The BGB

Post: #1 (ID: 111859)

I'm not big on theatre documentaries, but I saw an ad for this flick and enjoy Ben Stein, so I figured, "Why not?"

I just got back from seeing it and must say it was quite eye opening -- for those who have open minds. Some great truths concerning our -- the US's education system and the "scientific community." There were also a few laughs to keep it from being too intense/serious.

Example: After poo pooing Intelligent Design do to lack of proof, one of the key scientists of evolution (his name escapes me) was ask what proof he had of life coming from the primordial goop, how it occurred and answered no one knows. Then he positted a theory that it could have been Intelligent Design as in aliens who formed life on earth. When asked where these aliens came from he said evolution, of course. Laugh Out Loud

Anyway, I recommend it.

Post: #2 (ID: 111860)

[Ed note: The documentary Expelled, starring Ben Stein, premiers today. It purports to show that views on the origins of life and species that dissent from orthodox evolutionary theory have been systematically, well, expelled from the academy. Sahotra Sarkar, Professor of Philosophy and Integrative Biology at the University of Texas, finds the film unpersuasive. His piece is presented as a counterpoint to Discovery Institute Fellow David Klinghoffer's interpretation of the lessons of Expelled, available through the link at right.]

If you can’t argue for your position on intellectual grounds, try politics. If you can’t succeed with legitimate political argument, resort to ad hominem attacks. That’s what the Intelligent Design (ID) movement has been reduced to, especially in Expelled. ID creationists have produced no credible argument against the theory of evolution, let alone positive evidence for design, a point to which I’ll return. Politically their fortunes have been devastated ever since the 2005 Dover, Pennsylvania court decision in which a George W. Bush-appointed Church-going judge found ID to be religious dogma that cannot legally be introduced in public school science classes. So now we are presented with a new line of attack: because natural selection was invoked by the Nazis in support of genocide, the theory of evolution must be false. To this, David Klinghoffer adds a new twist: if you believe in the theory of evolution, you are an anti-Semite.

We Have Moral Faculties *Because* We Evolved Them
That evolutionary theory, especially natural selection, has been abused by various groups for nefarious political ends is old and well-worn history. In the United States it inspired Social Darwinism in the late nineteenth century which was used to justify the greed of the robber barons and the appalling conditions in which the poor were forced to live. In many regions of the world it was used to promote eugenics, including the involuntary sterilization of the “unfit.” In the United States, such sterilization continued until 1981. And, yes, natural selection was invoked by the Nazis.

What this history tells us is that science does not occur in a socio-political vacuum. The results of science may be abused, just as they may be used to benefit society. Biology is particularly prone to such use and abuse because its domain includes humans. Scientists should recognize their moral responsibility to guard against the misuse of their work. By and large, biologists have acted responsibly in this respect. In the 1930s, the great British evolutionary biologist, J.B.S. Haldane exposed the fallacies of eugenics and anti-Semitism in his brilliantly argued Heredity and Politics. In the 1980s, Not in Our Genes, by Dick Lewontin, Steve Rose, and Leon Kamin, played the same role after illegitimate political claims began to be reintroduced in the name of behavioral genetics and sociobiology. When the Human Genome Project was initiated in the early 1990s, biologists took care to ensure that adequate resources were deployed to address its ethical, legal, and social implications.

Returning to the theory of evolution, there is no “inner logic” of natural selection that leads to any moral or political implication. It is value-neutral. We have evolved a mind and, with it, culture as well as moral capacities and what we think of as free will. Some biologists think that this was all due to natural selection. Others suspect that a variety of natural mechanisms were involved in mental evolution. This is one of the exciting unresolved issues in evolutionary biology, and the subject of ongoing research. Biology may constrain our physical and mental capacities but, in normal individuals (those whom the courts would consider as “legally competent”), biology has never been shown to determine moral choices. We are responsible for our actions. For instance, if we choose to use our religious or political dogmas to harm science education for children, we must bear the moral responsibility that entails.

Note, moreover, there was antisemitism before Darwin and it persists today in many religious fundamentalist circles which are entirely hostile to the idea of evolution. The theory of evolution is thus obviously not the source of antisemitism. Given the long history of Christian antisemitism, is particularly odd that apologists for Christianity, as most ID creationists are, should try to use disgust with antisemitism for their own rhetorical and political purposes. Note, also, that what inspired Hitler in Mein Kampf as much as biology was the example of the United States. By Klinghoffer’s logic, we should also reject much of our own heritage simply because it inspired Hitler.

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and available from a wide variety of sources including the National Center for Science Education. ID creationism has presented no viable alternative. Its main argument has been that complex life forms could not have evolved. In response, biologists such as Jerry Coyne, Richard Lenski, Ken Miller, H. Allen Orr, and many others have routinely pointed out the variety of mundane mechanisms by which complex systems can emerge through natural selection. I have recently summarized these arguments in Doubting Darwin? Creationist Designs on Evolution. In fact, what has surprised most of us is how rapidly complexity can evolve: For instance, it took less than seventy years for bacteria to evolve resistance to some pesticides even though it required concerted changes in several different enzymes.

