Dawkins Supports Intelligent Design... just not by God.

[Scuba Pete]

Ben Stein and his ilk wish to change that, but if they succeed in changing the definition of science they will succeed in destroying science. That is what this is about.

Ilk? Wow. That speaks volumes. But then, it's easy to vilify those who don't agree with you.

Ben Stein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[challupa]

it's easy to vilify those who don't agree with you.

Yes it is isn't it.

 

[fantome profane]

Ilk? Wow. That speaks volumes. But then, it's easy to vilify those who don't agree with you.

I am vilifying no one. I am pointing out the danger of the position they advocate. And it is a very real danger.

If you are offended by my use of the word “ilk”, I apologize.

But it is also easier to be offended by my choice of words then it is to consider the substance of the ideas I am trying to express.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Anyone who advocates for a position (any position) wishes to “destroy” the alternative position. That is not bigotry, that is advocacy.

Do you feel that the opposite of evolution then is theism? If not, then why would the advocacy of such lead Dawkins to try and destroy theism?

 

[painted wolf]

That's the sad part. The movie is NOT anti-science. It's anti-dogma. It's anti-totalitarian. It's even anti-censorship. It never disagrees with science on any one point. He does leave Dawkins and others in the dust when he asks them where the first single celled creature came from. That's kinda funny.

Come on Pete you know better than this... Science is about doing science and testing theories. ID has done none of that... which is why they need a propaganda movie to try to sneak their ideas in as "freedom".

There is no place in science for ideas that can not be tested. It's not against "academic freedom" to not hire a person for a science position that they are unqualified for because they don't do any science.

Look who sponsored the web site? The NCSE! Now why would the NCSE have a dog in this fight?

Because as the National Center for Science Education they have a dog in any fight to introduce pseudo-science into the US Educational system. Sounds like the perfect reason to me.

They were pointed out in the film as the peeps behind it all. Can you find someone with no agenda to do the same?

Pete you are starting to sound a little conspiracy theory here. Do you really believe that there is a secret cabal of scientists behind Evolution?

This is like reading (and listening) to Shrub's rebuttal of why we went into Iraq. So, what was Ben's purpose in making the film? Distortion? Perhaps he is seeing precisely what I am seeing. Science which is trying to meddle in religion rather than concentrate on pure science. How sad.

Once ID actually does some science rather than keep producing pop-pseudo-scientific drivel then they can actually have a leg to stand on.

The point Pete, is that Intelligent Design is not a theory, it's barely a hypothesis and they have done zero experimentation and zero justification for teaching it.
Astrologers have more "evidence". Holocaust deniers have more "evidence".
Do we give them the "academic freedom" to teach in high school?

wa:do

 

[Scuba Pete]

Yes it is isn't it.

That is what this entire thread is about. Those who would vilify theists.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Come on Pete you know better than this... Science is about doing science and testing theories.

Apparently NOT. They don't want to even consider this and seem to be willing to lash out at anyone who thinks that God might exist.

 

[Father Heathen]

That is what this entire thread is about. Those who would vilify theists.

I had no idea theism and evolution were mutually exclusive. However YEC and science are mutually exclusive, and not all theists are YECs.

 

[fantome profane]

Do you feel that the opposite of evolution then is theism? If not, then why would the advocacy of such lead Dawkins to try and destroy theism?

I am not sure I understand the question. No, I don’t believe that evolution and theism are opposites or in conflict in anyway. I do not advocate for that position. I am an atheist but I have consistently advocated that theism and evolution are not in conflict. You could then say that I am trying to “destroy” the idea that “the opposite of evolution is theism”. Does that make me a bigot?

Dawkins does believe that theism is incompatible with evolution, and with science in general. He advocates for his position. He is out to “destroy” the idea that theism can be a reasonable position. I disagree with Dawkins on this point. But I don’t see how his advocacy for his position makes him a bigot anymore than my advocacy makes me a bigot (or your advocacy makes you a bigot).

Does that answer your question?

