Expelled, a Ben Stein Film about the silencing of intelligent design scientists in academia came out on Friday. This film is a documentary. It is sort of like Farenheit 911 in its tone, I guess.
There were a whole bunch of black & white clips that I found a little over the top &; a lot of monologue by Ben Stein as he traveled around looking for the scientists he interviewed. I was a little disappointed at first. He picked out a couple of persons who had lost their jobs & had their lives ruined because of their views on intelligent design. These people didn't appear poor, and even in exile, probably live a more affluent life than I do. Still, they became outcasts because they questioned the viability of the theory of evolution. They asked questions that anyone who has studied evolution beyond 9th grade science knows are relevant.
I was expecting to get the scientific data. I thought that I might hear these guys present the mathematics showing the absurdity of an ordered universes containing sentient beings arising by chance. I wanted an elaboration on how all of evolution is a gross violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I wanted to hear them say that the odds of the four base pairs forming are greater than the total number of particles in the universe. I wanted them to tell me how it is impossible to produce a system systems that has properties not contained in the components of that system. I wanted to hear from guys in the know, why they feel the need to question, this theory become fact in the minds of so many common people. I wanted to hear more from Gerald Schroeder & guys like him.
http://www.geraldschroeder.com/
Instead, these guys mostly talked about the cover-up within academia. They talked about prejudice. The argument was over morality. Ben Stein fought the battle not at an analytical, but at an ethical level. I wasn't expecting this. I have read several articles analogizing modern cultural trends and interwar Germany. The most well respected I know of is called "Medical Science Under Dictatorship".
http://www.restoringourheritage.com/articles/nej_medicaldictatorship.pdf
Ben Stein spent most of his time playing an alarmist. He toured Nazi killing centers. He spoke about the implications of amorality and utilititarian thought as mechanisms for the mass destruction of people. I strongly agree with his position. If God could be stripped away & it could be shown that we have no purpose in life, we could all just enjoy ourselves more right? But what would stop death camps from forming again? What would be the moral basis for doing away with these? This is a fine argument, but it alone doesn't make God real. The truth that God is real makes Him real, but Ben Stein didn't attack on this front.
Ben Stein let the evolutionists state why intelligent design merits a look. By asking them about origin, he let them provide the evidence that evolution is mostly smoke and mirrors. Even if panspermia is true, how did the culture that seeded us get formed? I remember having a collective laugh over that one, along with punctuated equilibrium, in college with my evolution professor and fellow students--perhaps I just got lucky to have a realist teach me the theory, but more likely, I was blessed.
Richard Dawkins, who sounds so polished when I hear people say his name, did a good job of honestly staggering through the origin question.
The most interesting thing I have found in the origin argument is that you will wind up with an unanswerable question & since no one is truly able to comprehend what they are talking about, it is much easier to attack a position than to defend it.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
"I thought that I might hear these guys present the mathematics showing the absurdity of an ordered universes containing sentient beings arising by chance"
How can you judge the mathematical probability of our Universe. We don't know that any other Universes are possible at all.
"I wanted an elaboration on how all of evolution is a gross violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics."
Thermodymaics has to do with physics. It means that in a closed system the amount of energy and mass won't change. That has nothing to do with evolution.
"I wanted to hear them say that the odds of the four base pairs forming are greater than the total number of particles in the universe."
Again, I ask how you calculate that, but probability is really actually irrelevant. Seeing as ID falls apart when it makes the baseless assumption that the probability of the designer not being equally or more improbable.
"I wanted them to tell me how it is impossible to produce a system systems that has properties not contained in the components yof that system."
I don't exactly see what that has to do with anything since no one is claiming otherwise...
There is no academic "cover-up". The reason scientists don't accept it is because it is totally baseless from a scientific standpoint.
Basically, ID says we don't think evolution is plausible, therefore another theory is true. Life, and science, don't work that way.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
Your statement about evolution having nothing to do with the second law of thermodynamics is correct and exactly why evolution makes not sense. It is not so much a question whether ID is absurd, but whether evolution is nonscientific and merits teaching as fact.
It is absurd to operate from a materialist point of view and then to disengage yourself from the basic laws governing material. I assume you are a materialist since you seem to state that your mind is nothing more than the same subatomic particles present at the beginning of the universe only in some particular configuration.
It is further absurd to state that biology--you do consider evolution to be a biological theory?--is not dictated to by the more rigorous disciplines of chemistry, physics, and ultimately math.
I understand the game. You make living structures seem a lot simpler than they are & then you give the "time & chance" speech until people believe anything is possible.
Second law of thermodynamics- (correct me if I'm wrong) the total amount of energy and matter won't change in a closed system.
The reason that this has nothing to do with evolution is because, in evolution the total amount of matter and energy doesn't change... If we are going to be nit-picky, then everything is governed by those laws. So, perhaps it would have been wiser to say that evolution doesn't violate that law in anyway, so bringing it up is totally irrelevant.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
Sorry, I am coming in on this part of the discussion a little late. I had to go back and look at Jsaj's statement. It was:
Actually Jsaj is technically wrong concerning the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LoT). 2LoT says that the total amount of disorder in a closed system must either stay the same or increase. It is a law that is applicable to the universe, so therefore it does deal with the modern evolutionary theory.