Worse, ID creationists have never laid out what their theory is supposed to be, besides vague mystical invocations of “design.” We have never been given an exact definition of design, or the laws it is supposed to obey. These creationists have not even been able to generate a research program. This is one of the reasons why the Templeton Foundation stopped funding the Discovery Institute.

Let us return one last time to the logic of Expelled (and Klinghoffer). Let us suppose for the sake of argument that the theory of evolution really led to some undesirable political consequence, which, as we have seen, is simply not true. From this assumption, it is supposed to follow that evolutionary theory is false and we should replace it with ID. Let us see where this takes us. From the usual rules of chemistry many nations, including the United States, have designed chemical weapons. From this, should we conclude that chemistry is false and we should replace it with Intelligent Alchemy? From the principles of molecular genetics, many of these same nations have designed biological weapons. Should we declare molecular genetics false and replace it with Intelligent Pangenesis? From quantum mechanics came the nuclear bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Therefore, quantum mechanics is false and should be replaced by Intelligent Ether Theory?

Sahotra Sarkar is a Professor of Philosophy and Integrative Biology at the University of Texas, Austin

Post: #3 (ID: 111861)

And here's a piece from Richard Dawkins-- the biologist whose name you said you couldn't remember.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2488,Open-Letter-to-a-victim-of-Ben-Steins-lying-» propaganda,Richard-Dawkins

Post: #4 (ID: 111866)

Thank you, Rav, for the long close minded article in response to my post.

Obviously, the author of that article didn't see the documentary or, if he did, he didn't listen. All EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed did was take what...well, Ben Stein saw as a growing problem in the "scientific community" and openly look at it from both sides -- Scientists willing look look at both theories/Scientists who aren't willing to look at both theories -- and leave it for the audience to decide.

So it was an interesting, though long, article, but sadly close minded and therefore useless tripe.

Oh, I did enjoy the nice touch: ID Creationists cannot give evidence against evolution. Everyone knows you can't prove a negative. So, therefore, this statement: Evolutionists cannot give evidence against Intellegent Design; is just as valid.

Evolution. There has never been a denial that it exists, in that animals, plants, etc., evolve as their surroundings change. Whether you believe in Intelligent Design or evolution, the evidence is unquestionable. In fact, that has never been the issue, except for fanatic evolutionists who say if you don't believe in creation via evolution than you don't believe in any of it. Close minded.

Creation. Here we enter a subject where Intelligent Design and evolution rely on one thing: Faith. Those who believe in Intelligent Design -- a god who created the world et al -- do so via writings as in the Bible, the Koran, etc. Evolutionists believe in...well, unintelligent design -- the primordial goop -- via writings as in Darwin. In both cases, there is zero evidence either can point to as proof either theory is the correct one. So it all falls back to what one chooses to believe and their faith in that choice. *Gasp* Sounds like they're the same, doesn't it.

Post: #5 (ID: 111867)

Addedum...

I will read the other article, Rav, when I get the time.

Post: #6 (ID: 111868)

Well, I read Richard Dawkins open letter to the "Jew" who wrote a mean letter to poor Michael Shimmer after seeing the documentary.

Funny, Ben Stein never said Darwin was to blame for Hitler. First, he went to the building where the retarded, mentally ill and crippled were tortured and killed, talking to the curator about what happened. Then he went to Auschwitz to talk to a scholar about what possible influence Darwin may have had on Hitler. Surely there was some influence was the decision. That and nothing more.

Funny, too, how after casting spurious accusations at "Ben Stein and his lying crew," Dawkins himself goes on, to do exactly what he accused Ben Stein of doing. He tries to lay all the fault on, of all things, Christians. Quite laughable, really. Did Hitler use Christianity to sway the people of Germany? Of course he did. Hitler was a power hungry madman who used any tool he could to gain power and keep power, and Christianity was just such a tool. That and nothing more.

Anyway, thanks for another close minded article...uh, letter in answer to my post. As for it, since Richard Dawkins credibility went out the window by his own words in this documentary, which explains his frantic attempt to discount it and Ben Stein, it's pointless, really.

Post: #7 (ID: 111869)

The fact of the matter is that the Theory of Evolution has been challenged and tested for 150 years by the scientific community. It has withstood rigorous scientific scrutiny. We have actual technology developed from the application of this theory.

Creationists do nothing more than argue that since they themselves can't understand how it works, it must be false.

The burden of proof lies on the one making the assertion. Creationists assert that Evolution is false. Therefore, they must prove it to be so.

Ben Stein has said in numerous interviews and on numerous occasions that Darwin, and Science lead people to kill. A fatuous and idiotic statement to say the least.

And Dawkins is right-- More have been killed in the name of religion than in the name of Science or Atheism.

If you'd like me to go into grim detail, I shall. But as you seem to think it all pointless, anyway....

Post: #8 (ID: 111870)

Post: #9 (ID: 111871)

Post: #10 (ID: 111895)

Wow! What's with all the colorizing and screaming, Rav?