Just because I disagree with something Dawkins advocates does not mean I consider Dawkins a bigot. And just because I don’t consider him a bigot does not mean I agree with everything he has to say. I disagree strongly with some of the things you advocate, but I recently complimented you on your intelligence and integrity. Likewise I admire Dawkins. You suggested that I vilified Ben Stein, but I did no such thing, and as a matter of fact I happen to like Ben Stein. This is not about personalities.

I do think you make a very serious mistake to trust Ben Stein without checking the veracity of his claims for yourself.

 

[painted wolf]

Apparently NOT. They don't want to even consider this and seem to be willing to lash out at anyone who thinks that God might exist.

As a theistic scientist, learning from a Catholic Genetics professor, I can tell you that is utter crap.

There is no anti-religious bias in science. Either you can do the work or you can't. Period.
My faith has never been an issue... and as an Animist I can tell you my faith would have a lot more trouble than a Christians if it were.

A great many scientists, even evolutionary scientists, are religious people. Notice they never interviewed Dr. Ken Miller... A proud religious scientist and one of the most famous.
They never interviewed Francis Collins, the leader of the Human Genome Project and another very famous religious scientist.
Why would they ignore these very famous and prominent scientists?
Because it makes their whole argument look like the lie it is.

Puzzled, the editors of Scientific American asked Mark Mathis, the film's co-producer, why he and Stein didn't interview such people, like Francis Collins (head of the Human Genome Project), Francisco Ayala, or myself. Mathis cited me by name, saying "Ken Miller would have confused the film unnecessarily." In other words, showing a scientist who accepts both God and evolution would have confused their story line.

Trouble ahead for science - The Boston Globe

more links on the flaws in expelled.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed--Scientific American's Take: Scientific American
Expelling All Reason

wa:do

 

[fantome profane]

Apparently NOT. They don't want to even consider this and seem to be willing to lash out at anyone who thinks that God might exist.

That is the accusation this movie makes and completely fails to substantiate with anything other than selective quotes, appeals to emotion, and out right blatant lies. This movie is not in defence of scientists who believe in “God”. Quite the contrary the makers of this movie made a deliberate decision to ignore scientists who believe in “God” and focus on people like Dawkins. Why do you think there is no mention of any of the thousands of evolutionary biologists who believe in “God”? It is because the wish to paint a simple black and white picture for the audience to swallow (scientists – bad, evil, atheists, dogmatic/I.D. good, religious, open-minded). But it is just not true. Richard Dawkins is not the entire scientific community. And religious scientists are not being persecuted. Intelligent Design is not getting any respect in the scientific community because it does not deserve any respect. I does not get any respect from the atheist scientists or from the aforementioned religious scientists.

I really want to know, why do you think Ken Miller was not interviewed in this film? Ken Miller has been a strong opponent of I.D., he is an American, he has been involved in several court cases, he co-wrote the textbook that they tried to put that sticker on, he has written two books on the topic of Intelligent design and about religion and science. Why only interview atheists evolutionists? Why not interview one of the many evolutionary biologists who believe in “God”?

Is it because if they actually presented a full picture of what is really going on it would destroy the black and white/them against us/good guys against bad guy/evil atheists against the good theists stupid ridiculous false dichotomy that they are trying to get you to swallow?

Pete, the accusations that this movie make are simply not true!

 

[rocketman]

Apparently NOT. They don't want to even consider this and seem to be willing to lash out at anyone who thinks that God might exist.

I don't think all of science-dom is like that, and I'm sure you'd agree the movie is not saying that it is. It's pretty clear that a lot of people around here just don't get the movie Pete. I'm glad to see that you do. Despite several mistakes, it makes a good point.