YOU, however, are VERY WRONG. Modern evolutionary theory doesn't violate it at all. In the biological sciences we look at Gibbs Free Energy (G) which is a measure of the thermodynamic potential. There is even a formula to calculate it:
G = H - TS where:
H = Enthalpy (useful energy)
T = Temperature
S = Entropy
The standard units are for:
H - joules
T - degree kelvin
S - joules/degree kelvin.
The tem TS is a representation of disorder in chemical reactions. It is the heat that is given off and dissapated in the universe. What the 2LoT says is that the term TS must always be either 0 or a positive number.
When one measures ANY chemical reaction that is involved in life (and therefore evolution) TS meets that criterion.
The creationist argument claiming that modern evolutionary theory violates the 2LoT is silly. What they are trying to implicitly claim is that the rise in complexity of seen in the course of evolutionary history is not permitted. But if that was true then we could not possibly be here. EVERYBODY "evolved" from a single celled organism and I mean not over evolutionary time. I mean with our lifetime. We all began our individual development as a fertilzed egg. If the 2LoT forbid evolution then it forbids development too.
I am most certainly a materialist. I don't disengage myself from the basic laws governing material, but you do. Unfortunately, you have absolutely no evidence that we should. The best you have are quibbles with modern evolutionary theory. You ignore the evidence for it and you say that certain things couldn't happen naturally simply because you can't imagine how it could have happened. That is not evidence for creationism.
I think you are being pejorative here with the term "rigorous". Physics and chemistry certainly deal with subjects at a more basic organizational level. I happen to be a very reductionist biologist so I certainly think that phenomenon can be explained at these lower levels, but that does not rule out emergent properties that arise as a function of these more complex organizational levels. Life itself, is such an emergent property.
Er ... (1) I get a little pissed off at creationists who make the claim that scientists make things simpler than they really are. EXCUSE ME ... who was it that discovered the complexity -- creationists? No, in fact actually doing science is about the only thing they wont do for their theory. The complexity that is actually found in life has been found by scientists. And we don't have to make things simpler than they really are.
(2) Besides "time & chance" there happens to be a little thing called NATURAL SELECTION. I know you creationists deny it but that's only because if you actually acknowledged the evidence then you would be forced to see that you claims are meaningless.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Physics....
lol
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
i thought the film would be all drama and bickering and that soon we'd be hearing complaints about propaganda. ugh. but i was happily surprised to see Stein touch a bit on some evidence for ID as well as be the "alarmist" for academic freedom. (Kinda a nice balance... seems he was fair to both sides and blended a bit of logic in with emotional appeal.) It's peaked my interest, and i'd still like to watch an all out ID v. Darwinist debate or two sometime in the future. Way to go Stein to raise awareness of the issue! And I loved the shoes. :)
Christianity, and I suspect religion in general, promotes an atmosphere in which people with no compunction against lying can garner praise and political influence for overt lies. It seems like Ben Stein flushed his integrity down the toilet and is charging people $10 to see his shit. But, hey that is opinion of an atheist.
Here are some facts:
(1) The scientists who were interviewed were lied to. They were contacted and told that they would be doing a film entitled "Crossroads: The Intersection of Science and Religion". Here is a blurb from that describes THAT movie:
The producers assured the scientists that the movie was going to be a balanced look at the controversy. Instead they come out with a movie that is a blatant propaganda piece entitled "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"
Mark Mathis, a lying Christian bastard (again the opinion of me ... an atheist) and a producer of the movie, said that the title "Crossroads" was a working title and they decided to change the name of the movie after they did the interviews.
The problem with this is that the producers paid money to reserve a website for a movie called "Expelled" TWO MONTHS BEFORE they did any interviews, and they NEVER reserved a website for a movie called "Crossroads"/
So why did they do this? The reason is obvious. People like Richard Dawkins have been taken advantage of by creationists before. They do not grant interviews to creationists. They would not have gotten an interview with most of these people unless they lied. Why they lied about their motivations for doing so is because they knew they had done something dishonest.
(2) The movie claims that people have had their career destroyed by questioning modern evolutionary theory ... which they dishonestly refer to as Darwinism. Darwin presented his theory in 1859, 149 years ago. More papers are published in scientific journals that relate to modern evolutionary theory than any other area of science. One might be expected to realize that modern evolutionary theory has progressed with all that effort beyond that theory that Darwin produced.
But that is a minor nitpick. The real question is did these people get their careers ruined for honestly questioning modern evolutionary theory. NO!!
Richard von Sternberg had a stent as executive editor of a small journal THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON (PBSW). He published an article by Stephen Meyer that questioned modern evolutionary theory. Claims have been made that because he did that he lost his editorship of the journal, and lost his job at the Smithsonian.
There are a bunch of lies here. But first let's look at the publishing of the paper. When papers are submitted to a scientific journal the normal procedure is for the executive editor to determine if the paper is relevant to that particular journal and which section chief he should turn the paper over to. The section chief then sends the paper out to some people in the particular field to judge the merits of the paper. Once the reviews come back the section chief determines if the paper is fit to print.
(A) Sternberg bypassed the normal procedure. Instead he took it solely upon himself to determine whether or not the paper was worthy. He did this claiming that HE was the most qualified to determine the worthiness of the paper. However, much of the Meyer paper discusses the Cambrian Explosion and there were 3 section chiefs who are acknowledged experts on the Cambrian (Sternberg is not).
