?
You know, I did some post grad work in a few fields, and saw how much cult and personality driven some of it was, and these were all science fields. There are many reasons people don't get a PHD in some areas, for one maybe they think it is junk.
I wonder if the academics with an agenda really understand just how much of their learning is regurgitated back to them, and then tossed away like the garbage it is just to get the sheepskin.
I haven’t been able to find a summary of the argument proposed in your creation as science book. Perhaps you would be kind enough to give us the argument in your own words.
Your pompous sanctimonious attitudes concerning dissent need to cease.
"Difficult as it may be, it is vitally important to separate argument sources and styles from argument content. In argument the medium is not the message." - author unknownAllow me to be clear, js1138, the remainder of my post is directed at Coyoteman (take it for whatever you will).
Firstly, it is abundently clear to me that your post (#5) is egregiously guilty of an attempt to foist a Genetic Fallacy on the unwashed masses. This is the most general fallacy of irrelevancy involving the origins or history of an idea. It is fallacious to either endorse or condemn an idea based on its past—rather than on its present—merits or demerits, unless its past in some way affects its present value.
Secondly, your post appears to be a protest of sorts respecting Appeal to Misleading Authority in that the "authority" cited is not an expert on the issue, that is, the person who supplies the opinion is not an expert at all, or is one, but in an unrelated area. The now-classic example is this is now cliched television commercial about some actor stating: "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV...." And then actor then proceedes to recommend some brand of medicine.
Well, I'm not an actor, and I've never stayed in a Holidy Inn Express, but I can recognize Poisoning the Well when I see it.
"Poisoning the Well" is not (strictly speaking), a logical fallacy in that it's an actual type of argument. Rather, it is a logical boobytrap set for the unwary to engage in Argumentum ad hominem. As with all forms of the ad hominem, one should keep in mind that an argument can and must stand or fall on its own, regardless of who makes it.
Anyone bold enough to enter a debate which begins with a "well-poisoning" either steps into an insult, or an attack upon one's personal integrity. As with standard ad hominem, the debate is likely to cease to be about its nominal topic and become a debate about the arguer. However, what sets "Poisoning the Well" apart from the standard Ad Hominem is the fact that the poisoning is done before the opponent has a chance to make a case.
You did this early (post #5), and you did this quite subtly, and you did this several times. Your accumen concerning devious debating tactics is commended. However, I can not confer to you any measure of respect concerning that. In my view, perhaps you would increase your debating accumen through use of an "ad hominem argument". That is, in your refutation or rebutal, employ as one (or more) of your premisses those that are accepted by the opposition to argue for your position. In other words, use premisses that your oppostion accepts — whether or not you believe them yourself. This is not necessarily a fallacious argument, and is often rhetorically effective. Not only will you obtain credibility in your opponents view, but it definitely will make you a better debater.
Let me tell you something: we don't need more intelligent, geniuses with puffed up self-centered esteem. Or perhaps the tiny clenched-fisted temper tantrums of a minority should not be listened to because they're just too tiring to deal with, eh? I have none less than 5 links to those asking for prayers for what I'm certain your rational, reasonablness of various categorizations of philosophical sciences can meke everybody feel good.
I am not sure what the prayers "5 links" means...
The rest of your post is a study in logic, while ignoring the facts.
You trash my post #5 as a "Genetic Fallacy on the unwashed masses" but you offer no substantive rebuttal. Here is the post:
All "dissent" needs to do is bring evidence -- scientific evidence.But there you encounter the problem: ID is religious belief masquerading as science. It has made a lot of claims, but it has produced no evidence that has withstood scientific scrutiny. Even Behe has backed away from most of his earlier claims.
Look at the efforts of the Dyscovery Institute in support of ID. Check out their blogs. Most are authored by lawyers, with an occasional English major or journalist for diversity. Where is the science? What a joke!
Are you claiming that ID as "dissent" brings scientific evidence?
Are you claiming that ID is not religious belief masquerading as science?
Are you claiming that ID has produced evidence that has withstood scientific scrutiny?
Are you claiming that Behe has not backed away from most of his earlier claims in his recent book?
You have spun a long and interesting post on the rules of logic, but you have not linked that logic to the real world (my post) in any substantive way.
