Expelled

[Mallon]

If the Yankees are 5/1 favorites over the Expos and the Flyers are 5/1 favorites over the Ducks, is the probability the same or do we pretend the numbers are different because the game is different?

And Kaufman specifically was talking about enzymes NOT involved in abiogenesis. The article put both processes on the same page as similar issues of probability, but I can't put them together in the same post?

I'm not a numbers guy, myself, and I admit I don't deal much with probabilities. But I understand most neocreationist understanding of probability is misguided as far as evolution and abiogenesis are concerned. The fact is that we just don't know yet how probable life is or isn't. Details here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html

Regardless, I would still highly advise against equating evolution with abiogenesis. Yes, the two involve many of the same processes, but at the same time, they differ in many ways. There are many higher level processes that operate in biological evolution that are inoperative at the molecular level (species selection being one).

 

[crawfish]

This guy has an amusing point in his blog about Expelled!'s connection with Answers in Genesis:

In AiG’s “worldview,” only “biblical creation” is truly Christian. Everything else, including “intelligent design,” is some degree of rubbish.

So it boils down to this: if you hurry on over to AiG today, you can buy a wall chart that shows in brief why intelligent design is wrong from a YEC viewpoint, and you get a coupon for $5 off an ID PR movie which AiG plans to sell when available.

 

[Markus6]

I find it funny that in the theistic evolution forum this thread shows up as 'Expelled: Moved from Theistic Evolution'. I'm currently writing a review/rebuttal entitled 'Expelled: No Theistic Evolution Allowed'.

 

[busterdog]

The fact is that we just don't know yet how probable life is or isn't.

That frank admission is appreciated. Far be it from me to say that is game, set, match. But, I think what rubs so much for creationists is that this fact is buried under verbiage by some, but not all. That verbiage is very often of a theological nature that pretends to be something else.

What I find odd is that this barrier can be so often met in a course of study, even to the point where partial resolution of a question only opens up more lines of inquiry than the scientist started with. Yet with the continuing compounding of the knowledge problem, what about this growing mysery about why things are? There are more questions now, not fewer. Why does this not lead to a recognition of an essential element of creation: God has every legal right to be recognized in it as supreme. There is no better, more accurate description of caustion. To acknowledge the scientific reformulation of things like "mystery" and exclude God is not just a question of choosing a scientific methodology. Philosophically, it is not a wise thing to do. It doesn't make sense.

Deu 32:3 Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God.

Job 36:3 I will fetch my knowledge from afar, and will ascribe righteousness to my Maker.

Psa 68:34 Ascribe ye strength unto God: his excellency [is] over Israel, and his strength [is] in the clouds.

 

[Mallon]

What I find odd is that this barrier can be so often met in a course of study, even to the point where partial resolution of a question only opens up more lines of inquiry than the scientist started with. Yet with the continuing compounding of the knowledge problem, what about this growing mysery about why things are? There are more questions now, not fewer. Why does this not lead to a recognition of an essential element of creation: God has every legal right to be recognized in it as supreme. There is no better, more accurate description of caustion. To acknowledge the scientific reformulation of things like "mystery" and exclude God is not just a question of choosing a scientific methodology. Philosophically, it is not a wise thing to do. It doesn't make sense.

I agree with everything you've said here, busterdog. It has to be said, however, that the act of pinning ultimate causation on God is a philosophical or theological position. Not a methodological one. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but pretending that God can be approximated via the methodology of science is wrong. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of what methodological naturalism is. And not only is it wrong, it's unbiblical, too. The Bible doesn't teach that we've come to know God as creator by science. It says, "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible" (Hebrews 11:3). And faith in God isn't something we can falsify empirically... at least, not if we respect the meaning of methodological naturalism.

 

[Willtor]

That frank admission is appreciated. Far be it from me to say that is game, set, match. But, I think what rubs so much for creationists is that this fact is buried under verbiage by some, but not all. That verbiage is very often of a theological nature that pretends to be something else.