(B) Furthermore, PBSW is a taxonomic journal. It normally publishes manuscripts that describe species and how to distinguish them from other species. Meyer's paper did none of that. So the paper was not even pertinent to the journal in the first place.
(C) Meyer's paper consisted fo long discredited creationist arguments, much of which he had published elsewhere (Normally journals do not publish things that have been published before).
(D) Sternberg did not lose his editorship because of the paper. He was serving a preset term as editor. Sternberg snuck Meyer's article into the LAST edition that was published in his term.
(E) Sternberg did not even HAVE an official position at the Smithsonian. He did have an office there, but his position was with the National Institute of Health. He received no pay from the Smithsonian.
(F) He did have to move his office, but not out of the Smithsonian. This was done due to renovations and was scheduled well in advance of the Meyer article.
(G) Sternberg did have keys to Smithsonian so he come in after hours, he did not lose these. He did get counciled on poor handling of important specimens. He took them out of their catalogued area without signing them out and was remiss on returning them. But he was never asked to return his keys.
So why all the whining? Well, people were pissed off at Sternberg for dishonestly having an ID paper published in their journal (PBSW is a journal sponsored by the Smithsonian). His colleagues were very cool toward him after the event and they did write emails about him in which they expressed less than enthusiastic liking for him.
DUH!! If you are going to act like an asshole, don't expect to be liked.
(3) Guillermo Gonzalez was an astronomer at Iowa State University. He published an ID book and a film entitled PRIVELEDGED PLANET. After this he was denied tenure. His claim was that the tenure denial was solely due to his support of ID. Bullshit!
Tenure is not something that one gets just because they are there. It is something that is denied to many, it is not easy to get. Besides being an ID supporter, during his stent at Iowa State Gonzalez had let his publication record slide. He did not supervise many graduate students. And the ones that he did supervise did not graduate. Gonzalez simply did not have the qualifications that were necessary to obtain tenure.
Sorry, I don't have time at the moment to document a lot LONGER STREAM of basic dishonesty on the part of the makers of EXPELLED. I will try to add some things later tonight.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
These two individuals are not the focus of the film, but I will respond to their cases below
Dr. Sternberg's case:
Dr. Roy McDiarmid, the President of the BSW and a scientist at the Smithsonian, admitted that there was no wrongdoing regarding the peer-review process of Meyer’s paper:
"I have seen the review file and comments from 3 reviewers on the Meyer paper. All three with some differences among the comments recommended or suggested publication. I was surprised but concluded that there was not inappropriate behavior vs a vis [sic] the review process." (See Report, e-mail from Roy McDiarmid, “Re: Request for information,” January 28, 2005, 2:25 PM to Hans Sues, emphasis added.)
AND from the Congressional investigation Staff Report. . .
“Officials at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History created a hostile work environment intended to force Dr. Sternberg to resign his position as a Research Associate in violation of his free speech and civil rights.” As NMNH officials wrote in e-mails:
“I suppose we could call [Sternberg] on the phone and verbally ask him to do the right thing and resign?” (Dr. Jonathan Coddington)
“a face to face meeting or at least a ‘you are welcome to leave or resign’ call with this individual, is in order.” (Dr. Rafael Lemaitre)
“if [Sternberg] had any class he would either entirely desist or resign his appointment.” (Dr. Jonathan Coddington)
“In emails exchanged during August and September 2004, NMNH officials revealed their intent to use their government jobs to discriminate against scientists based on their outside activities regarding evolution.” As NMNH officials wrote in e-mails:
“Sternberg is a well-established figure in anti-evolution circles, and a simple Google search would have exposed these connections.” (Dr. Hans Sues)
“In a memo prepared on February 8, 2005, NMNH scientist Marilyn Schotte admitted that after publication of the Meyer paper, Dr. Coddington wanted to know ‘if Dr. Sternberg was religious.’ Dr. Schotte further admitted telling Coddington that Sternberg ‘was a Republican.’ Schotte even conceded that Coddington may have asked her whether Sternberg ‘was a fundamentalist’ and whether ‘he was a conservative.’” (Description of a memo in discussed in the Report)
“NMNH officials conspired with a special interest group on government time and using government emails to publicly smear Dr. Sternberg; the group was also enlisted to monitor Sternberg’s outside activities in order to find a way to dismiss him.” As one NMNH official wrote in an e-mail:
“From now on, I will keep an eye on Dr. (von) Sternberg, and I’d greatly appreciate it if you or other NCSE specialists could let me [know] about further activities by this gentleman in areas outside [sic] crustacean systematics.” (Dr. Hans Sues)
(For more details, see National Center for Science Education Asked to Spy for the Government According to Congressional Report.)
Dr. Guillermo's case:
Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) had many complaints against Gonzalez's academic record.
First, Scott claimed that while at ISU, Gonzalez’s “publication record tanked” while at ISU. But as I explained here, according to the Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System, Gonzalez has published 34 publications since 2001 (the year he joined ISU) and his normalized publication score is 2nd among all astronomers in his department. As Dr. Rob Crowther observed:
(Guillermo) peaks in 2003 but ends in 2006 just as high as he was when he started at ISU. Moreover, he outperformed all ISU astronomy faculty in normalized publications during that period. The one year that is obviously less happens to be the same year that he co-authored an astronomy textbook published by Cambridge University Press.
