Ben Stein "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

I agree with you to a certain extent. I do think that an understanding of human beings as simply existing to be survival machines has an effect on how we view the value of human life.

I don't think it has to have any affect... someone may use that view to try and justify a moral position, but the biological realty does not dictate that moral position; the natural state of things is neutral, it's how we choose to use that information that is the moral decision.

If the view that all life at the most basic level exists simply to reproduce did impose moral views or impose a specific way of viewing the value of human life, those that held that view of life would have different morals.. when they don't.

What I'm wary of, and I think a lot of sensible scientists agree, is the danger of how much consilience we are willing to allow between biology and the rest of our human understandings.

What rest of human understandings are you talking about? You're going around some point that I'm not getting.

How does the validity of natural selection affect our moral understanding of certain issues, such as euthanasia?

How does the validity of chemistry affect our moral understanding of certain issues, such as euthanasia?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

I don't think it has to have any affect... someone may use that view to try and justify a moral position, but the biological realty does not dictate that moral position; the natural state of things is neutral, it's how we choose to use that information that is the moral decision.

If the view that all life at the most basic level exists simply to reproduce did impose moral views or impose a specific way of viewing the value of human life, those that held that view of life would have different morals.. when they don't.



What rest of human understandings are you talking about? You're going around some point that I'm not getting.



How does the validity of chemistry affect our moral understanding of certain issues, such as euthanasia?

Well, for example, the use of Darwinism to explain political issues, such as genocide. I've read books and heard viewpoints that tried to explain the Holocaust as simply the result of competition for territory and access to reproductive chances. My point is, that it is never that simple.

In applying biology strictly to human life, there is a tendency to see people only as material organisms, instead of being good in themselves.

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Well, for example, the use of Darwinism to explain political issues, such as genocide. I've read books and heard viewpoints that tried to explain the Holocaust as simply the result of competition for territory and access to reproductive chances. My point is, that it is never that simple.

Agreed, and even if it was that simple, explaining the cause of something and justifying that thing are two very different things.

In applying biology strictly to human life, there is a tendency to see people only as material organisms, instead of being good in themselves.

As evidenced by what exactly? How does the view that people are material organisms preclude the view that people are "good in themselves" (whatever that means)?

And what's the opposing view to the view that? That people are more than material organisms (proof?) and that that view is better in some way?

I'll ask again, please be more specific, I'm having problems seeing through the vagueness.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by tussery

I saw this toaday.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,24...ichard-Dawkins

Wow, what a rebuke letter!

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by peter12

Of course, I have a problem with Dawkins et al. saying that evolution is the ultimate purpose of our existence as well.

Darwinism as a scientific theory is excellent and is easily the most imaginative and effective way of taxonomy and explaining the origin of life on this planet. As an all-encompassing ideology it sucks.

From the article that tussery linked to.

Now, to the matter of Darwin. The first thing to say is that natural selection is a scientific theory about the way evolution works in fact. It is either true or it is not, and whether or not we like it politically or morally is irrelevant. Scientific theories are not prescriptions for how we should behave. I have many times written (for example in the first chapter of A Devil's Chaplain) that I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to the science of how life has actually evolved, but a passionate ANTI-Darwinian when it comes to the politics of how humans ought to behave. I have several times said that a society based on Darwinian principles would be a very unpleasant society in which to live. I have several times said, starting at the beginning of my very first book, The Selfish Gene, that we should learn to understand natural selection, so that we can oppose any tendency to apply it to human politics. Darwin himself said the same thing, in various different ways. So did his great friend and champion Thomas Henry Huxley.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,24...ichard-Dawkins

[Calgaryborn]

Hitler used the theory of natural selection as justification for genocide. He seen the Jews and the blacks and the Poles as genetically inferior to his Aryan race and the sooner they were eliminated the better it would be for the advancement of mankind.

If you look at the theory objectively without a PC filter it is a natural hypothesis to make: If humans are evolving and within the human race we have genetic pools that have for the better part been isolated for thousands of years there will be winners and losers in the race for the survival of the fittest. If science is able to identify a definite winner why not pave the way for his/her eventual advancement. Also why not remove the losers from the equation. They use up valuable resources which holds the species back.