What I find odd is that this barrier can be so often met in a course of study, even to the point where partial resolution of a question only opens up more lines of inquiry than the scientist started with. Yet with the continuing compounding of the knowledge problem, what about this growing mysery about why things are? There are more questions now, not fewer. Why does this not lead to a recognition of an essential element of creation: God has every legal right to be recognized in it as supreme. There is no better, more accurate description of caustion. To acknowledge the scientific reformulation of things like "mystery" and exclude God is not just a question of choosing a scientific methodology. Philosophically, it is not a wise thing to do. It doesn't make sense.

Deu 32:3 Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God.

Job 36:3 I will fetch my knowledge from afar, and will ascribe righteousness to my Maker.

Psa 68:34 Ascribe ye strength unto God: his excellency [is] over Israel, and his strength [is] in the clouds.

Here here!

 

[busterdog]

I agree with everything you've said here, busterdog. It has to be said, however, that the act of pinning ultimate causation on God is a philosophical or theological position. Not a methodological one. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but pretending that God can be approximated via the methodology of science is wrong. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of what methodological naturalism is. And not only is it wrong, it's unbiblical, too. The Bible doesn't teach that we've come to know God as creator by science. It says, "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible" (Hebrews 11:3). And faith in God isn't something we can falsify empirically... at least, not if we respect the meaning of methodological naturalism.

Would it then seem that Ben Stein would get credit as a philosopher, but not as a scientist?

That being said, I don't understand what I perceive to be the violence of the reaction against ID.

By analogy, I am a lawyer sworn to uphold the constitution. However, I must admit that some judicious vigilantism would do some folks a lot more good than the legal system. Think about the most, arrogant,corrupt, theiving politician you can imagine. Think about what a good beating would do him at the right hands - not permanently disabling, but humbling as explicit recompense for sin.

 

[Mallon]

Would it then seem that Ben Stein would get credit as a philosopher, but not as a scientist?

Perhaps. But he's not advocating ID as philosophy; he calls it a science. It isn't.

That being said, I don't understand what I perceive to be the violence of the reaction against ID.

For every action force, there is an equal and opposite reaction force. The harder ID proponents try to push their religion into the science classroom, the harder science advocates will try to push it out of the science classroom.
Regardless, the only people issuing threats of "violence" are the ID proponents and their death threats. Ask Judge Jones. Ask PZ Myers. Ask the biology teachers at the University of Colorado.

 

[busterdog]

Perhaps. But he's not advocating ID as philosophy; he calls it a science. It isn't.

That's a rather slim reed on which to lean in excluding him. Again, the enormous push seems, but you terms, to exclude these ideas on methodological grounds, not because he isn't speaking the truth, or at least a defensible philosophy.

Lets put it this way. I think the situation would be alot more palatable if there was public discourse that simply acknowledged that some aspects of species development is so unlikely and their apparent design so exquisite that we have a mystery that would appear to be best explained simply by the design of a creator. To that it might be added that scientific methods and scholarship have methodology guidelines that exclude such things some some areas of formal discourse. Stated as such, perhaps many of those who are perceived as excluded could be included on a limited basis, again, perhaps within the philosophy of science. The latter is a legitimate course of study.

Much of the fight against Ben Stein is by atheists who completely exlude the possibility that there is any reason in speaking of God as the cause of what appears to be mysterious. That is a fools errand and Stein is right to wage war against it.

It certainly seems to me that the lines being drawn are not to make a careful separation of disciplines, but simply to be rid of theists. Those who are TEs I am sure know of academic institutions who are absolute unreasoning luddites for every Deus Ex Machina.

For every action force, there is an equal and opposite reaction force. The harder ID proponents try to push their religion into the science classroom, the harder science advocates will try to push it out of the science classroom.
Regardless, the only people issuing threats of "violence" are the ID proponents and their death threats. Ask Judge Jones. Ask PZ Myers. Ask the biology teachers at the University of Colorado.

Maybe. YECs might be burning Dawkins and a dozen tenured professors at the stake as we speak, without the benefit of trial. Even if that were so, must not the evolutionists answer for their vehemence in excluding a reasonable philosophy? To say that it is "philosophy of science" not "science' and therefore out of bounds is pretty picky, if not paranoid.