Not only that, but as explained here, Gonzalez led astronomers in his department in a normalized count of citations to his work in other scientific papers:
Gonzalez joined ISU in 2001, and for his publications since 2001 he has the highest normalized citation count of all astronomers in his department, including both tenured and untenured faculty! Moreover, despite the fact that he is much younger than many of the tenured faculty members in the department, he has the second highest lifetime normalized citation count among all astronomers in his department.
On the statement Gonzalez “didn't have very many graduate students, and those he had never completed their degrees.” First, this is a blatant falsehood, first promulgated by anti-ID groups in Iowa.
(Author's quote) “Again, that statement is completely false. The truth is that in 2001, soon before Gonzalez left the University of Washington (UW) [to] join the faculty at ISU, he served as the primary advisor to a UW doctoral student in astronomy, Chris Laws. Gonzalez served as Laws’ primary scientific advisor over the course of Laws’ entire doctoral thesis, and Laws successfully graduated from UW with a Ph.D. in astronomy in December, 2004. Gonzalez also served on the committee of another Ph.D. student at UW, Rory Barnes, and this student also successfully graduated in 2004. You may want to also correct this false information as well and issue a retraction immediately.”
(Author's quote) "Dr. Gonzalez has over 350% more peer-reviewed science articles than what his department ordinarily requires for indicating the type of reputation that demonstrates research excellence."
The above data comes from citations in:
"Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on Expelled Exposes Intolerance of Darwinists towards Pro-Intelligent Design Scientists"
By: Casey Luskin
Evolution News & Views
April 18, 2008
I read some of the stuff you said regarding the sleight of hand played by Stein & Mathis. I struggle with utilitarian ethics in my own life & the pretense of the film appears distasteful if the allegations are true, but is the film an exposure of willful dishonesty on the part of secular academia or not? Were Dawkins & the others goaded into saying things that they did not believe? Have they issued retractions to their statements or are they merely angry over the premise? Would they have been honest otherwise?
If your allegations about Ben Stien are true, you would seem to have the moral high ground, but the tone of your message seems to indicate you care nothing about it. You almost present truth by analogy, as you insist that there is no fear and hostility towards whose who question evolution, yet you seemed unable to respond to my post without using several expletives. It almost gives away your case.
Sorry, I have not had time to document the rest of the sleeze that this film portrays. Since there had been no responses I assumed people were not interested so I had put its priority on a back burner.
Since you respond I will push it up.
It would be nice to embed links to your sources. But never mind,
Here is a statement from the journal itself.
So there WAS editorial misconduct.
This Congressional Investigation report was headed by Rick Santorum and Mark Souder, both of whom were Intelligent Design advocates. The conclusions that the report comes to are simply not supported by the facts in the report. LINK to a blog that extensively documents the actual findings of the report.
This is a classical example of bullshit. Yes, the people were pissed off at Sternberg. He dishonestly administered his duty as editor of the journal. That type of activity is not going to ingratiate him to anybody (except people like Souder and Santorum who have the same political axe to grind that Sternberg did). So they wrote e-mails. Big deal. Here is what they didn't do:
(1) They didn't remove Sternberg from his editorship because of it ... his term was already over.
(2) They didn't take away his office.
(3) They didn't take away his position.
(4) They didn't take away his access to scientific material.
All they did was shun him because they thought he was an asshole. AND HE WAS an asshole.
HERE Dr. Coddington, the unofficial supervisor of Sternberg (whom Sternberg liabelled) in a comment on the science blog PANDA'S THUMB, tells what happened to Sternberg:
Dr. Rob Crowther is another one of Discovery Institute's liars for Jesus. Let me put some emphasis there for you: "[Eugenie] Scott claimed that WHILE AT ISU Gonzalez's 'publicaltion record tanked'". And it did.
I would leave you a link to a Chroncle of Higher Education article but unfortunately it requires a subscription to access. Here is a quote from it though:
This is a blatant lie. Here is a graph of Gonzalez's publication record
Notice how his publications start dropping sharply after he goes to ISU in 2001. Normally when a person has a productive post-doctoral experience he has enough data for a few more publciations. Also people at his old place may put his name on publications on work primarily done by them but which some of his findings forms a part of the story. That is why this divides the papers up into those in which Gonzalez was first author and those in which he was a subsequent author.
Gonzalez had a good publication record ... but that was before he went to ISU. A university doesn't normally grant tenure for work that was done elsewhere. The fact that Gonzalez didn't attract ANY outside funding while he was there pretty much doomed him.
Er ... the claim was he didn't supervise any graduate students AT ISU. Again you don't get tenure at one institution for work done at another institution.
But not at ISU. And THAT is the problem. Do you see how these people are LYING.
Casey Luskin is another Discovery Institute liar for Jesus. Evolution News and Views is a blog by the Discovery Institute. I'm afraid it is Luskin who is being a bit "free" with the facts.
The context that the interviews are put in are dishonest. That is what they have problems with.
Let's get one thing straight here. Ben Stein accuses evolutionary scientists of being responsible for the Holocaust ... true, he says he doesn't but then when one looks at the movie that is exactly what he does. He also accuses scientists of a conspiracy to squash competing theories ... Science could not exist without competing theories (the only qualification is that the theories need to be based on EVIDENCE). Nothing I can possibly call an asshole like Stein is as bad as Stein calls evolutionary scientists.