I understand that today most evolutionists categorically reject this line of thinking but that doesn't mean the hypothesis has been dis-proven. It simply is a example of the influence political correctness has on science. Some questions are not allowed to be asked.

Remember the book that Darwin wrote which popularized the evolutionary theory was called The Origin of Species and Race. It is that book which Hitler read and embraced in his youth.

[tussery]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Hitler used the theory of natural selection as justification for genocide. He seen the Jews and the blacks and the Poles as genetically inferior to his Aryan race and the sooner they were eliminated the better it would be for the advancement of mankind.

If you look at the theory objectively without a PC filter it is a natural hypothesis to make: If humans are evolving and within the human race we have genetic pools that have for the better part been isolated for thousands of years there will be winners and losers in the race for the survival of the fittest. If science is able to identify a definite winner why not pave the way for his/her eventual advancement. Also why not remove the losers from the equation. They use up valuable resources which holds the species back.

I understand that today most evolutionists categorically reject this line of thinking but that doesn't mean the hypothesis has been dis-proven. It simply is a example of the influence political correctness has on science. Some questions are not allowed to be asked.

Remember the book that Darwin wrote which popularized the evolutionary theory was called The Origin of Species and Race. It is that book which Hitler read and embraced in his youth.

Hitler did attempt eugenic breeding of humans, and this is sometimes misrepresented as an attempt to apply Darwinian principles to humans. But this interpretation gets it historically backwards, as PZ Myers has pointed out. Darwin's great achievement was to look at the familiar practice of domestic livestock breeding by artificial selection, and realise that the same principle might apply in NATURE, thereby explaining the evolution of the whole of life: "natural selection", the "survival of the fittest". Hitler didn't apply NATURAL selection to humans. He was probably even more ignorant of natural selection than Ben Stein evidiently is. Hitler tried to apply ARTIFICIAL selection to humans, and there is nothing specifically Darwinian about artificial selection. It has been familiar to farmers, gardeners, horse trainers, dog breeders, pigeon fanciers and many others for centuries, even millennia. Everybody knew about artificial selection, and Hitler was no exception. What was unique about Darwin was his idea of NATURAL selection; and Hitler's eugenic policies had nothing to do with natural selection.

It is no longer natural when you introduce a designer of some sort.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Hitler used the theory of natural selection as justification for genocide. He seen the Jews and the blacks and the Poles as genetically inferior to his Aryan race and the sooner they were eliminated the better it would be for the advancement of mankind.

And people have used the Bible in the past to justify their horrible acts.. neither means anything since they would have done their horrible acts without the Bible and/or natural selection to justify them, they would have found something else to justify them.

If you look at the theory objectively without a PC filter it is a natural hypothesis to make: If humans are evolving and within the human race we have genetic pools that have for the better part been isolated for thousands of years there will be winners and losers in the race for the survival of the fittest. If science is able to identify a definite winner why not pave the way for his/her eventual advancement. Also why not remove the losers from the equation. They use up valuable resources which holds the species back.

A perfect example of the naturalist fallacy. Evolution is descriptive, its observations about how things are, it doesn't translate that into how things should be.

I understand that today most evolutionists categorically reject this line of thinking but that doesn't mean the hypothesis has been dis-proven. It simply is a example of the influence political correctness has on science. Some questions are not allowed to be asked.

Of course the hypothesis hasn't been dis-proven, natural selection is very real. It's not an example of political correctness on science, it's an example of rational thinking; deriving a system of values from a scientific principle isn't a reasonable thing to do.

Remember the book that Darwin wrote which popularized the evolutionary theory was called The Origin of Species and Race. It is that book which Hitler read and embraced in his youth.

Again so what? Terrible people have used the Bible (or other books) to support their agenda. Hitler also used Christianity when it suited his needs. "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." for example.

And you fail, please point out where the theory is referred to as "The Origin of Species and Race" please. And if you'd read the book you'd know race doesn't refer to human races, but varieties. Origin of the Species hardly refers to humans at all.

