s2a
Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
On April 18 2008, a movie is slated for release that proposes to examine issues surrounding "intelligent design", and it's effects upon it's proponents/adherents within the world of science.
The name of the film is "Expelled"(trailer available), and it's main progenitor is none other than Ben Stein .
The basic premise of "Expelled" furthers two popular notions. One, that "Intelligent Design" presents compelling evidences of [an] "higher intelligence", and two; that advocates/proponents of "ID" suffer intimidation, ridicule, hostility, and unfair dismissals (of both arguments and jobs), and denial of opportunities to gain fair hearing within the scientific community as a whole.
This focused editorial perspective is presented in a "documentary-ish" style, akin to the "documentary" films of director Michael Moore.
Like Moore, Mr. Stein has his own unabashed and unapologetic political and philosophical leanings and bias. Mr. Stein is an outspoken critic of scientific theories of evolution (which he characterizes as "Darwinism"), which he believes (among other things) lends imperious rationale to "ethnic cleaning" and the Nazis' efforts to exterminate all Jews in WW2. Really.
Ben Stein is a literate, educated man that exudes both intelligence and charming wit, both in person and in print. He is a successful author, actor, game-show host/entertainer, and a staunchly conservative (albeit, "old-school") Republican. Stein was also a speech-writer for both Presidents Nixon and Ford in the 1970's.
I invite forum members to watch the movie's trailer (as referenced and linked above--it's appx. 4 minutes long), and lend commentary upon the basic premise as presented by the film, and/or my initial rebuttals to the thematic arguments echoed by advocates of "ID".
"Expelled" is crafted to promote the two most popular arguments in favoring "Intelligent Design" itself.
Issues of "fairness", and "free speech".
Issues of "scientific doubts".
The two general premises are inextricably intertwined.
Is it "unfair" for "science" (or general scientific consensus) to seek to exclude unscientific postulates like "Intelligent Design" from serious debates, or public school classrooms? This is what "ID" proponents wish to instill and argue as an "issue" unto itself. "Darwinists" collectively hunker down to purposefully suppress "theories" of "Intelligent Design", because...such "theories" upset the conventions of scientific "wisdom" today. It's not an argument about the merits or viability of "Intelligent Design"...it's about the "fairness" of allowing an alternate perspective to be considered an "equal challenge" to those entrenched conventions. Americans preternaturally embrace most notions of "fairness", and "equal time".
"Let the little guy have his say!"
OK. Good.
Problem is..."the little guy" HAS had his say, and it's been the consensus view of those that have listened, that "Intelligent Design" presents NOTHING of ANY scientific merit or insight...much less any presented methodology in which to test, validate/falsify, or measure any prospective results of any kind. Why? Because "Intelligent Design" is inherently UNSCIENTIFIC. But...so are most Americans...that continue to embrace and adhere to their own faith-based beliefs.
Isn't is just plain "fair" for "science" to suppose (or at least consider) that..."God did it"?
Isn't that fair?
Well, that's the argument. And that argument has a good deal of popular support...not based upon any validity of scientific findings or evidences...but as a matter of facile "fairness" alone. This rationale "seems" OK when applied to "issues" of "science vs. religious claims", but any uproar or insistences of fairness diminish when advocates of "2+2=5!" seek to have "fair hearing" of their otherwise adamant conclusions in the study of mathematics/mathematical theory. Should math teachers instruct their students that "2+2=4" is the accepted understanding of the day, or should they be compelled to insert "alternative" perspectives that perhaps "five (5)" might be the most (or equally acceptable) accurate and "truthful" answer?
Secondly, but no less significant...is the inevitable "doubt" that any scientific revelation or understanding/conclusion connotes. Scientific theories are equivocal, fluid, and far from assertively "absolute" in their understandings or conclusions. That's the very nature of "science" itself. Newfound evidences may unveil or complicate existing understandings of natural mechanics, methods, or explanations. "Science" operates from an undying and simple premise..."I could be wrong".
Unfortunately, "Intelligent Design"...does not.
"ID" operates from a foregone conclusion in presenting some unquestionable and irrefutable fact...primarily that an "intelligent designer" (at some point) was (or remains) an explanatory (perhaps undeniable) "entity" as either "cause" or "effect" upon the cosmos, and most especially...us, or just you...in "being".
...and, HEY?
"What's wrong with that"?
Where does "science" get off telling anyone that some "intelligent designer" is inherently unscientific in either proposal or theory? Heck, most people "believe" in some kind of "god", or "Creator". Why should "science" be permitted to disallow your own beliefs a "fair hearing" in classrooms devoted to scientific instruction? Shouldn't public schools serve to validate your own personal beliefs as a matter of scientific legitimacy or fact?
What about "free speech"? Shouldn't issues of personal faith be allowed fair and equal access as legitimate "explanation" within scientific study and understandings?
Do we live under "Nazi" rule? Can we allow "scientists" to usurp our own beliefs or authority of instructional faith amongst our kids?
"Can't we at least suggest that the entirety of mankind's greatest evils and transgressions are borne of "Darwinist" adherents/proponents, and their scientifically-imposed exclusionary rationales/biases?"