So NO, I don't think it gives away my case. My case is the claim that Ben Stein and the producers of Expelled are lying assholes. Words have a meaning, even expletives. I MEAN those expletives. If I dismissed their arguments because I thought they were lying assholes then that would be an ad hominem attack, and it would be wrong. The REASON this is NOT an ad hominem attack is because I am doing my best to present the EVIDENCE that they are lying assholes.
About the only thing that ID proponents wont stoop to doing to promote their cause is actual science. Did you notice that nowhere in the film is there any evidence that actually supports ID?
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
This is a classical example of bullshit.
Best response I've seen all year.
“I hope the departure is joyful and I hope never to return.” - Frida Kahlo
I'm gonna betch slap the dumb outta you
Perhaps I am, but if so, I will. Quibble that is.
Gibbs free energy determines the equilibrium of chemical processes. Gibbs free energy is not a creative force. Are you saying that it is? Or are you saying that there have been so many iterations run that the complexity we have is just likely to have happened? Isn't "Emergence" just a way of saying "it happened somehow" ?
As far as my discourtesy towards bology, I recognize that there are intelligent biologists out there. I also understand that there is a heirarchical order within the sciences as far as "law" goes.
Your statement about the evolution of a single cell into a person is a part of the end result of what we are talking about it is not part of the process, though I understand it to be no less wonderful.
Natural selection is not in question by me as I do not question whether a phenotype within a species, selected for by the environment stands a better chance of living to breed. Rather I question how that individual's genotype acquired new beneficial data to give an advantage over that of its siblings. I know the rate of single point mutations to be about 1 per million & that frame shifts and other errors occur, it is more about the likelihood of these occurring to an individual's benefit that I question.
As far as Sternberg & Gonzales, they are really not the main events & to try to force them beck into their positions would be foolish regardless of the truth. I just have one more question regarding Gonzales. You present his publication record. I spent a little time cruising through the ISU Astronomy & physics web page & found some (Paul Canfield) who publish prolifically, while others who publish little.
You are doing your best to support your attack on these guys by conducting an ad hominem against those who support them. This is what, an ad hominem once removed?
Ben Stein accuses German academia of being willing participants, even benefitting from in the holocaust. Did you read "Military Science Under Dictatorship"? It was not just evolution. I think Hegel was referenced too. There are ethical implications posed by the theory of evolution. These are almost as old as the theory itself. We could also talk about why Martin Luther wasn't mentioned in the movie. The Church seems to be a hotbutton for you. But right now I am interested in determining whether you can present a case for why evolution should be taught as fact to children.
As far as why there was no direct refutation of evolution presented in the movie, I wondered at first, but who would get it? Have you noticed that two persons with the word "faculty" in their title posted & neither said anything of real substance? How much less would you expect of your average moviegoer?
There is only one group of people who would use the theory of evolution, or any other scientific theory as an excuse to do something like the Holocaust and that kind of person is scum. However, that particular brand of scum is no different from the scum who uses the excuse that god wanted him (or her) to do whatever the deed was. To point to science (or god) is disingenuous. The reason that a person does something like that is simple. They wanted to.
To say that the academia in Germany supported Nazism is, to a great extent, true, but whatever they choose to blame, be it Natural Selection or antisemitism in the bible, the only thing responsible in the end is the person. They stuck with it because, as you said, they benefited from it.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
Jsaj, I agree with your assertion that an individual is personally responsible for his or her actions regardless of the ideology held. "Expelled" draws a corollation between a belief in evolution and disregard for human life. I agree with this assertion and will elaborate below.
I have had many philosophical discussions with academic regarding the value of man. The bottom line of these has always been that if man is nothing more than the result of random excess energy in the system, an emergent property of matter, then his existence is pointless. Further, supported by this is the assertion that man is merely a bioconsumer. He does no real work in the biosphere. No organism belonging to kingdom animalia does anything of any real value as we are neither producers nor recyclers. Man may have the potential to benefit the system, but the big questions are.
1) How can this potential be realized?
2) Will his extermination be necessary before this realization can be achieved?
Ponderings of these questions have led to concepts like social darwinism, speciesism, and ethical relativity. An key question posed by Ben Stein is not whether the academic elite and the Nazis were doing the right thing by exterminating the old, mentally ill, and physically disabled, but whether they thought they were. If one holds the belief that we are nothing more than the sum total of ever complex molecular interaction, that morals are relative becase they are merely chemical (I am not saying you do!) and all of our emotions and beliefs about right and wrong are merely the result of something that now merely remains vestigally from when we existed in a more primitive environment, then how can we definitavely say that they were wrong if they were honestly attempting to solve question 1 above?
I hope you do not think this means that I do not think a materialist is incapable of being moral or that those who hold to creationism are, by definition, more moral. Creationism and specifically Christian idologies have been twisted by men in ways that have allowed them to rationalize atrocities of great magnitude as well.
The question posed by Christian scholars is simply, "If one holds to materialism, where does one attach his or her moral anchor?" In Christianity, though there is clearly corruption, we have something to measure it against.
I will also say that the question of morality for me is not a reason to believe what I do. The question of morality arises because I believe what I do.
Thanks,
"The bottom line of these has always been that if man is nothing more than the result of random excess energy in the system, an emergent property of matter, then his existence is pointless."