Evolution refutes racism actually; before some people had a misleading concept of human races, thinking that the races were separate and distinct. Evolution eliminates that typological thinking and the basis for racism. Evolution has humans as one biological race; so that Hitler got the science wrong is not a problem of the science.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by photon

And you fail, please point out where the theory is referred to as "The Origin of Species and Race" please. And if you'd read the book you'd know race doesn't refer to human races, but varieties. Origin of the Species hardly refers to humans at all.

Evolution refutes racism actually; before some people had a misleading concept of human races, thinking that the races were separate and distinct. Evolution eliminates that typological thinking and the basis for racism. Evolution has humans as one biological race; so that Hitler got the science wrong is not a problem of the science.

Just wanted to quote this for its utter truth.

[Zarathustra]

What makes something a science? There are many different views on this, but I find that best logical view of science is this:

For a theory to be scientific, it must have the ability to be falsified. Verificationism strictly uses induction, which is not logically sound, especially compared to deduction, which is central to falsificationism.

Earlier in the thread somebody said "Well Jesus lived! That's proof of god!"
Whether or not Jesus lived is irrelevant to any scientific discussion regarding ID. For ID to be considered a science, it must have the ability to be falsified. Does it?

Of course not. God created the universe. How in the world can this be falsified? What scientific tests can you use to disprove this?

Intelligent design and science should never be mentioned in the same sentence.

[Calgaryborn]

Photon this is the title of Darwin's book:
On
The Origin of Species

by Means of Natural Selection,

or
The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

First Edition
by Charles Darwin

Most books of that era had very long titles. It is not uncommon to see the titles shorten in later editions when such long titles went out of fashion.

Now please look up in any dictionary the meaning of "race". It never means "species". In animals we will divide differences within a species by using the word "breed". When talking about different ethnic groups of humans we use the word "race".

Darwin published his book in an era when they were still publicly debating the radical ideas that Blacks and East Indians were wholly human and as such deserved the same rights in society as a white man. It was said that the sun never set on the English empire and many Britons seen themselves as a superior race. After all look what their race had accomplished. Don't think for a minute that Darwin's little book didn't add to that debate.

Yes Science is merely observation. It doesn't do anything but, observe. Science would be useless if that knowledge wasn't used to manipulate our environment. Farmers use what they have observed about how things grow to grow crops that yield more and are of higher quality. Hitler used Darwin's observations and decided to help nature along. He tried to weed humanity of what he saw as inferior strains of humans. He also tried to breed a superior race of humans; didn't he?

Hitler embraced Darwin's suggestion that there were "favoured races" and used that hypothesis in a very pragmatic way.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

What makes something a science? There are many different views on this, but I find that best logical view of science is this:

For a theory to be scientific, it must have the ability to be falsified. Verificationism strictly uses induction, which is not logically sound, especially compared to deduction, which is central to falsificationism.

Earlier in the thread somebody said "Well Jesus lived! That's proof of god!"
Whether or not Jesus lived is irrelevant to any scientific discussion regarding ID. For ID to be considered a science, it must have the ability to be falsified. Does it?

Of course not. God created the universe. How in the world can this be falsified? What scientific tests can you use to disprove this?

Intelligent design and science should never be mentioned in the same sentence.

Can evolution or the origin of the universe be falsified?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Most books of that era had very long titles. It is not uncommon to see the titles shorten in later editions when such long titles went out of fashion.

I know full well what the full title of the book was, it clearly isn't what you claimed it was, in quotes.

Now please look up in any dictionary the meaning of "race". It never means "species". In animals we will divide differences within a species by using the word "breed". When talking about different ethnic groups of humans we use the word "race".

Of course it doesn't mean species, species means species. Race is used in the book to refer to groups within a species. Do words only ever have one meaning? Words can never change meaning over time? Please quote to me the specific sections of the book where Darwin uses the term race to refer explicitly to human races.

