Science...Expelled

[Kenny]

I thought it did show that eugenics as a practice could be appealed to using the theory.

People can appeal to just about anything to support just about anything. That doesn’t really show that there is any genuine, inherent connection between the two.

Additionally, I think that Stein make a good argument that the Germans of that day lacked the kind of a religion that would have positively effected a better moral behavior and so in that vacuum 'took the theory to heart'--used it for that purpose.

That’s true. And I only saw the film once (with my wife, for entertainment – I didn’t sit there and take notes or anything), so I may have missed some subtleties here. But I thought that at best the film lost its focus in this section (it was a film about intelligent design and academic freedom, not a film about the effects or lack thereof of eliminating religion). And I didn’t think that it emphasized enough the distinction between the question of whether some people have appealed to a theory to justify certain beliefs and actions and the question of whether or not the theory itself really does lend support to such beliefs and actions.

As I recall, that section of the film was trying to use history as a learning tool to appraise how socities that did eliminate a religion that stressed a good moral code to live by, and instead embraced atheism, have behaved. Religion is dangerous and restricts freedom, he was being told. But these societies; they did no better. None.

Yeah, those sorts secularist myths about religion are good claims to blow out of the water. Nevertheless, I thought that the film itself lost its own focus by attempting to do so. That was a tangent, as far as the film’s own subject matter was concerned.

Didn't Dawkins think out loud with Stein about the possibility that a very very superior society very very long ago (E.T.s to us) could have planted the barest seed of life on earth--it evolved purely naturally (no God) from there ?

He admitted that it was possible, in principle, both that that happened and that we could have empirical evidence that it happened. I thought that was very interesting because there Dawkins basically conceded that the claims of intelligent design in biology can be, at least in principle, empirically verified, contrary to some of the rhetoric that one often hears from opponents of the intelligent design movement.

[shunyadragon]

What kind of scientist are you?

Geologist and soil scientist.

A review of the transcripts of the Dover trial is enough to get a reasonable understanding of how foolish the Ben Stein idiocy is.

[Kenny]

Geologist and soil scientist.

Reviewing the transcripts of the Dover trial is enough to get a reasonable understanding of how foolish this idiocy is.

Much of what I’ve seen that is critical of the intelligent design movement is either just highly politicized rhetoric with little substance or very bad philosophy of science.

[shunyadragon]

Much of what I’ve seen that is critical of the intelligent design movement is either just highly politicized rhetoric with little substance or very bad philosophy of science.

Those that testified at the Dover trail against the ID proposal represent among the best representatives of the science, philosophy and theology related to the subject. The proponents even failed to bring forward testimony from supposed key supporters, nor did they manage to provide any objective basis for any objective proposals as to how they would justify ID scientifically. There was nothing political?!?!? (this foolish claim would need some documentation) at all concerning the testimony given. Many like me were also theists. From the scientific perspective the testimony was right on.

[Kenny]

Those that testified at the Dover trail against the ID proposal represent among the best representatives of the science, philosophy and theology related to the subject. The proponents even failed to bring forward testimony from supposed key supporters, nor did they manage to provide any objective basis for any objective proposals as to how they would justify ID scientifically. There was nothing political?!?!? (this foolish claim would need some documentation) at all concerning the testimony given. Many like me were also theists. From the scientific perspective the testimony was right on.

If you think a highly publicized trial in an American court room wasn’t largely politically motivated, then you’re naïve. It’s not good philosophical and scientific arguments that tend to win out in those sorts of venues. That’s certainly not the first place I’d look to find such arguments.

That being said, I have little stake in the matter. As a Christian theist, I do find some of the claims of the intelligent design folks to be antecedently plausible. But I also don’t see the theory of Darwinian evolution as a threat to what I believe. I also don’t think that intelligent design should be taught in schools at the present time (It’s still too much of a new and immature scientific movement for that, and even if it were more mature, that wouldn’t necessarily mean it should be taught in high schools – there are lots of other factors involved in deciding whether that should be the case).

I do, however, recognize obviously bad philosophy of science and substanceless political rhetoric when I see it. And much of the criticism of the ID movement that I’ve seen falls in these categories.