I've heard this before and I don't buy it. Anyone who sees no point in their life without being part of some eternal master plan is a sad individual. Just because my existence was not planned, just because I have no eternal soul, that does not mean that my life is pointless. I draw purpose from my friends and family, my goals and aspirations. For me, that is enough.
Here is the problem with the whole thing that the Nazi's did it because, after all, they were just random chemicals: Evolution doesn't say that. Evolution says that humans have evolved into the beings that we are, with our intellect and emotions and everything. While it is true that some individual humans are worth more to mankind than others (Albert Einstein, Copernicus, Aristotle), no group of people is inherently better than any other group. Evolution does not make that statement. People who want to excuse their discrimination say that. Just as people look to the bible to pardon their discrimination. Twisting the idea to fit your world view says nothing about the worth of the idea or the moral implications of it.
Before I answer your last question, I have a question for you. If one holds the belief that life continues after death, in what way does that not devalue the actual life? If one believes that this life is the only life, then the value of that life is increased.
The basic concept of morality is easily explained by evolutionary theory. Animals that live in packs or societal structures of whatever kind would benefit immensely from the basic morality that is don't hurt your fellows and try to help them. As we became more evolved, our moral structure became more complex and it is easy to see that, just as our morality influences our society, society influences morality. Much of our more complex moral beliefs have no value, biologically speaking, but came into existence as the result of social movements.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
I take it you are responding to me. When you do it this way the context is lost. You seem to be responding to two replies I have done, it would help if you blockquote the sections of my post that you are responding to.
Gibbs free energy determines the equilibrium of chemical processes. Gibbs free energy is not a creative force. Are you saying that it is? Or are you saying that there have been so many iterations run that the complexity we have is just likely to have happened? Isn't "Emergence" just a way of saying "it happened somehow" ?
(1) Gibbs free energy is a measurement. Of course, it is not a "creative force". Nobody said otherwise. YOU, however, said that modern evolutionary theory violates the 2LoT. To do that would require that useable energy (H) to exceed Gibbs free energy (G). Nothing in modern evolutionary theory does that.
(2) As to complexity, there is nothing there that violates the 2LoT either. Complexity in modern evolutionary theory arose becauses it gave an organism some type of reproductive advantage that it would not have otherwise.
(3) Emergent properties are properties that become obvious only at some higher level of organization. They arise from the way things work at lower levels of organization. For instance, societies emerge from the properties of people which emerges from the properties of organ systems which emerges from the properties of organs which emerges from the properties of tissues, which emerges from the properties of cells which emerges from the properties of organelles which emerges from the properties of molecules which emerges from the properties of atoms which emerges from the properties of quarks and leptons which (possibly) emerge from the properties of superstrings.
I'm not totally sure what this is in regard to. But, people seem to think there is something magical about the word "law". They seem to think that a law is something that is of necessity more valid than a theory. That is not necessarily the case. "Law" and "theory" are both man-made concepts that describe natural phenomena. Either could be wrong. An example of we talk about the "Law of Gravity" we also talk about Einstein's "General Theory of Relativity". But the General Theory of Relativity encompasses everything we know about gravity.
Excuse me ... you did say that the modern evolutionary theory violates the 2LoT. The reason creationists claim that modern evolutionary theory violates that law is because it leads to increased complexity and apparent organization. Well SO DOES DEVELOPMENT. So if modern evolutionary theory violates 2LoT then so does development. If you are going to say that modern evolutionary theory cannot explain the diversity of life because it violates 2LoT then if you are going to be consistent you have to say that we could not possibly have developed from a fertilzed egg either. But you have a problem ... IT IS QUITE OBVIOUS WE DID DEVELOP FROM A FERTILIZED EGG. That should give you a clue that something is wrong with your 2LoT argument.
Here is an experiment that you can run:
(1) Plate some bacteria on an agar plate. It doesn't matter what bacteria you use. Once you get a plaque formed you have a colony of bacteria that are clones of a single bacterium. That means that they all originated from a single bacterium and thus from a single strand of DNA.
(2) Next take an antibiotic, it doesn't matter which antibiotic. Make up some more agar plates with a variety of concentrations of the antibiotic in the agar.
(3) Then plate some bacteria from your original plaque on those plates. From this calculate the LD50. That is the concentration of antibiotic that is required to kill 50% of the bacteria.
(4) Next make up more agar plates with an LD50 doseage of agar. Plate some of the original bacteria on that plate.
(5) Then from the surviving colony plate some more bacteria on another plate of with an LD50 doseage of antibiotic. And repeat for several generations (you pick the number). Recalculated LD50.
You will find that it has changed. It will take significantly more antibiotic to kill the bacteria. If you keep doing the experiment you will eventually come up with a colony of bacteria that are unaffected by the antibiotic.
Now where did the that "new information" come from? It came from mutations. The problem that your scenario above doesn't address is the number of possible alternatives that existed for improvements.
Er ... there is no question there. If what you are saying is that Gonzalez should have been granted tenure because there are others that have tenure who aren't publishing very much, then that is like saying that the New York Yankees should offer all mediocre baseball players big bucks because some of their big buck players aren't that good either.
What you need to do is look at people in astronomy who have RECENTLY been granted tenure, and compare their publication record to that of Gonzalez at ISU.
