Ben Stein "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Metro Gnome

I've seen this before and I must say this non-sequitur is absolutely baffling to me. Why would humans be considered intrinsically worthless if they weren't created by some all powerful creature?

I think perhaps the source is the spirit-body dichotomy that is posited in most deistic religions (the spirit, or intangible force that infuses and directs the being, is pure and naturally holy while the body is just the material vessel for the spirit and is the source of vices and "impure" impulses). I guess, therefore, if there is no "spirit" (no soul imbued by "God"), then there is only "body" - which is still considered the dirty half of the equation.

That's just my quick thoughts on the issue. It all strikes me as absurd though.

No, it's not necessarily a literal belief in a deistic or theistic being that has created each person, but a notion that each person is valuable in themselves and deserving of compassion. I think that from a philosophical perspective it further stems from a social realization that the company of other fellow humans is good in themselves.

I think that Darwinists come close to this ideal. I do like Dawkins suggestion that each of us is lucky to be alive as we are just one out of trillions of possible genetic recombinations that could have lived. However, even that I think is a divergence from actual Darwinist theory and is an attempt to model the previous imago Dei concept.

As I said before, it comes down to two different things. We need different perspectives to explain social questions which is certainly complicated. If we want to understand the processes of life and how we came to be here in a material sense, than evolutionary theory is excellent. One shouldn't try to be both.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by peter12

I'm sorry if my points aren't totally clear. I'm bouncing around some ideas for an MA in which I want to examine how Darwinism, as an ideology, fits in with the tenets of New Left ideology.

I'm not familiar with what exactly the tenets of new left ideology are. Regardless, if the standard definition of "Darwinism" is accurate, I don't see how it can be even considered an ideology:

A fairly current definition I encountered in the Gage Canadian Dictionary:

"Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, that in successive generations all plants and animals tend to develop slightly varying forms. The forms that survive are those which through natural selection have adapted themselves to their environment better than the forms that become extinct."

According to OED:

"1. The doctrine or hypothesis of Erasmus Darwin.
2. The biological theory of Charles Darwin concerning the evolution of species.

It should be noted that in the Oxford English Dictionary, uses of the word "Darwinism" are very old; all of them predating the twentieth century.

There are probably ideologies that appear to encourage comparable economic and social results to Darwin's theory of natural selection in the biological realm. But some similarities does not mean there is a relationship at all between them and Darwin's theory.

Originally Posted by peter12

In regards to your points... we don't live in a relativistic world, some philosophical enterprises fit better with human nature than others. I think that Darwinism struggles to provide intrinsic value in each human being. Darwinism was certainly twisted to fit Nazism, but from a social perspective, the processes of Natural Selection put the same value on human life as National Socialism.

Even if it is true that "Darwinism" struggles as you say it does—and I would argue that it does not, so what? Science is not at all concerned with intrinsic value. Period. On the contrary, it is actually my opinion that a clear understanding of evolution would in many instances increase one's perception of humanity's "intrinsic value". Does it not spur us on to do our best to preserve our own species through discovering new and meaningful ways of coping and sustaining our own beneficial environment? Furthermore, a proper understanding of evolution ought increase one's understanding of her/his place in the world, in her/his environment, her/his relationship with all of nature, and the critical importance for maintaining a harmonistic existence within this environment.

Originally Posted by peter12

...When people are viewed simply as material organisms, instead of say... being made in the image of God, then socially, people are less valued.

This is patently not true. If it were, than every naturalist would show a clear pattern of the kind of behaviour you would expect from a sociopath. In fact, most do not, so how can you make such a claim regarding the connection between evolutionary theory and the valuation of human life?

Originally Posted by peter12

...Now, I'm not being so ridiculous as to say that Darwinism is responsible for moral decay, merely to say that it should stay within the realm of science and not be allowed to venture outwards.

But you did just claim that viewing people as material organisms somehow devalues them. You have made this statement and followed it up with something about how "Darwinism"—for which you still need to provide an acceptable definition—should not be allowed to "venture out" of science. Before making these sorts of generalizations, you need to make a case that there is indeed a relationship between an adherence to Darwin's theory of evolution and the valuation of human life.

[peter12]

I'm not familiar with what exactly the tenets of new left ideology are. Regardless, if the standard definition of "Darwinism" is accurate, I don't see how it can be even considered an ideology:

It's more mechanism, I suppose. An ideology that makes an all-encompassing statement about society without the ability to be comprehensively tested.

But you did just claim that viewing people as material organisms somehow devalues them. You have made this statement and followed it up with something about how "Darwinism"—for which you still need to provide an acceptable definition—should not be allowed to "venture out" of science. Before making these sorts of generalizations, you need to make a case that there is indeed a relationship between an adherence to Darwin's theory of evolution and the valuation of human life.