Darwin published his book in an era when they were still publicly debating the radical ideas that Blacks and East Indians were wholly human and as such deserved the same rights in society as a white man. It was said that the sun never set on the English empire and many Britons seen themselves as a superior race. After all look what their race had accomplished. Don't think for a minute that Darwin's little book didn't add to that debate.

Darwin's book did add to the debate.. it added the idea that there was no difference between the races. As I said before, Darwinism eliminates typological thinking which was the basis for some thinking that some races weren't fully human (i.e. that some races were "closer" to apes than others).

Add to that the facts that a) Darwin was less racist than most of his peers and b) racism existed long long before Darwin.

Racism has nothing to do with Darwin.

Yes Science is merely observation. It doesn't do anything but, observe. Science would be useless if that knowledge wasn't used to manipulate our environment. Farmers use what they have observed about how things grow to grow crops that yield more and are of higher quality. Hitler used Darwin's observations and decided to help nature along. He tried to weed humanity of what he saw as inferior strains of humans. He also tried to breed a superior race of humans; didn't he?

Sure Hitler did, Hitler also used chemistry and physics to create weapons that killed millions. The US used nuclear physics to create the atomic bomb. Again, what is your point?

Hitler embraced Darwin's suggestion that there were "favoured races" and used that hypothesis in a very pragmatic way.

He used it in an evil way.

Do you ever make a point?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Can evolution or the origin of the universe be falsified?

Some say there are no stupid questions, but this is a stupid question. That's like asking "can gravity be falsified, or can electromagnetism be falsified".

Did you mean to ask "can the theory of evolution" or "the theory of the origin of the universe" be falsified?

This is science we're discussing here, how you phrase things is important you know.

To answer your questions, yes, and there is none.

Yes the theory of evolution can be falsified.. and pars of it have been many times over in fact; that's why the theory of evolution that we have today is significantly different than the theory that Darwin first proposed.. science being all sciency and doing ongoing research and all that.

(As an aside if you feel confident enough in your knowledge about evolution to argue against it, you should be able to tell us the kinds of things that if we observed would falsify evolution. I'll give you one though, if a cat gave birth to a dog, that would falsify evolution.)

As far as I know there's no theory of the origin of the universe. There's speculation, ideas, and concepts, but no real scientific theory. Big Bang theory isn't a theory about the origin of the universe, it's a theory of the early history of the universe.

[Textcritic]

In light of the fact that I started this thread, I reserve the right to interject whenever I see fit to do so.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

...Yes Science is merely observation. It doesn't do anything but, observe. Science would be useless if that knowledge wasn't used to manipulate our environment. Farmers use what they have observed about how things grow to grow crops that yield more and are of higher quality. Hitler used Darwin's observations and decided to help nature along. He tried to weed humanity of what he saw as inferior strains of humans. He also tried to breed a superior race of humans; didn't he?

Hitler embraced Darwin's suggestion that there were "favoured races" and used that hypothesis in a very pragmatic way.

An important point missed in all of this is how you and peter12 seem to be missing that real science CANNOT be held accountable for people's ignorance of how it works properly. Furthermore, real science CANNOT be held responsible for the decisions of people to act upon their interpretations of science.

Photon has tried to make this point in a few of his previous posts, but this apparently needs to be stated much more explicitly. Please read carefully: Connecting racism, genocide, apartheid, etc. directly to the theory of evolution does nothing to preclude any of it's scientific merits. NOTHING.

[Textcritic]

I'm beginning to think that creationists and proponents of intelligent design suffer from yet another philosophical fallacy that I had not previously considered. My opinion on the relationship between biblicism (or bibliolatry, or however you want to describe a religious conviction to the doctrine of biblical inerrency) and rationalism from which these ideas stem has been well documented. But I believe there may be another contributing problem: the misappropriation of logic and propositional thinking.

I will borrow from one of my current favourite anti-evolution apologists: Mr. Ravi Zacharias, who says that the logical conclusive result of evolution allows for total moral unaccountability, and the devaluation of human life that leads to genocide. This has been echoed by many other Christian apologists, but every single proponent of this idea without exception has failed to illustrate this consistently. The reason for this, and a serious problem for all who endorse this position is that they fail to recognize that humankind almost never behaves consistently and purely logically. Furthermore, any philosophical connection between the larger body general scientific theory and patterns of thinking and behaviour is non-existent. Put another way, whether or not the theory of evolution should make us think or believe certain things can never be proved, and even if it could, there is no guarantee that people will always respond as they ought.

