| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
roadghost
Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Posts: 146
|
 Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 3:01 am Post subject: Expelled! |
 |
|
I have no idea what this mans personal beliefs or political affiliations are but I thought this was a succinct and balanced essay about the age old problem of science versus religion. I haven't heard of the film either.
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2008-05-04-1.html
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dr wu23
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 2158
Location: Indiana
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I haven't sene the film either but I have heard a lot about it from others who have seen it. It's basically a propaganda piece for ID and the money for the film came from a rich fundy who makes films in this mold.
If Moore can make films touting the liberal agenda than I guess it's fair for the neo-cons to make one touting their religious beliefs.
What I found interesting is that Stein is Jewish but a conservative too. What's his agenda in being the host in the film?
Apparently the Christian right is using him as a front man these days.
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed
_________________
"Some say the valley has always been haunted ever since River ran.
The rippling waters fast as the colors conceal the Green Man."
Roy Harpur from The Green Man
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
roadghost
Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 12:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The article didn't seem to come across like that, ie, screaming fundy propaganda, but only stumbling across this out of any comparative context it's hard to be fully clued up on any pet agenda or whatnots the author may have.
If this man is any type of poster boy for the fundies then they're certainly getting soft in their old age, in fact the recent upsurge in Xtian fundamentalism investigated on a TV programme here in the UK seemed much more alarming and I never thought I'd say that.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dr wu23
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 2158
Location: Indiana
|
| Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
People can make whatever documentary they want to but the simple fact remains that ID is not science and there is no science that currently supports it except for Fundy points of view that basically twist science to try and support a faith based religious belief.
_________________
"Some say the valley has always been haunted ever since River ran.
The rippling waters fast as the colors conceal the Green Man."
Roy Harpur from The Green Man
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
roadghost
Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
I didn't post the article specifically for arguments regarding ID, wether pro or anti. I am though in broad agreement with the sentiments regarding the use of science like a faith based religion and not recognising it's own limitations when it addresses matters metaphysical.
Be it hardline fundy, or hardline materialis/athiest, they're both equally guilty of spin and deception (not to mention the immature need to impose and force their belief on others). Being as the ID vs Darwinian debate seems to be more prevelant in the US than elsewhere I may be missing something somewhere in this article but have to say I found it pretty moderate in it's message.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dr wu23
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 2158
Location: Indiana
|
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| roadghost wrote: |
I didn't post the article specifically for arguments regarding ID, wether pro or anti. I am though in broad agreement with the sentiments regarding the use of science like a faith based religion and not recognising it's own limitations when it addresses matters metaphysical.
Be it hardline fundy, or hardline materialis/athiest, they're both equally guilty of spin and deception (not to mention the immature need to impose and force their belief on others). Being as the ID vs Darwinian debate seems to be more prevelant in the US than elsewhere I may be missing something somewhere in this article but have to say I found it pretty moderate in it's message. |
There's no question that some hard core rationalists are almost as fanatical as the religious fundies. But that has little to do with the far Christian right and their attempts to get ID into the science classroom which is exactly what they would like to do.
It simply does not belong there...period. It is not science. It belongs in religion or philosophy class.
That's the issue here and films like this are an attempt to spread the belief among more moderate Christians that it should be taught alongside evolution as a valid approach. It should not.
_________________
"Some say the valley has always been haunted ever since River ran.
The rippling waters fast as the colors conceal the Green Man."
Roy Harpur from The Green Man
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
roadghost
Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Not having seen it I will take your word for it. It just seems a shame that, as he makes some salient points, he's become the mouthpiece of Christian radicals.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dr wu23
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 2158
Location: Indiana
|
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 1:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| roadghost wrote: |
| Not having seen it I will take your word for it. It just seems a shame that, as he makes some salient points, he's become the mouthpiece of Christian radicals. |
I'm not sure what Stein's reasons are for being involved in that film (it could be just about a paycheck), but I suspect he is a true believer when it comes to ID. Some conservative Jews have hitched their wagon to the new Christian evangelical movement. Michael Medved is another one.