After all...
"What's wrong with that"?
The name of the film is "Expelled"(trailer available), and it's main progenitor is none other than Ben Stein .
The basic premise of "Expelled" furthers two popular notions. One, that "Intelligent Design" presents compelling evidences of [an] "higher intelligence", and two; that advocates/proponents of "ID" suffer intimidation, ridicule, hostility, and unfair dismissals (of both arguments and jobs), and denial of opportunities to gain fair hearing within the scientific community as a whole.
This focused editorial perspective is presented in a "documentary-ish" style, akin to the "documentary" films of director Michael Moore.
Like Moore, Mr. Stein has his own unabashed and unapologetic political and philosophical leanings and bias. Mr. Stein is an outspoken critic of scientific theories of evolution (which he characterizes as "Darwinism"), which he believes (among other things) lends imperious rationale to "ethnic cleaning" and the Nazis' efforts to exterminate all Jews in WW2. Really.
Ben Stein is a literate, educated man that exudes both intelligence and charming wit, both in person and in print. He is a successful author, actor, game-show host/entertainer, and a staunchly conservative (albeit, "old-school") Republican. Stein was also a speech-writer for both Presidents Nixon and Ford in the 1970's.
I invite forum members to watch the movie's trailer (as referenced and linked above--it's appx. 4 minutes long), and lend commentary upon the basic premise as presented by the film, and/or my initial rebuttals to the thematic arguments echoed by advocates of "ID".
"Expelled" is crafted to promote the two most popular arguments in favoring "Intelligent Design" itself.
Issues of "fairness", and "free speech".
Issues of "scientific doubts".
The two general premises are inextricably intertwined.
Is it "unfair" for "science" (or general scientific consensus) to seek to exclude unscientific postulates like "Intelligent Design" from serious debates, or public school classrooms? This is what "ID" proponents wish to instill and argue as an "issue" unto itself. "Darwinists" collectively hunker down to purposefully suppress "theories" of "Intelligent Design", because...such "theories" upset the conventions of scientific "wisdom" today. It's not an argument about the merits or viability of "Intelligent Design"...it's about the "fairness" of allowing an alternate perspective to be considered an "equal challenge" to those entrenched conventions. Americans preternaturally embrace most notions of "fairness", and "equal time".
"Let the little guy have his say!"
OK. Good.
Problem is..."the little guy" HAS had his say, and it's been the consensus view of those that have listened, that "Intelligent Design" presents NOTHING of ANY scientific merit or insight...much less any presented methodology in which to test, validate/falsify, or measure any prospective results of any kind. Why? Because "Intelligent Design" is inherently UNSCIENTIFIC. But...so are most Americans...that continue to embrace and adhere to their own faith-based beliefs.
Isn't is just plain "fair" for "science" to suppose (or at least consider) that..."God did it"?
Isn't that fair?
Well, that's the argument. And that argument has a good deal of popular support...not based upon any validity of scientific findings or evidences...but as a matter of facile "fairness" alone. This rationale "seems" OK when applied to "issues" of "science vs. religious claims", but any uproar or insistences of fairness diminish when advocates of "2+2=5!" seek to have "fair hearing" of their otherwise adamant conclusions in the study of mathematics/mathematical theory. Should math teachers instruct their students that "2+2=4" is the accepted understanding of the day, or should they be compelled to insert "alternative" perspectives that perhaps "five (5)" might be the most (or equally acceptable) accurate and "truthful" answer?
Secondly, but no less significant...is the inevitable "doubt" that any scientific revelation or understanding/conclusion connotes. Scientific theories are equivocal, fluid, and far from assertively "absolute" in their understandings or conclusions. That's the very nature of "science" itself. Newfound evidences may unveil or complicate existing understandings of natural mechanics, methods, or explanations. "Science" operates from an undying and simple premise..."I could be wrong".
Unfortunately, "Intelligent Design"...does not.
"ID" operates from a foregone conclusion in presenting some unquestionable and irrefutable fact...primarily that an "intelligent designer" (at some point) was (or remains) an explanatory (perhaps undeniable) "entity" as either "cause" or "effect" upon the cosmos, and most especially...us, or just you...in "being".
...and, HEY?
"What's wrong with that"?
Where does "science" get off telling anyone that some "intelligent designer" is inherently unscientific in either proposal or theory? Heck, most people "believe" in some kind of "god", or "Creator". Why should "science" be permitted to disallow your own beliefs a "fair hearing" in classrooms devoted to scientific instruction? Shouldn't public schools serve to validate your own personal beliefs as a matter of scientific legitimacy or fact?
What about "free speech"? Shouldn't issues of personal faith be allowed fair and equal access as legitimate "explanation" within scientific study and understandings?
Do we live under "Nazi" rule? Can we allow "scientists" to usurp our own beliefs or authority of instructional faith amongst our kids?
"Can't we at least suggest that the entirety of mankind's greatest evils and transgressions are borne of "Darwinist" adherents/proponents, and their scientifically-imposed exclusionary rationales/biases?"
After all...
"What's wrong with that"?