What is a better word of "mystery" than God? Is there a better one? Scripture suggests there isnt a better word at all that God demands to be recognized.

 

[crawfish]

Lets put it this way. I think the situation would be alot more palatable if there was public discourse that simply acknowledged that some aspects of species development is so unlikely and their apparent design so exquisite that we have a mystery that would appear to be best explained simply by the design of a creator.

I'm still interested to know what possible utility there is in declaring some piece of information "obviously from the supernatural hand of a designer", and thus off-limits to study or further speculation.

 

[Markus6]

That's a rather slim reed on which to lean in excluding him. Again, the enormous push seems, but you terms, to exclude these ideas on methodological grounds, not because he isn't speaking the truth, or at least a defensible philosophy.

Lets put it this way. I think the situation would be alot more palatable if there was public discourse that simply acknowledged that some aspects of species development is so unlikely and their apparent design so exquisite that we have a mystery that would appear to be best explained simply by the design of a creator. To that it might be added that scientific methods and scholarship have methodology guidelines that exclude such things some some areas of formal discourse. Stated as such, perhaps many of those who are perceived as excluded could be included on a limited basis, again, perhaps within the philosophy of science. The latter is a legitimate course of study.

That discourse is there. There are numerous books and debates on the subject. But the aims of the intelligent design movement are not to be recognised as a philosophy but as a pure, non religious based, science.

Much of the fight against Ben Stein is by atheists who completely exlude the possibility that there is any reason in speaking of God as the cause of what appears to be mysterious. That is a fools errand and Stein is right to wage war against it.

Yes. And there is also resistance to the movie from theists who accept the theory of evolution whose views were totally and purposefully omitted from the movie.

It certainly seems to me that the lines being drawn are not to make a careful separation of disciplines, but simply to be rid of theists. Those who are TEs I am sure know of academic institutions who are absolute unreasoning luddites for every Deus Ex Machina.

That is the image that 'Expelled' is trying to present being excluding theistic evolutionists. The truth is different; take scientists like Ken Miller and Francis Collins for example. I seem to remember a study that said over 40% of scientists were theists. Now that percentage is far lower than the equivalent for the entire American population but still high enough for any idea of science being an atheist conspiracy to be unfounded.

Maybe. YECs might be burning Dawkins and a dozen tenured professors at the stake as we speak, without the benefit of trial. Even if that were so, must not the evolutionists answer for their vehemence in excluding a reasonable philosophy? To say that it is "philosophy of science" not "science' and therefore out of bounds is pretty picky, if not paranoid.

No, but it is presented as pure science as an attempt to get it taught in schools. I think it's more accurate to call it "religious philosophy of science".

 

[shernren]

Gentlemen, set your irony meters to their most robust settings:

ID wants to be recognized as science
by showing that science cannot explain the origins of life?

Busterdog, if your representation of the ID movement is correct, then the ID movement is theologically indefensible. The ID movement is hubristically imposing its own limits on what God can and cannot do instead of humbly allowing God to reveal His own relationship with creation.

You said yourself that ID wants it to be recognized that

"some aspects of species development is so unlikely and their apparent design so exquisite
​

that
​

we have a mystery that would appear to be best explained simply by the design of a creator".
​

However this begs the immediate question: what happens to the likely? What happens to the simple? For example, no IDist I have heard of attempts to prove that the Earth's structure is irreducibly complex. If unlikeliness is a criterion for createdness, then is the Earth created? Again, no IDist I have heard of attempts to prove that clouds and stars cannot possibly form based on natural processes. Does that mean that Paul was wrong to say that God brings rain and sun on man?