And you are quite right, there are some scientists nowadays who seek to lash out at theism whenever possible. This unscientific mission, which often runs in parallel with their regular work, (and is very hard for the lay person to distinguish) is a dangerous tendency that disturbs me greatly. Take Dawkins notion that God is impossible based on the level of complexity required, and thus multiverses are a better explanation for the fine-tuned universe. Sounds plausible right? Except it is totally devoid of any evidence, starts from a premise based on unknown complexity, and finishes with an idea which exists purely in the imagination. His purpose in pursuing this line is specifically to undermine theism. Intolerance can sometimes be clothed with bright light, and the masses often absorb these ideas without realising it.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I really want to know, why do you think Ken Miller was not interviewed in this film? Ken Miller has been a strong opponent of I.D., he is an American, he has been involved in several court cases, he co-wrote the textbook that they tried to put that sticker on, he has written two books on the topic of Intelligent design and about religion and science. Why only interview atheists evolutionists? Why not interview one of the many evolutionary biologists who believe in “God”?

Because this film was about people who use evolution as a club to beat others around the head with. It wasn't about ALL scientists, but it was about the systematic denigration of any who believes in ID. Look at the assault here in this thread. Forget the movie, we have evidence of that going on right here on RF.

 

[YmirGF]

It wasn't about ALL scientists, but it was about the systematic denigration of any who believes in ID.

But Pete, for pity sakes, there is no compelling reason to accept ID as a theory that has any scientific merit. Is there any particular reason that it should be considered seriously or that we should give proponents of ID the time of day?

 

[rocketman]

But Pete, for pity sakes, there is no compelling reason to accept ID as a theory that has any scientific merit. Is there any particular reason that it should be considered seriously or that we should give proponents of ID the time of day?

We give Dawkins the time of day, and he promotes proof-free multiverse theories.

I agree ID has no testable hypothesis, but the way discusion of it is shunned in almost all academic circles and publications will do more damage than good in the long run I think.

 

[Scuba Pete]

But Pete, for pity sakes, there is no compelling reason to accept ID as a theory that has any scientific merit. Is there any particular reason that it should be considered seriously or that we should give proponents of ID the time of day?

Especially if you squash all research.

I am not a big proponent of ID... but these scientists did not seem to be either. Yes, there was one that seemed to, but the whole system is stacked, and stacked in a way that is detrimental to GOOD science.

 

[Smoke]

Bwahahahaha! I have "seething hatred" of Dawkins? Please demonstrate how DISAGREEING with him can be construed as hatred. But then, it's just like the religious right telling us that disagreeing with Shrub was being unpatriotic. No, I do not blindly worship the man as you seem to do, but I DO NOT hate him. Talk about a Red Herring.

Pete, for an otherwise intelligent man to jump on trash like Expelled as if it were some great vehicle of truth is a sign of some serious problem. Your feelings about Dawkins drive you to irrational behavior. If it's not hatred, it's something very like it.

But then, that's the problem. You see this as some sort of a WAR. A war against what? Religion. That's the beginning of the end of free thought in this country!

You know better than that. Free thought is exactly what I'm for. You overstep the bounds of decency when you say that I want to wage war on religion. You forget that I'm religious myself -- or is it only your own religion that counts?

 

[Sunstone]

Especially if you squash all research.

I am not a big proponent of ID... but these scientists did not seem to be either. Yes, there was one that seemed to, but the whole system is stacked, and stacked in a way that is detrimental to GOOD science.

I agree! A quarter million scientists have entered into a conspiracy to stack the system so that no research into Intelligent Design gets done. Those scientists are worse than the shocking Illuminati! WHOOT!!!!!

 

[Sunstone]

I agree ID has no testable hypothesis, but the way discusion of it is shunned in almost all academic circles and publications will do more damage than good in the long run I think.

I agree. Also, my conviction there's an invisible elf outside my window farting invisible rainbows has no testable hypothesis, but it's going to hurt those durn scientists something fierce someday that they haven't discussed my notion in their circles and publications. They'll be sorry then!

 

[painted wolf]

We give Dawkins the time of day, and he promotes proof-free multiverse theories.

Which are bunk as well.

As a Theist who is a Biologist and learns from other theistic scientists I have to say... I have yet to see this conspiracy against theists in evolutionary science.

I also have yet to see any research done in the field of ID. Dembski is a very well known scientist who is a major force in the ID movement. He is still publishing research and still working.
He just isn't working on any scientific evidence for ID. (though he is going to court to get it in the schools.)

wa:do