Take this review of Behe’s recent book as an example. Most of it is just a rant that has everything to do with the political wars between proponents and opponents of the intelligent design movement and nothing to do with the argument in Behe’s book. And many of those portions that do purport to attack Behe’s argument seem to be directed against strawmen than against what Behe actually says. This sort of thing seems to me to be fairly typical.

[rogue06]

Click on the smilie

......

[shunyadragon]

If you think a highly publicized trial in an American court room wasn’t largely politically motivated, then you’re naïve. It’s not good philosophical and scientific arguments that tend to win out in those sorts of venues. That’s certainly not the first place I’d look to find such arguments.

That being said, I have little stake in the matter. As a Christian theist, I do find some of the claims of the intelligent design folks to be antecedently plausible. But I also don’t see the theory of Darwinian evolution as a threat to what I believe. I also don’t think that intelligent design should be taught in schools at the present time (It’s still too much of a new and immature scientific movement for that, and even if it were more mature, that wouldn’t necessarily mean it should be taught in high schools – there are lots of other factors involved in deciding whether that should be the case).

I do, however, recognize obviously bad philosophy of science and substanceless political rhetoric when I see it. And much of the criticism of the ID movement that I’ve seen falls in these categories.

Take this review of Behe’s recent book as an example. Most of it is just a rant that has everything to do with the political wars between proponents and opponents of the intelligent design movement and nothing to do with the argument in Behe’s book. And many of those portions that do purport to attack Behe’s argument seem to be directed against strawmen than against what Behe actually says. This sort of thing seems to me to be fairly typical.

I have read the book and agree with the review.

[gharfish]

Click on the smilie

......

Hey, that wasn't too fair to the co-star rappin' Darwin. He surely would've been less down--not that exuberant, along with that crowd he helped to create: today's loud and intolerant preachers of atheistic evolution, if he'd been able to see alot deeper inside cells when he was still kicking it with mankind.

[gharfish]

Shunyadragon,

You believe in one God, for you claim the Baha'i faith. This God you believe in; is he the intelligent designer of the universe--the Creator ? If so, then you believe in intelligent design, the idea, but are apart from the movement; right ?

[shunyadragon]

Shunyadragon,

You believe in one God, for you claim the Baha'i faith. This God you believe in; is he the intelligent designer of the universe--the Creator ? If so, then you believe in intelligent design, the idea, but are apart from the movement; right ?

Actually, no I do not believe the 'Source' some call God(s) is the 'Intelligent Designer.' This is an anthropomorphic human view. Intelligence and design are human attributes, which portrays God(s) as some kind of engineer necessary for a hands on result that could not happen any other way. The nature of existence was not 'designed' it was 'created' as it is.

The scientific evidence does not reflect the claim of ID proponents like Behe. The scientific knowledge at present reflects a very natural process that could take place with or without a 'Divine' 'Source' from the traditional theistic perspective. Therefore I believe in a 'Natural Theology,' which does not reflect any one human view of how or why.

This rather stiff stilted anthropomorphic perspective of traditional creation refects the weakness of ancient world views that describe a hands on mechanistic creation that leaves finge rprints.

[Kenny]

Actually, no I do not believe the 'Source' some call God(s) is the 'Intelligent Designer.'

Then it is misleading for you to keep calling yourself a theist. Believing in something divine or some Ultimate Source is not sufficient for being a theist. Theism includes the belief that God is personal and providential.

[shunyadragon]

Then it is misleading for you to keep calling yourself a theist. Believing in something divine or some Ultimate Source is not sufficient for being a theist. Theism includes the belief that God is personal and providential.

Please read and respond appropriately to the whole post.

[Kenny]

Actually, no I do not believe the 'Source' some call God(s) is the 'Intelligent Designer.' This is an anthropomorphic human view. Intelligence and design are human attributes, which portrays God(s) as some kind of engineer necessary for a hands on result that could not happen any other way. The nature of existence was not 'designed' it was 'created' as it is.

The scientific evidence does not reflect the claim of ID proponents like Behe. The scientific knowledge at present reflects a very natural process that could take place with or without a 'Divine' 'Source' from the traditional theistic perspective. Therefore I believe in a 'Natural Theology,' which does not reflect any one human view of how or why.