Yes, you are right to say that Ben Stein is fighting the effort by Darwinists to use Darwin to promote Darwin. For that and that alone I salute him. But he is ultimately fighting atheists by agreeing with them. Imagine if I told you "All lawyers are bad" and you responded by saying "No, my friend Fred the doctor is good, and my neighbor Pat the fireman is good, and my pastor at church is good ... " In the same way, every time an IDist (like you) says "Nothing evolved, therefore a Creator exists", s/he is implicitly agreeing with a materialist atheist who insists that "Everything evolved, therefore no Creator exists". Indeed, some atheists are theologically indistinguishable from a YEC, e.g. this thread: http://christianforums.com/t3338186-and-now-its-really-happening.html

And I can think of quite a few better words by which God demands to be recognized than "mystery". Christ comes to mind, for example, with the close analogy of Word. Love follows pretty closely behind. Can you see the theological folly that ID has precipitated in you? These words were written of Paley long before Darwin had emerged on the scene (so that the author had no evolution to suck up to) :

Nay, more than this; I do not hesitate to say that, taking men as they are, this so-called science tends, if it occupies the mind, to dispose it against Christianity. And for this plain reason, because it speaks only of laws; and cannot contemplate their suspension, that is, miracles, which are of the essence of the idea of a Revelation. Thus, the God of Physical Theology may very easily become a mere idol; for He comes to the inductive mind in the medium of fixed appointments, so excellent, so skilful, so beneficent, that, when it has for a long time gazed upon them, it will think them too beautiful to be broken, and will at length so contract its notion of Him as to conclude that He never could have the heart (if I may dare use such a term) to undo or mar His own work; and this conclusion will be the first step towards its degrading its idea of God a second time, and identifying Him with His works. Indeed, a Being of Power, Wisdom, and Goodness, and nothing else, is not very different from the God of the Pantheist.
(John Henry Newman, "The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated", 1854)​

"A Being of Power, Wisdom, and Goodness, and nothing else" - not too far from the Intelligent Designer which the IDists don't even have the guts to call God. ID demands to recognize God in creation according to ID's agenda, not according to God's agenda: and that, above all else, is why it must ultimately fail, whether or not it will finally be expelled like it ought to be.

 

[Mallon]

That's a rather slim reed on which to lean in excluding him.

Is it? If ID is not science, but philosophy or theology (and, I would argue, a poor one at that), is it really such a stretch to believe that it shouldn't be taught as science?
If you want to open the science classroom door to every crack-pot philosophy, just imagine the junk you'll be letting in. Behe's adherence to ID forced him to admit in court that alchemy could be taught in the science classroom, under his new rubrik.

Lets put it this way. I think the situation would be alot more palatable if there was public discourse that simply acknowledged that some aspects of species development is so unlikely and their apparent design so exquisite that we have a mystery that would appear to be best explained simply by the design of a creator.

I have a few points to make about this:
1) "God did it" does nothing to help us understand biology. Biology, like all science, is interested in discerning mechanisms. ID doesn't posit mechanisms; it posits magic. And appealing to magic doesn't tell us why Probainognathus has a double jaw-joint.
2) God challenges us to uncover His mysteries. Read Prov 25:2. Are we really doing His bidding if we just sit on our haunches and say, "This is too hard and too complex for me to explain. God must have just poofed everything into existence"? I can't help but think the answer is a resounding 'no'. Let's use the brains God blessed us with.
3) What are the implications for ID as far as your neocreationism is concerned? If the premise of ID is, "Ooohhh... look at how complex and well-adapted everything is. God must have designed them that way", then what about the complexities of parasitism or carnivory that the ID movement has been so lax to study? Take the life cycle of the parasitic Sacculina carcini, for example. From http://www.neatorama.com/2006/08/21/six-ho...ying-parasites/:

If you ever have a choice between being possessed by the devil and being possessed by a Sacculina carcini, opt for the devil - no contest. A female sacculina begins life as a tiny free-floating slug in the sea, drifting around until she encounters a crab. When that fateful day arrives, she finds a chink in the crab’s armor (usually an elbow or leg joint) and thrusts a kind of hollow dagger into its body. After that, she (how to put this?) "injects" herself into the crab, sluicing through the dagger and leaving behind a husk. Once inside, the jellylike sacculina starts to take over. She grows "roots" that extend to every part of the crab’s body - wrapping around its eyestalks and deep into its legs and arms. The female feeds and grows until eventually she pops out of the top of the crab, and from this knobby protrusion, she will steer the Good Ship Unlucky Crab for the rest of their co-mingled life. Packed full of parasite, the crab will forgo its own needs to serve those of its master. It won’t molt, grow reproductive organs, or attempt to reproduce. It won’t even regrow appendages, as healthy crabs can. Rather than waste the nutrients on itself, a host crab will hobble along and continue to look for food with which to feed its parasite master.