I think that what I'm getting at is some agreed upon notion of Gould's NOMA. How does science answer the right questions about people, while leaving humans to exist within their own cultures/religions?

There's also something to be examined there about the millenarian/utopian haze that surrounds a lot of the current neo-Darwinist/atheist debates.

Jeez, I'm all over the map.

Even if it is true that "Darwinism" struggles as you say it does—and I would argue that it does not, so what? Science is not at all concerned with intrinsic value. Period. On the contrary, it is actually my opinion that a clear understanding of evolution would in many instances increase one's perception of humanity's "intrinsic value". Does it not spur us on to do our best to preserve our own species through discovering new and meaningful ways of coping and sustaining our own beneficial environment? Furthermore, a proper understanding of evolution ought increase one's understanding of her/his place in the world, in her/his environment, her/his relationship with all of nature, and the critical importance for maintaining a harmonistic existence within this environment.

Yes, I definitely agree with you there. The trouble for me is finding that proper understanding, especially in regards to finding methods of environmental stewardship that correspond more with our biological human nature.

However, what I get sort of stuck on is that there has to be more to this viewpoint than just a neo--Darwinist viewpoint. E.O. Wilson just wrote a great book on how the two sides of science and religion can come together to solve environmental problems. My question is, how do you find that balance, I suppose.

Is there a need for another Axial Age where the major dogmas of religions are re-examined?

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

I think that Darwinism struggles to provide intrinsic value in each human being.

I agree with Textcritic, you have not shown this to be true.

I would say that Darwinism doesn't have the task of providing intrinsic value in each human being any more than chemistry or physics does; the necessary value placed in each human is determined by our social structure.

Our social structure is just as much a product of evolution as we are. We've evolved in such a way that our social structure is complex and deeply rooted, and necessary to our survival. It's major contributor to our overall success, so necessarily we have an intrinsic need to place significant value on the individual. So I could argue that evolution is the mechanism that placed that value in us in the first place, and things like morals and religions are byproducts; expressions of those inherent values.

I might be inclined to agree with you if "survival of the fittest" was the only understanding of evolution there was, but that's a really bad understanding of evolution.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

I agree with Textcritic, you have not shown this to be true.

I would say that Darwinism doesn't have the task of providing intrinsic value in each human being any more than chemistry or physics does; the necessary value placed in each human is determined by our social structure.

Our social structure is just as much a product of evolution as we are. We've evolved in such a way that our social structure is complex and deeply rooted, and necessary to our survival. It's major contributor to our overall success, so necessarily we have an intrinsic need to place significant value on the individual. So I could argue that evolution is the mechanism that placed that value in us in the first place, and things like morals and religions are byproducts; expressions of those inherent values.

I might be inclined to agree with you if "survival of the fittest" was the only understanding of evolution there was, but that's a really bad understanding of evolution.

Sorry, I've totally derailed these threads with a bunch of stupid questions that I didn't think through before asking. Just ignore me from now on.

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

I think that what I'm getting at is some agreed upon notion of Gould's NOMA. How does science answer the right questions about people, while leaving humans to exist within their own cultures/religions?

Aaahhh... ok now I think I see where you are coming from.

Personally I don't think the idea of Nonoverlapping Magisteria works, for a few reasons.

In theory people say they adhere to a value system that is derived from some external source (The Bible or whatever), in reality there's some natural source of consensus about decency and justice. I say natural because a) it changes over time, sometimes slowly sometimes radically by an individual or small group of reformists and b) people adhere to it more closely than they do to the professed source of their values, disregarding those sources when they contradict the consensus values. And we disregard the sources that have values we don't agree with (cults, etc).

So right away "natural selection" of values has overlapped magisteria. Our values are a result of natural selection and I think are fully within the realm of scientific research and understanding. I think it's completely reasonable to understand in scientific terms the why and how of valuing life, love, and all that "fuzzy" stuff.

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Sorry, I've totally derailed these threads with a bunch of stupid questions that I didn't think through before asking. Just ignore me from now on.

Well this IS a discussion board, if I didn't want to have discussions I wouldn't be here

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

Well this IS a discussion board, if I didn't want to have discussions I wouldn't be here

Ahaha, well, I've had about 2 hours sleep in the last 3 days and my brain is pretty fried. I've been contradicting my own beliefs over the last couple of my own posts, so I figure it's time to give it a rest.

[Burninator]

Here are some links from the science camp.