What salient points do you think he makes in defense of ID or the idea it should be taught alongside evolution?
_________________
"Some say the valley has always been haunted ever since River ran.
The rippling waters fast as the colors conceal the Green Man."
Roy Harpur from The Green Man
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
roadghost
Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 1:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No no, not about ID or it's teaching. The points he brings up about scientific orthodoxy, the way mainstream science is often guilty of inhibiting research that steps outside the accepted boundaries I think is a fair point. Like I said earlier, I wasn't primed for the ID controversy so read the piece in a more general sense.
For what it's worth I don't think ID should be taught or regarded as a scientific fact either. It belongs elsewhere.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dr wu23
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 2158
Location: Indiana
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| roadghost wrote: |
| No no, not about ID or it's teaching. The points he brings up about scientific orthodoxy, the way mainstream science is often guilty of inhibiting research that steps outside the accepted boundaries I think is a fair point. ...... |
It's a long book but Hansen talks quite a bit about this scientific bias in his book The Trickster and the Paranormal.
and Bruce goes into this on his web site Intangible Materiality.
_________________
"Some say the valley has always been haunted ever since River ran.
The rippling waters fast as the colors conceal the Green Man."
Roy Harpur from The Green Man
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
roadghost
Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is that Bruce on here? I thought I saw his name mentioned when browsing some other sites recently.
What's the address??
_________________
Now we must praise the keeper of the heavenly kingdom
The power of the Measurer and his mind-thoughts,
The work of the glory-father; as he, each of wonders,
the eternal Lord, established from the beginning.
Caedmons Hymn
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dr wu23
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 2158
Location: Indiana
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes he is Bruce Duensing
http://materialintangible.blogspot.com/
I enjoy his blog essays;...they are always very intriguing and cutting edge.
I believe he has nentioned this problem with scientific bias before in older blogs.
_________________
"Some say the valley has always been haunted ever since River ran.
The rippling waters fast as the colors conceal the Green Man."
Roy Harpur from The Green Man
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
roadghost
Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 7:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
I just had a butchers....wow he knows his stuff. I'll have to read it over a few times before it sinks in though 
Good stuff Bruce. 
_________________
Now we must praise the keeper of the heavenly kingdom
The power of the Measurer and his mind-thoughts,
The work of the glory-father; as he, each of wonders,
the eternal Lord, established from the beginning.
Caedmons Hymn
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Somerville Changeling
Joined: 09 Sep 2007
Posts: 210
Location: Central Texas
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| roadghost wrote: |
I didn't post the article specifically for arguments regarding ID, wether pro or anti. I am though in broad agreement with the sentiments regarding the use of science like a faith based religion and not recognising it's own limitations when it addresses matters metaphysical.
Be it hardline fundy, or hardline materialis/athiest, they're both equally guilty of spin and deception (not to mention the immature need to impose and force their belief on others). Being as the ID vs Darwinian debate seems to be more prevelant in the US than elsewhere I may be missing something somewhere in this article but have to say I found it pretty moderate in it's message. |
That was a great find roadghost. Thanks (and which pundit was it who said that blogs don't matter anymore?). I particularly loved the following:
| Quote: |
In fact, it is an open secret that throughout the sciences, researchers constantly use purposive assumptions to arrive that the hypotheses they test. They may disguise these assumptions by speaking of "elegant" solutions, or "symmetry," but the fact is that scientists commonly expect the universe to make sense. And "making sense" is a very unscientific idea.
Science thus becomes a game -- you are allowed to play only within the rules. But within that sandbox, scientists have made extraordinary discoveries that have transformed our understanding and our lives.
The tragedy is that many scientists forget that the assumption of mechanical causation has not been proven and cannot be. It is a natural human trait to want to believe that what we accomplish in our lives is real, that is has permanent, lasting value. Not all people are able to maintain the humility of a true scientist -- knowing that all his work will inevitably be contradicted, amplified, or otherwise redone by somebody else. And it is profoundly annoying to some of them, at least, to have to admit that they are only playing a game.