Is this really the kind of stuff you want to teach was poofed into existence by a benevolent designer? ID just doesn't square with the YEC theology you adhere to.

It certainly seems to me that the lines being drawn are not to make a careful separation of disciplines, but simply to be rid of theists.

... which, of course, is demonstrably untrue. 40% of scientists are theists. See: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol17/5319_many_scientists_see_god39s__12_30_1899.asp

To say that it is "philosophy of science" not "science' and therefore out of bounds is pretty picky, if not paranoid.

Just so we're clear, ID isn't new. It was first formalized in the late 1700's and was rightly rejected as a philosophy of science because it does nothing to improve the field or its methodologies. ID gets us nowhere. In more than 200 years since Paley's watchmaker argument, ID has had nothing new to say or offer. So why should scientists bother with such a tired, old assertion now?

 

[birdan]

If you ever have a choice between being possessed by the devil and being possessed by a Sacculina carcini, opt for the devil - no contest. A female sacculina begins life as a tiny free-floating slug in the sea, drifting around until she encounters a crab. When that fateful day arrives, she finds a chink in the crab’s armor (usually an elbow or leg joint) and thrusts a kind of hollow dagger into its body. After that, she (how to put this?) "injects" herself into the crab, sluicing through the dagger and leaving behind a husk. Once inside, the jellylike sacculina starts to take over. She grows "roots" that extend to every part of the crab’s body - wrapping around its eyestalks and deep into its legs and arms. The female feeds and grows until eventually she pops out of the top of the crab, and from this knobby protrusion, she will steer the Good Ship Unlucky Crab for the rest of their co-mingled life. Packed full of parasite, the crab will forgo its own needs to serve those of its master. It won’t molt, grow reproductive organs, or attempt to reproduce. It won’t even regrow appendages, as healthy crabs can. Rather than waste the nutrients on itself, a host crab will hobble along and continue to look for food with which to feed its parasite master.

The above would also work quite nicely as an analogy for ID's attempts to insert itself into science. All the way down to 'dagger' = 'wedge'.

 

[busterdog]

Is it? If ID is not science, but philosophy or theology (and, I would argue, a poor one at that), is it really such a stretch to believe that it shouldn't be taught as science?
If you want to open the science classroom door to every crack-pot philosophy, just imagine the junk you'll be letting in. Behe's adherence to ID forced him to admit in court that alchemy could be taught in the science classroom, under his new rubrik.

Why is the door open to every crackpot? Is that what happened in public education from 1750 to 1800 when all public education required Bible reading? Surely we can conceive of controls.

I have a few points to make about this:
1) "God did it" does nothing to help us understand biology. Biology, like all science, is interested in discerning mechanisms. ID doesn't posit mechanisms; it posits magic. And appealing to magic doesn't tell us why Probainognathus has a double jaw-joint.

God did it does LOTs more than "self-organizing", randomness or other concepts in evolution which exist at the bare limit of human understanding.

2) God challenges us to uncover His mysteries. Read Prov 25:2. Are we really doing His bidding if we just sit on our haunches and say, "This is too hard and too complex for me to explain. God must have just poofed everything into existence"? I can't help but think the answer is a resounding 'no'. Let's use the brains God blessed us with.

That doesnt make a more complex theory, like natural selection, a better uncovering.

3) What are the implications for ID as far as your neocreationism is concerned? If the premise of ID is, "Ooohhh... look at how complex and well-adapted everything is. God must have designed them that way", then what about the complexities of parasitism or carnivory that the ID movement has been so lax to study? Take the life cycle of the parasitic Sacculina carcini, for example. From

Why does this make Darwinism better? You assume a moral lesson about creation. Darwin cant address it as you have formulated it. God made satan too. So?