Ben Stein's Blunder
In a new documentary film - Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - the actor, game show host and financial columnist Ben Stein falls for the pseudoscience of Intelligent Design.
Link

The Richard Sternberg Affair
Intelligent Design at the Smithsonian Institution
Link

The Expelled Case of Caroline Crocker
Academic Freedom Martyr or Pseudoscience Hack?
Link

Was Guillermo Gonzalez "Expelled"?
Intelligent Design and Tenure at Iowa State University
Link

Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know...
...about intelligent design and evolution
Link

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
Link

[Textcritic]

Funny. I was just about to post another link to yet another unsolicited Expelled controversy. Yoko Ono is apparently suing the production company:

http://www.reuters.com/article/enter...20158220080423

To date, the film has grossed $3,902,920, and was #8 nationwide in its opening weekend:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/

[Textcritic]

Some feedback from the other side:

It never ceases to amaze me how blindly and righteously indignant religious apologists can be. I have seen a figure somewhere that suggests something to the tune of 96% of reviews for Stein's propaganda film are overwhelmingly negative. Just a cursory perusal of the internet will bear this number out, but what is quite stunning is how fundamentalist apologists have responded to this unprecedented negative response. No denials, but an insistence that the retort stems from fear: the "humanistic", scientific establishment does not want you to see this film, because they know how damningly accurate it is:

Here is an excerpt from a blog by Answers in Genesis emperor Ken Ham:

Originally Posted by Ken Ham

"Of course the secular world does not want people to see this movie—they don’t want people to find out about the censorship in the culture, the academic snobbery and arrogance, and the intolerance of the secular academic world for anyone who even tries to question the validity of evolution—or even suggest there could be an intelligence (even if a vague intelligence) behind the universe. The secular world doesn’t want the average American to understand about the loss of freedoms, and the erosion of freedom of speech in this country. The secular elite doesn’t want the average person to know that evolution is not fact and that there is overwhelming evidence of a great intelligence (the God of the Bible, of course) behind the universe..."

You read that correctly: "overwhelming evidence of a great intelligence (the God of the Bible, of course)".

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/ar...asts-expelled/

Perhaps of interest to some is an interview that Ligonier Ministries mega-apologist R.C. Sproul conducted with Ben Stein in February:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...61480192587449

Originally Posted by R.C. Sproul

"I sense a fear from [the scientific establishment] of the unwarranted intrusion of religion into the scientific domain, but what I think that these academics fail to realize is that this issue is not just a religious issue; it's a philosophical issue of the highest magnitude, and as far as I'm concerned what is at stake here is the integrity of science itself...

[photon]

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/05/01...cience-le.html

Stein: …Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.

Wow...

[Azure]

Overwhelming evidence of a great intelligence....which would mean God.

Might as well throw faith out the window then!

Strange how some religious people love to contradict themselves.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by photon

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/05/01...cience-le.html



Wow...

The scary thing is I actually used to think Ben Stein was a pretty smart guy. Was I ever deluded.

[Textcritic]

I can't believe I missed the original broadcast, but Richard Dawkins was on CKNW's Bill Good Show last Monday, 28 April @ 9:00 am. There is a problem with CKNW's audio vault, but the interview in its entirety is available @ richarddawkins.net:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2520,n,n

[Textcritic]

Some of the most recently posted reviews on expelledexposed.com are particularly interesting. First, a report of an interview with Expelled producer Mark Mathis in the Real Detroit Weekly. Here are some highlights:

"...I confront Mathis with this point, and he counters that evolutionary theory is also untestable. This is patently untrue—to give just one example, scientists have witnessed speciation, the arisal of a new species from an old one.

When I point this out, he interrupts me immediately: “Whoa! Wait a minute! Please send me whatever material you have that demonstrates that we can observe speciation because I have not seen anything. I’ve never heard anyone even claim that!”

Is he serious? He’s just produced a film about evolution, and he’s never heard of the fact that speciation has been observed and thoroughly documented in the scientific literature? I’m stunned. I send him peer-reviewed research confirming this fact via e-mail, and he later responds, “This isn’t an important argument for me.”

That final statement is really quite baffling: irrefutable proof is provided to Mathis to counter his insistence that evolution is untestable, and he dismisses it as unimportant. But there is more...

"So I ask him about falsifiability. Clearly, evolution could potentially be disproved, but how could one ever disprove the existence of a deity? He laughs. “You can’t apply falsifiability to Darwinian evolution. How is it falsifiable?”

I respond by quoting the biologist J.B.S. Haldane: “Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.” One instance of fossils appearing in the wrong strata would disprove current evolutionary theory in an instant. Mathis pauses before saying, “If you want to get into the science...” He then trails off and mutters something irrelevant before finally confessing, “Look. You can get into the intricacies of the science on both sides. And I am not qualified.” On that point, we can both agree.