I don't know much about the discipline of logic, but from what I understand, it is built upon propositional thinking: Premise A plus Premise B will always result in Conclusion C. The problem in applying this sort of thinking to human behaviour is that almost no one organizes his/her thoughts and decisions strictly according to this model. I will use my own moral grid as an example. According to the anti-evolutionists, I am being logically inconsistent in my insistence that it is important to be moral person, in light of the fact that I believe that evolution assumes no moral purpose. This may be correct, but so what? If this is indeed a logical inconsistency, it does not necessarily prohibit me from being moral and believing that "morality" is largely biologically irrelevant.

My point is this, and I ask peter12 and Calgaryborn in particular take note of this: humanity, society, history and behaviour does not conform to logical propositions. People believe what they believe and behave the way they behave for a huge variety of reasons, and can almost never be reduced to how we "ought" to act or think because of what we have chosen to believe for whatever reasons. This kind of inconsistency I have demonstrated in previous posts in which I have suggested that biblicists are actually hyper-rationalists. The biblical inerrency movement was born out of a reaction to rationalism, and yet the movement's methodology is notoriously rationalistic. It is a logical inconsistency, yet biblicism persists and perhaps continues to grow.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

In light of the fact that I started this thread, I reserve the right to interject whenever I see fit to do so.


An important point missed in all of this is how you and peter12 seem to be missing that real science CANNOT be held accountable for people's ignorance of how it works properly. Furthermore, real science CANNOT be held responsible for the decisions of people to act upon their interpretations of science.

Photon has tried to make this point in a few of his previous posts, but this apparently needs to be stated much more explicitly. Please read carefully: Connecting racism, genocide, apartheid, etc. directly to the theory of evolution does nothing to preclude any of it's scientific merits. NOTHING.

Sorry, I didn't mean to just disappear without clarifying my position...

Certainly, science which is logical and backed up with evidence cannot be questioned on its merits. I was sort of just hacking up some philosophy without really justifying it.

I think Darwinism, when applied as an ideology, which as you say, is likely considering the nature of humans, has a deleterious effect upon the way in which humans view themselves. That's it.

Clearly, so can almost any other idea be twisted to a certain group's social goals or desires. In no way was I attacking the validity of evolution as a scientific theory, only as one that can be twisted to fulfill a social niche.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by peter12

...I think Darwinism, when applied as an ideology, which as you say, is likely considering the nature of humans, has a deleterious effect upon the way in which humans view themselves. That's it...

I think that this is an assumption on your part. Was Naziism a misapplied "Darwinian ideology"? I don't know of anyone without their own ideological agenda who has declared as much. I believe that the onus is upon you to prove it.

Originally Posted by peter12

Clearly, so can almost any other idea be twisted to a certain group's social goals or desires. In no way was I attacking the validity of evolution as a scientific theory, only as one that can be twisted to fulfill a social niche.

What's the point, then? Virtually the same thing can be said of almost any academic/philosophical/religious enterprise. This seems like a moot point to make, so why make it in the first place? Anything when it is misapplied has the capacity to result in tragedy.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think that this is an assumption on your part. Was Naziism a misapplied "Darwinian ideology"? I don't know of anyone without their own ideological agenda who has declared as much. I believe that the onus is upon you to prove it.


What's the point, then? Virtually the same thing can be said of almost any academic/philosophical/religious enterprise. This seems like a moot point to make, so why make it in the first place? Anything when it is misapplied has the capacity to result in tragedy.

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. So I'm really just thinking half-formed ideas out loud. I am also not in any sense an intellectual ally of Ben Stein, so please don't mistake this as some sort of Creationist/Fundamentalist-driven hidden attack.

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.

Science is science, certainly, but politics is politics.

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

[Metro Gnome]

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. 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.

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.