This rather stiff stilted anthropomorphic perspective of traditional creation refects the weakness of ancient world views that describe a hands on mechanistic creation that leaves finge rprints.

Then it is misleading for you to keep calling yourself a theist. Believing in something divine or some Ultimate is not sufficient for being a theist. Theism includes the belief that God is personal and providential.

(Is that better? )

[gharfish]

Actually, no I do not believe the 'Source' some call God(s) is the 'Intelligent Designer.' This is an anthropomorphic human view. Intelligence and design are human attributes, which portrays God(s) as some kind of engineer necessary for a hands on result that could not happen any other way. The nature of existence was not 'designed' it was 'created' as it is.

The scientific evidence does not reflect the claim of ID proponents like Behe. The scientific knowledge at present reflects a very natural process that could take place with or without a 'Divine' 'Source' from the traditional theistic perspective. Therefore I believe in a 'Natural Theology,' which does not reflect any one human view of how or why.

This rather stiff stilted anthropomorphic perspective of traditional creation refects the weakness of ancient world views that describe a hands on mechanistic creation that leaves finge rprints.

From the Baha'i website I see that that faith is one in a single God. I do not see a God(s) there, or anything else less than a God who is a personal one and intelligent and capable of engineering and bringing about this universe, himself (herself ?), and us in it.

Kenny is right; you are not a theist, by definition. Nope. You do not believe in anything like a God, now do you ? ...honestly ?! Look at what you wrote here. No, and so you are out of your faith's creed. We don't need to, together, refer to your religion's official worldwide website, do we ? Won't you just concede your departure of faith from the one God that's of the Baha'i religion ?

I feel you should be pestered a bit on this because all I asked you is that if the God of your religion (He's in there, don't you know !?) is the thinking and acting being--fully divine, now! that intelligently created the universe by some means. The one God of Baha'i isn't an impersonal god/force, right ? Say it is so, if it is (I'd believe you...at least at first).

Think what you will about the ID movement; that wasn't my question though.

[shunyadragon]

From the Baha'i website I see that that faith is one in a single God. I do not see a God(s) there, or anything else less than a God who is a personal one and intelligent and capable of engineering and bringing about this universe, himself (herself ?), and us in it.

Yes there is only one 'Source' as I believe. You have to read correctly that I am saying there is a, not more than one, 'Source' some call God(s). 'some call God(s)' describes the diversity of the human view of the one and singular 'Source.'

God being personal with God's creation and humanity is hardly dependent on the human view of the capacity of one being an engineer or designer. This is a very limited anthropomorphic view.

Kenny is right; you are not a theist, by definition. Nope. You do not believe in anything like a God, now do you ? ...honestly ?! Look at what you wrote here. No, and so you are out of your faith's creed. We don't need to, together, refer to your religion's official worldwide website, do we ? Won't you just concede your departure of faith from the one God that's of the Baha'i religion ?

No, neither Kenny nor you are correct. Your assessment of what the Baha'i Faith teaches as the nature of God is at best superficial. First, and foremost fundamental to the Baha'i belief is the ultimate nature of the 'Source' is unknowable. This is very similar to the Vedic analogy of many blind men describing the elephant based on the first part each blind man finds. Second, the Bah'i Faith acknowledges the limits of each religion to define God as any measure of absolute truth in the culture and time the world view originated, and each view of God or the 'Source' by many if not infinite names, may be defined differently by different religions and the 'Source' remains what the 'Source' is regardless, and not how humans may define the 'Source.'

Please, refer to the website, no problem, but may I remind you that a superficial assessment of the Baha'i beliefs will not work. The nature of God being personal is not dependent on a limited anthropomorphic view of God.

I feel you should be pestered a bit on this because all I asked you is that if the God of your religion (He's in there, don't you know !?) is the thinking and acting being--fully divine, now! that intelligently created the universe by some means. The one God of Baha'i isn't an impersonal god/force, right ? Say it is so, if it is (I'd believe you...at least at first).

The Baha'i view of God is both a personal and unknowable impersonal 'Source.' You need to take a few steps beyond the superfical. By the way the Bible also describes both a personal and an impersonal unknowable 'Source.'

Think what you will about the ID movement; that wasn't my question though.

. . . but my response was to your statement regardless whether it was your question or not.