Good debate tactics, but lousy science.
We are back to where I started: All "dissent" needs to do is bring evidence -- scientific evidence.
“Are you claiming that ID as “dissent” brings scientific evidence?”
You wouldn’t know “scientific evidence” if it bit you on the rear end.
“This most elegant system of the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen without the design and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.” —Sir Isaac Newton, The Principia
“Overwhelmingly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us.” —Lord Kelvin
“The Darwinian theory has become an all-purpose obstacle to thought rather than an enabler of scientific advance.” —Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel-laureate physicist
“So if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of in pondering this issue over quite a long time seems to me to have anything like as high a possibility of being true. ... The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.” —Sir Fred Hoyle, British astonomer, from a lecture in 1982 (1824-1907)
I wouldn’t go bragging too much about how you’re not getting the responses you’re looking for (or imagine you’re not), considering you haven’t replied to a single point I made in post #32. I’m guessing it has something to do with not being able to dismiss everything I say on the basis that I’m religious.
Qwinn
"Malaria was intentionally designed. The molecular machinery with which the parasite invades red blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts. (...) What sort of designer is that? What sort of "fine-tuning" leads to untold human misery? To countless mothers mourning countless children? Did a hateful, malign being make intelligent life in order to torture it? One who relishes cries of pain? Maybe. Maybe not." (Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, p.237)
That is why Incompetent Design is not Science and is anti-Scientific in its goals, outlook, and philosophy.
“None of those statements were regarding Scientific evidence.”
Baloney. These men were some of the greatest scientists of all time, and they were commenting on what they had learned from their studies of nature. If that is not “scientific evidence,” then “scientific evidence” does not exist.
And what I find interesting is that, in the case of Newton and Kelvin, they made those statements before we had much of an understanding of the amazing complexity of every living cell. Just imagine how much more convinced they would be of ID if they knew about that.
I must admit that I am perplexed by people like you. Whenever I post these quotes, I get people who, through some sort of mental acrobatics that must be painful, manage to reject those quotes as the most straightforward testimonials in favor of ID that could possibly be made.
Testimonials are not evidence, and certainly not scientific evidence.
Testimonials are not necessarily even accurate.
If you want to do science, bring evidence.
Coyoteman, I must tell you that people like you who can’t see the “evidence” for intelligent design actually frighten me.
The simplest known living cell is perhaps more complex than all of man’s technology, and we are virtually clueless about how it could have come into existence by purely naturalistic, random mechanisms ... but you don’t see any “evidence” of ID.
And the idea that we understand how the evolution of complex organs occurred is nonsense.
Several months ago, I challenged someone here on FR to cite a peer-reviewed scientific paper explaining *in detail* how the human ear evolved or could have evolved.
What happened? Someone provided a link to a little three-page document that simply glossed over the problem at a very high level. But all evolutionists need is the slightest hint of plausibility, and they are satisfied that their theory is rock solid. They are absolutely deluded.
Oh, and some bozo here on FR snickered about how embarrassed I must be for not finding the three-page paper on the ear, as though the link even remotely answered my challenge. But that’s the kind of baloney that occurs constantly.
The slightest hint of plausibility is taken as a “mountain of evidence” in favor of Darwinian evolution, but *real* “mountains of evidence” for ID are casually dismissed with a wave of the hand.
People who cannot recognize the overwhelming evidence of ID in nature are frightening. You close your eyes and then proclaim that the world is dark, and no one can convince you otherwise. What scares me is what other absurdities you are willing to believe.
I must admit that I am perplexed by people like you. Whenever I post these quotes, I get people who, through some sort of mental acrobatics that must be painful, manage to reject those quotes as the most straightforward testimonials in favor of ID that could possibly be made.
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?
You are omitting something very crucial: people reject ID as a scientific theory. ID may very well be the origin of life. It is, however, fundamentally unscientific. I'll offer a retort:
People that embrace ID as a scientific theory have no idea what science is. Or, perhaps, don't care.
On the other hand, creationists accept the concept of ID, and use the political movement supporting ID as justification for their beliefs.
The current iteration of ID, pushed largely by the Dyscovery Institute, is 1) an attempt to "wedge" religion back into schools, and 2) an attempt to pretend creationism is supported by science, when it is not.
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.