What I am DOING is calling the people involved in EXPELLED on the ID side lying scumbags. I am also presenting the evidence that it is so. An ad hominem attack is a bit different. I am not saying that their argument is not valid because they are lying scumbags. That WOULD BE ad hominem. I am saying that their argument is not valid because of the evidence. I am also saying that the evidence says that they are lying scumbags.
(1) the reason for the holocaust is because of racism. Racism will use anything it can to justify its cause. Modern evolutionary theory no more supports racism than does mathematics. Hitler used evolution very little as a justification for his persecution of the Jews. In fact, he used it much less than he used religion.
(2) The reason that EXPELLED didn't mention Martin Luther is because it woud have destroyed their contention that Darwin was responsible. That is obvious.
(3) You still have an invalid dichotomy concerning "fact" and "theory". They are not opposites. Facts are data. Theories explain data.
(4) One piece of well established data is that of common ancestry. It is established beyond reasonable doubt that species did share common ancestry. That is often called "a fact of evolution". While the most important mechanism, "Natural selection", is often called the theory of evolution.
(5) I have several blogs here that discuss the evidence for modern evolutionary theory contrasting it with ID. So yes, I can present the case for teaching ONLY modern evolutionary theory. I need to go to work soon so I don't have time to get you the links, but you can click on my name and go to my blog to read them if you want.
I would expect the average movie-goer to be able to understand if the case was presented in an understandable way. But that is not what the makers of EXPELLED were after.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Dear Darwin's Beagle, I apologize for causing you to lose context by my last post. I also apologize for the amount of time it has taken me to respond. Thank you for your patience.
You said
There is a difference between individual development and the theory of evolution. A fertilized egg comes as a complete package designed for development, unless there is an error. A fertilized egg follows data that is prepackaged within it. The question we are discussing is what makes it go, isn't it? Gibbs free energy doesn't seem to explain this development all by itself, just as having gasoline doesn't guarantee that a car will move. Everything is not progressing towards increased complexity. living cells progress, dead cells do not.
The Holocaust did not start out as racist. It started out being executed against Germans. It was utilitarian. I think you are wrong about the ease with which evolutionary theory might lend itself to racism, especially if you are a materialist. Especially if you believe you are nothing more than the sum total of your chemical reactions. Where is the wrong in exterminating humans less advantaged if the purpose of a man is nothing more than to thrive in his environment?
As for your LD50 example, OK. Data interpolated is reliable. Data extrapolated tends to get more unreliable the further away you go from it. What I am saying is that MRSA is still SA. This is why evolution is a theory, not a fact.
You also said that “Theories explain data.” This seems to be an oversimplification of a theory. As I understand it, data is required for a theory, but a theory is still an extrapolation of that data. It is a predictive model that awaits verification.
Of course there is a difference between individual development and modern evolutionary theory. Nobody said otherwise. However, WITH RESPECT TO THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS, there isn't. If the 2LoT is a problem with respect to the modern evolutionary theory then it is also an equal problem with respect to individual development and for the exact same reason. If it is NOT a problem for individual development (and it obviously isn't) then it is not a problem for modern evolutionary theory and for the exact same reason.
Before I go on I am going to quibble with your terminology since it is bound to lead to misunderstanding unless we set the ground rules at the start. You said " A fertilized egg comes as a complete package designed for development,..." [emphasis added]. You need to be careful when you use the word "design" since this discussion concerns intelligent DESIGN creationism. ID proponents like to claim that design implies a designer and that the designer must be an intelligent agency. However, I personally like to think that if you are going to call something "INTELLIGENT design" then unless you are going to be redundant you are distinguishing it from something else "UNINTELLIGENT design" or even better "NONINTELLIGENT design".
Is there any nonintelligent process that is capable of design? The answer is a resounding "YES". Algorithmic processes based on trial and error are capable of design without intelligence. This has been amply demonstrated by computer programs that do the designing. Natural selection is a similar algorithmic process. So long as you understand that "design" includes these nonintelligent processes I am willing to agree to the use of the term. Otherwise, I do not agree that any natural process was designed at all.
Now with that quibble out of the way, what you are actually claiming modern evolutionary theory violates is NOT the 2LoT, but William Dembski's Law of conservation of information. What you are saying is that the information for making complex things could not have arisen naturally. Again that is bullshit.
Dembski uses the No Free Lunch theorems of David Wolpert and William McCready. Here is a critique of Dembski's remarks by David Wolpert, cofounder of the principles.
From my own personal point of view Dembski has a big problems. First, information (at least 'information" as the term is commonly used) is not conserved. Novel information is acquired all the time. That is the reason that we have new editions to textbooks. I think it is poor form to call your theory the "Law of the conservation of information" if the thing you are talking about isn't even conserved in the first place. Second, and more omniously ... Dembski does not ever give a useful definition of exactly what information he is talking about. Third, Dembski denies the possibility of selection generating biological information which is what biologists have ALWAYS claimed is the mechanism behind it.
I may be offtrack here, but you also give hints that you are claiming that modern evolutionary theory fails to explain the origin of life. If so, you are right. Of course, modern evolutionary theory doesn't DEAL WITH the origin of life. Suppose that we were to find out tomorrow that God existed and he set life in motion. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN MODERN EVOLUTIONARY THEORY WOULD HAVE TO BE CHANGED BY THAT FINDING.