No! It's the real world we're dealing with!
But it's not. It's guesses about the real world, and only guesses that pertain to mechanical cause.
Today, though, we have many scientists who think they're saying something intelligent when they proclaim that this or that discovery makes it "no longer necessary to believe in God."
The necessity of believing in God is not a topic that science can even address. No scientist is competent, using the tools of science, to make even the slightest useful remark on the subject. But the Darwinists refuse to admit that they are making an enormous leap of faith when they say, "We can explain everything without reference to God." |
Darwinism is too often tinged with atheism. A scientist can be an atheist and do good science, but so can a scientist believe in God and do good science. What is bad science is making our religious or philosophical views the yardstick by which science is conducted or by which evidence is filtered.
I have to agree that I.D. is an imperfect answer to Darwinianism. Yet, there needs to be an answer that's not strictly religious (and I think Dr. Wu does an injustice here because he brings out his cast of "usual suspects"). The whole gist of the movie (haven't seen it yet, but will buy it and watch it at home) is that scientists who either lean towards I.D. or who disagree with I.D. but are tolerant and want a dialogue, are often ostracized by the establishment and lose their positions or are demoted.
Skeptics have shot back with very personal critiques of all the scientists the movie claims were discriminated against, ascribing their lack of tenure, firing or demotion to poor science, lack of publication in peer reviewed journals etc. but supporters note other instances of people accused of poor science, lacking publication in peer reviewed journals etc. getting hired, promoted, or getting tenure if their views aren't Christian or traditionally Jewish (especially if their views are hostile to Biblical religion).
Would I.D. behave the same if it was the primary way of viewing how life arose? It's possible, human nature is human nature, after all. We can look at how the scientific establishment viewed Darwinism when it first arose. The Watchmaker theory was almost required at Oxford at the time as it had quite a bit of evidence circa 1800 for it.
What I expect to see is the demise of both Darwinian evolution and I.D. as theories and the rise of a more quirky theory that explains the evidence but is not quite so tied to the alleged war between science and religion as are Darwinianism and I.D. I have hopes for quantum evolution, but I'm no expert and the experts doubt that DNA can stay in a quantum state long enough to "choose" which way to evolve.
Either way, my orthodox Christian views are that God is the ground of all being and that evidence for God can be found by observing nature, but once God is rejected, then nature only seems to be a roll of the dice with no purpose and no direction. I think those two choices are how God wants it to be.
| dr wu23 wrote: |
There's no question that some hard core rationalists are almost as fanatical as the religious fundies. But that has little to do with the far Christian right and their attempts to get ID into the science classroom which is exactly what they would like to do.
It simply does not belong there...period. It is not science. It belongs in religion or philosophy class.
That's the issue here and films like this are an attempt to spread the belief among more moderate Christians that it should be taught alongside evolution as a valid approach. It should not. |
IMHO, Darwinism does not belong in the science classroom either. Instead of teaching it in biology, it should be taught in a philosophy of science class along with I.D. Biology can simply leave out natural selection and other specifically Darwinian views of change over time. We know that change over time occurs within species, we can surmise based upon a consensus of scientists that change over time happens from one species to another; but the evidence is spotty, so it should not be taught as a given.
Teachers can assert that there are different geological periods with different biota and that science sees the earth as billions of years old, but that there is no mechanism that explains the beginning of life and that mechanisms related to the evolution of life are in dispute and involve philosophical ideals outside the realm of strict biology. We have evidence for different biota tens of millions of years ago. We only have surmises about how they arose and how we arose. We have no factual evidence for I.D. or neo-Darwinian change over time.
Leave neo-Darwinian theories for college biology classes, but also examine quantum evolution and debate how punctuated equilibrium changes how scientists view change over time from one species to another. Leave I.D. in philosophy, young earth creationism in religious studies and leave all of it out of high school biology classes where kids need to learn about our biosphere today and how our lives affect it and are affected by it.
_________________
My clan ancestor killed a wyrm. What Fortean feat did your ancestor accomplish?
Somerville clan motto: Fear God in Life
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