It is becoming ever more abundantly clear that "intelligent design" hasn't the faintest interest in science. Responses like Mr. Mathis's are becoming more commonplace all the time. Any evidence for evolution is decried as uninteresting, unimportant, or just simply too complicated.

The other interesting review has come courtesy of Reason to Believe. for those unfamiliar with this group, RTB is an evangelical apologitic ministry founded by Canadian astronomer Hugh Ross. They are committed to the infallibility of the Christian Scriptures and the infallibility of Science, and it is their goal to somehow integrate the two as rationally as possible (Check out 8 myths about Reason to Believe on their webpage).

What is most intriguing about RTB's response to Stein's film is in how they are distancing themselves from the movie:

"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.

While I very seriously doubt that there is much "dialogue" produced within the scientific community of a scientific nature because of the creation/science models of RTB scholars, I do believe that the last statement is very telling. This is very string criticism from a highly conservative evangelical Christian group, and I would expect that the producers of Expelled would find it alarming: they've just been thrown under the bus by one of their closest allies.

[photon]

The movie is sliding into oblivion, not even their strongest supporting group really cares enough to go see it. Which is good and bad I guess, good because that means lots of people won't see this crap and think it's valid, but bad because it means people in general are apathetic to science.

I guess it could mean that the vast majority see this movie for what it is, but I think that'd be hoping for far too much.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by photon

I guess it could mean that the vast majority see this movie for what it is, but I think that'd be hoping for far too much.

Maybe I just have more faith in people, but I suspect that's exactly what's happening here. People vote with their feet in these instances--and even people who aren't tuned into this debate can smell B.S. when it's served to them, even if you put a little garnish next to it.

[onetwo_threefour]

Damn, I wish I'd clicked on this thread sooner but I've thought Ben stein was an idiot for quite a while now and I thought it might be his stupid tv show. (America's Most Smartest Model... ugh)

Anyway I agree with the arguments rejecting ID and acknowledging that it is and always has been a shell game for Christian creationists notwithstanding that other religions may agree with it. The point that I don't think has been made yet (I'm only halfway through the thread right now) is that ID'ists are actively obtuse and understand the arguments far better than we give them credit for. What the 'science zealots' have failed to realize is that this is part of the strategy. ID is a finely tuned political strategy and the ID'ists have realized that if they can keep the science side trying to keep explaining to them why they are wrong and pretending not to understand, they can keep the science side from becoming politically organized. It's been going on so long now that any attempt to organize politically is called religion bashing even though the supposed premise of ID is that it is not religiously based. It's a classic Catch-22 that was purposefully and cunningly crafted by the political machine behind ID. This may sound like a conspiracy theory, but I have read too much of the history and debates surrounding the movement to think otherwise. People just can't be told that ID is not science and fail to understand it after 20 years of trying.

By the way, one small quibble with one of Photon's earlier posts (the last one on page four). The traits described in that post did not necessarily provide survival benefits, they could be emergent characteristics from something else that does provide survival benefit. Such traits could even have a small detrimental effect on survival as long as the magnitude of that negative impact is less than the magnitude of the positive impact of the trait from which they emerge. Or they could simply be neutral, kind of like junk DNA. If there is no net effect on survivability, traits can linger indefinitely. As such you can't say for sure that the traits are a product of natural selection directly.

While I won't attribute purposeful obtuseness to anyone here, the big proponents of the theory, have to understand the objections and they ignore them with a vengeance in debate. It is all sleight of hand and misdirection. It is a very smart strategy if you think about it.

Even in this thread, Kipper is King kept on suggesting that it should be okay to introduce ID as an 'alternative' theory after having it specifically explained a number of times why ID is not consistent with the scientific method. It is a very insidious method of denying the argument. People assume you don't understand so they keep trying to explain it to, or get frustrated and stop talking rather than actually fighting the political motive.

Adding:

Photon's debate with ArloIginla is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. It's the Rush Limbaugh'ism of scientific debate. Don't try to understand the arguments, go mine the talking points of those you agree with...
I don't blame ArloIginla, but it's what debate has turned into in many cases, be it political, or scientific.

[photon]

Good post!

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

By the way, one small quibble with one of Photon's earlier posts (the last one on page four). The traits described in that post did not necessarily provide survival benefits, they could be emergent characteristics from something else that does provide survival benefit. Such traits could even have a small detrimental effect on survival as long as the magnitude of that negative impact is less than the magnitude of the positive impact of the trait from which they emerge. Or they could simply be neutral, kind of like junk DNA. If there is no net effect on survivability, traits can linger indefinitely. As such you can't say for sure that the traits are a product of natural selection directly.

Good point, thanks for correcting that.