There are hypotheses concerning naturalistic origins of life, that area is commonly referred to as "ORIGIN OF LIFE" research. Another name for it is ABIOGENESIS. The evidence that we actually have favors it very much. For instance abiotic pathways have been found for the basic building blocks of life such as amino acids, nucleic acids, lipids and carbohydrates. Furthermore, the particular amino acids and nucleic acids that are most easily made abiotically are the ones most often used in actual living organisms. Also complex hypercycles which mimic aspects of metabolism can be set up easily abiotically. Then coming from the other side, microfossils show that life did start a VERY LONG time ago and it consisted solely of as simple life forms as we presently recognize as being living. These are all things that are REQUIRED for a naturalistic origin of life but seems unneeded if life began due to an intelligent being with a specific purpose in mind.
This is one of the reasons I do not think religion is a good thing. It promotes reasoning like this. This is simply more bullshit. First of all, one of Hiter's first atrocities, Crystalnacht, was targeted against the Jews. Second, racists will use ANYTHING to justify their actions. Here are a few Hitlerian quotes in which he uses religion to do it:
"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"
“I may not be a light of the church, a pulpiteer, but deep down I am a pious man, and believe that whoever fights bravely in defense of the natural laws framed by God and never capitulates will never be deserted by the Lawgiver, but will, in the end, receive the blessings of Providence.”
“We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.”
“The anti-Semitism of the new [Christian Social] movement was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge.”
“What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe.”
“Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.”
“It would be more in keeping with the intention of the noblest man in this world if our two Christian churches, instead of annoying Negroes with missions which they neither desire nor understand, would kindly, but in all seriousness, teach our European humanity that where parents are not healthy it is a deed pleasing to God to take pity on a poor little healthy orphan child and give him father and mother, than themselves to give birth to a sick child who will only bring unhappiness and suffering on himself and the rest of the world.”
These and numerous other Hitler quotes on religion can be found here.
But, let's for the sake of argument suppose that your historical assertions are true. Let's suppose that Hitler used Darwinian evolutionary ideas SOLELY to create the holocaust. Would that mean that modern evolutionary theory is wrong? Atomic theory was used solely to create the Atomic bomb, which may have the potential to destroy us all. But no one is claiming that atomich theory is wrong because of it.
Would it even mean that modern evolutionary theory is a bad thing? Go open a textbook on modern evolutionary theory (I personally think Douglas Futuyma's is the best, but you can use any one that is presently used in a major college course on evolutiona), point me out a place where anything in there can reasonably used to justify the holocaust. You won't find anything. The reason you wont find anything is because such sentiments are NOT part of modern evolutionary theory. I argue they never were or even less than such sentiments can be found in religions ... you argue that they were. But AT BEST, your argument is about something that no longer is.
As for "materialism" and morality, I have expressed my views in several of my blogs which for some reason I am unable to get to at the moment to leave you links. But you can find when whatever bug it is that is presently affecting either my computer or Prog U disappears. They include the following titles:
Finding Meaning and Purpose in Life (here)
Hope and Meaning: An Atheist's Perspective (here
Atheism and Morality: Introduction (a href="http://www.progressiveu.org/141649-atheism-and-morality-introduction">here)
Atheism and Morality: WGATAP Basics (here
Atheism and Morality: The Euthyphro Dialogues (here)
Atheism and Morality: "If not from God then where?"(here)
[OK, I finally was able to access the posts and leave you a link]
To summarize for you, even if we are "nothing more than the sum total of [our] chemical reactions", we still think, feel, and love. The reason why it is "wrong in exterminating humans less advantaged ..." is because to make that a rule of our society would be to create a society in which we would not be advantaged. We would have a ruthless unforgiving society and nobody would do well there.
Now, that's not too hard to understand. And since we are social beings that have EVOLVED within societies it is EVOLUTION that has given us these feelings. But you seem to think that it is requires a loving God to give us this capability ... and you even think it despite having read this morally atrocious book that is supposed to be his word to us. But you DON'T use it as a basis for you morality. Otherwise you would be out stoning homosexuals.
First, in the example I gave you could use ANY bacterium you want, not just Staph aureus. You could also use any antibiotic you want, not just Methacillin.
Second, nobody is using this piece of data to claim that it shows speciation. What it shows is that NOVEL features can arise de novo through naturalistic evolutionary means.
IF you want evidence for speciation that comes from TONS AND TONS of other data. I have documented some of it on my blogs. Go here and tell me why this isn't GREAT evidence that HUMANS descended from ape-like ancestors. Go here to see why vestigial structures REALLY do give us great evidence that speciation has occurred. Go here and read some more evidence for macroevolution. And this doesn't even touch the surface.
Finally, you continue to misconstrue the distinction between fact and theory in science.
What do you think "extrapolation of that data" is? It is an explanation of that data. It is how that data fits into the real world.
Theories in science ARE well verified. Other examples of scientific "theories" include:
The GERM theory of disease
The ATOMIC theory (ordinary matter is made out of atoms)
The HELIOCENTRIC theory of the solar system
The CELL theory (life as we know it is composed of cells)
The GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY (the branch of physics that incorporates gravity)
QUANTUM MECHANICS
PLATE TECTONICS
etc.
All of these theories have been well verified (or at least the core components have been). The same goes for modern evolutionary theory. The only distinctionis that there have been more papers published that verify and support the core precepts of modern evolutionary theory than ALL the others combined.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France