Is this really the kind of stuff you want to teach was poofed into existence by a benevolent designer? ID just doesn't square with the YEC theology you adhere to.

That is a very tendentious abreviation of Genesis and creationism.

... which, of course, is demonstrably untrue. 40% of scientists are theists. See:

Since satan is not an atheist either, perhaps I could amend my statement, but to what end? Atheism has a huge impact on science.

Just so we're clear, ID isn't new. It was first formalized in the late 1700's and was rightly rejected as a philosophy of science because it does nothing to improve the field or its methodologies. ID gets us nowhere. In more than 200 years since Paley's watchmaker argument, ID has had nothing new to say or offer. So why should scientists bother with such a tired, old assertion now?

Irreducible complexity is the basis for neo darwinism. It has slight modification and a new name. Its sexy enough for them.

 

[shernren]

Why is the door open to every crackpot? Is that what happened in public education from 1750 to 1800 when all public education required Bible reading? Surely we can conceive of controls.

Behe's definition of science included astrology as it included ID. Can you do better?

 

[Mallon]

Why is the door open to every crackpot? Is that what happened in public education from 1750 to 1800 when all public education required Bible reading? Surely we can conceive of controls.

We already have conceived of controls. It's called methodological naturalism. Now you want to get rid of that. And by doing so, you're left with no objective way of ruling out even the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

God did it does LOTs more than "self-organizing", randomness or other concepts in evolution which exist at the bare limit of human understanding.

Such as?
Again, let's be practical. How does saying "God did it" help us to understand why Probainognathus has a double jaw-joint?

That doesnt make a more complex theory, like natural selection, a better uncovering.

What do you mean by this? I can't figure out how it relates to the point I made about answering the challenge God gave us in Prov 25:2.

Why does this make Darwinism better? You assume a moral lesson about creation. Darwin cant address it as you have formulated it. God made satan too. So?

1) Again, I have to ask that you please stop equating Darwinism with evolution. They are not the same thing.
2) You're mixing your ID 'science' with your neocreationism. But according to the movement itself, ID cannot identify who the designer is, so you're not free to do this -- at least not if you're pretending to be doing science. So you are left trying to discern who the designer is by what he/she/it has made. My point, then, is this: If the complexities of destructive parasites can be chalked up intelligent design (much like the complexities of other, less inauspicious animals are), then what kind of designer would create such creatures? Is it really the same kind of god YECs believe in?
You have to accept the bad with the good, as far as ID is concerned.

Since satan is not an atheist either, perhaps I could amend my statement, but to what end? Atheism has a huge impact on science.

In what way? I would say the opposite is true. After all, the first scientists were mostly Christian.

Irreducible complexity is the basis for neo darwinism.

Again, what do you mean by this???

 

[busterdog]

Such as?
Again, let's be practical. How does saying "God did it" help us to understand why Probainognathus has a double jaw-joint?

You dont know the mechanism for its creation under either view. At least under the creationist view, you know that God is in control. That is more information that Darwinism provides.

 

[Mallon]

You dont know the mechanism for its creation under either view.

The point is that with evolution, we can posit mechanisms (e.g., natural selection, sexual selection, etc.) and then test their plausibility.
ID doesn't even allow one to posit a mechanism. It is just an appeal to magic.

At least under the creationist view, you know that God is in control. That is more information that Darwinism provides.

1)Darwinism =/= evolution.
2) Once again, you are boxing God in. What is it about your brand of creationism that allows you to know "God is in control"? The fact that it forces you to appeal to mircales?
Is God not in control of ALL processes? If we can describe life's diversity via natural mechanisms, does that somehow negate God? If we can describe the development of an embryo or weather patterns without resorting to miraculous explanations, does that somehow negate God?
Yours in a tenuous god-of-the-gaps argument, brother! Be careful!

 

[LoG]

The point is that with evolution, we can posit mechanisms (e.g., natural selection, sexual selection, etc.) and then test their plausibility.
ID doesn't even allow one to posit a mechanism. It is just an appeal to magic.

Under ID, one can posit "why" the Designer did it that way. Knowing the "why's" of the Designer allows for making predictions.