I'm going to have to edit through this to reply...

Post: #11 (ID: 111896)

OKay. Let's give this another try:

First point-- We did not "ascend" from apes. We are apes. Man and Ape descend from a common ancestor which lived about three million years ago.

Second point-- The Third Reich was not an atheist construct:

For this, to be sure, from the child's primer down to the last newspaper, every theater and every movie house, every advertising pillar and every billboard, must be pressed into the service of this one great mission, until the timorous prayer of our present parlor patriots: 'Lord, make us free!' is transformed in the brain of the smallest boy into the burning plea: 'Almighty God, bless our arms when the time comes; be just as thou hast always been; judge now whether we be deserving of freedom; Lord, bless our battle!"

- Adolf Hitler's prayer, Mein Kampf, Vol. 2 Chapter 13

Hitler delivers a speech in which he promises to restore "family...honor and loyalty, Volk and Vaterland, culture and economy" and recover "the eternal foundation of our morality and our faith." Hitler further declares a "merciless war against spiritual, political, and cultural nihilism."

- Adolf Hitler, speech, Feburary 1, 1933

We were convinced that the people need and require 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.

- Adolf Hitler, Speech in Berlin, October 24, 1933

"In Freethinkers Hall, which before the Nazi resurgence was the national headquarters of the German Freethinkers League, the Berlin Protestant church authorities have opened a bureau for advice to the public in church matters. Its chief object is to win back former churchgoers and assist those who have not previously belonged to any religious congregation in obtaining church membership. The German Freethinkers League, which was swept away by the national revolution, was the largest of such organizations in Germany. It had about 500,000 members..."

- The New York Times, May 14, 1933, page 2, on Hitler's outlawing atheistic and freethinking groups in the Spring of 1933, after the Enabling Act authorizing Hitler to rule by decree

"A campaign against the 'godless movement' and an appeal for Catholic support were launched by Chancellor Adolf Hitler's forces."

- Associated Press story, February 23, 1933

Third point-- Biogenesis is not Evolution. It is a field that is currently doing research, but again; We will get nowhere by simply "taking on faith" that Goddidit. The field of biogenesis does not yet have a standard theory, but many hypotheses that are being examined and tested. Creationism has no hypotheses that can be examined or tested: it's all a matter of faith.

Fourth point-- Yes. To my shame, I must quote Wikipedia, cos I am not up on computer technology. I am, however, perfectly willing to discuss the biotechnology that is yielded from the theory of evolution.

Fifth point-- It is a fatuous mendacity to claim that creationism has criteria by which it may be disconfirmed. And you evade the question.

Sixth point-- To claim that every scientific discovery made since time began is due to the application of creationism is a bald-faced lie.

The problem with creationism is that is is somethning that is taken on faith. Without evidence, and without critical analysis. This means, whether true or not, it is not science, and should not be taught in science classrooms as if it were a valid theory.

Post: #12 (ID: 111897)

There is a reason reason that religion is also referred to as faith........ Neutral

Post: #13 (ID: 111898)

Right. That's it. I want a fundie to explain to me what they think evolution actually is. I want them to explain in detail what the hell they think is wrong with it. I am tired of this vague, Second Law of Thermodynamics bullshit. You've thought it through and see fit to dismiss it? Fine; explain to me why you dismiss 150 years of research by some of the top minds that humans have bred.

Post: #14 (ID: 111906)

I assume you're talking to TR....... huh

Post: #15 (ID: 111911)

To anyone, really. I'm an equal opportunity irritant. Very Happy

Post: #16 (ID: 111924)

You won't get any argument from me Rav.. I've had a discussion very similar to this with TR elsewhere..

Just the sheer number of species and the almost infinite diversity between them is enough to rule out creationism and rule in evolution.

Post: #17 (ID: 111925)

Post: #18 (ID: 111926)

What you are saying, in effect, is that the claims from all branches of biology and related science that they have contributed to a vast stream of convergent evidence verifying the essential precepts of evolution are in great measure delusional. You seem to think that biology, as a constellation of disciplines, is some kind of socially-constructed freemasonry in which assent to basic Darwinian principles constitutes a ritual formula necessary to make one part of the brotherhood rather than a cognitively-justified inference from hard evidence. More, you seem to think that evolutionary thought is mere ideological window-dressing, contributing nothing to the "hard science" behind molecular biology and the like.

How gloriously ignorant!

Post: #19 (ID: 111952)

Intelligent design? That a Creator of some form 'designed' all life? It can't be taught in any other than a religious school simply because there is no evidence for it. How can one teach something without some type of evidence? And what should the teacher of 'Intelligent Design' teach? That the world came into being because Eurynome danced on a sea which she had separated out of Chaos? Or that Night mated with the Wind and laid a cosmic egg? What those who propose to teach 'Intelligent Design' mean is teaching the Judeo-Christian doctrine of creation, which is based on faith, rather than actual information.

Post: #20 (ID: 111957)