ID Proponents and those of you who planning to watch Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, please please watch the following. I will explain why after you do.
Go on, watch it.
Okay, now why did you have to watch it? I'll tell you, I will!
Hopefully if you were paying attention you will have noticed a lot of rather stupid shit coming out of Stein's overrated noise-hole. Special notice should have been paid to the last minute and a half, where Stein explains why Evolution is such a poor theory. For those of you who didn't watch it because you're lazy or scared to have you faith in Ben Stein or Intelligent Design damaged, I'll spell it out for you. It goes a little like this.
Ben Stein:
But Darwinism explains so little. It doesn't explain how life began. It doesn't explain how Gravity works, how it keeps the planets in their orbits. It doesn't explain how thermodynamics works. It doesn't explain how physics of the Laws of motion work...
And so on. It should be obvious to anyone with an IQ above 80 that Stein is a complete and utter retard when it comes to matters of Science. No, Evolution doesn't explain how life began - that's Abiogenesis. Of course it doesn't explain how gravity works, that's for Newton and Einstein to talk about. Of course it doesn't explain thermodynamics, or physics or the Laws of Motion. Those are theories and concepts that have nothing to do with Biology.
So, who among you think that evolution is wrong because it doesn't explain the origin of Gravity (another thing Stein uses to attack evolution). If so, why? Why should a theory concerning biology explain physics principles? Should we say that General and Special Relativity are useless theories because they don't explain biology? Should Quantum Mechanics be discarded because it doesn't tell us where life began? Should we do away with Gravity and start jumping off of buildings, convinced we can fly, because the theories regarding Gravity don't explain all of physics and biology?
Evolution, Stein you piece of shit, is not a "Theory of Everything" that seeks to explain the intricacies of the Universe. Evolution has nothing to do with any of those other things you whined about. It has a passing attachment to the origin of life, but is not a theory about the origin of life. It's a theory regarding the origin of species. A theory is not to be discarded because it doesn't explain more than it's supposed to.
Comments are welcome. Do you agree with Stein, should evolution be discarded because it doesn't explain the origin of gravity? Or is Stein a fool who should stick to his own areas of expertise, mainly appearing in rather crap game shows and having extremely minor roles in movies?
28 comments:
Interesting vid and post!
Been reading a few reviews of Expelled, both for and against...
I think it will have a social impact but not a scientific one, like The DaVinci Code:
- on a popular level it discredited Christianity
- on a scholarly level it discredited Dan Brown
I'm predicting Expelled:
- on a popular level will raise serious concerns regarding science education in schools
- on a scientific level will be laughed at (examples are already everywhere)
Aside... I would be cautions of calling Stein a fool. He's a very intelligent man (far more than myself) after all he was a presidential script writer. There must be some reason he is appearing so blatantly ignorant - maybe to win popular approval? Who knows...
One very important thing yourself and this vid points out is how important it is to use correct terms or at least define your own terms. By Stein brush-stroking evolution into all scientific categories completely undermines his case.
I believe the central debate is at 7:00mins of the vid:
Natualism vs Supernatualism
I agree that replacing scientific unknowns with supernatural unknowns proves futile.
But when supernatural answers fit scientific unknowns there has to be some consideration.
"the supernatural is nothing more than an intellectually lazy patch used by the weak minded to cover unknowns, so that they can create a comfortable delusion of knowledge for themselves"
The above quote is over-reacting although there is some truth to it. An 'intellectually weak minded deluded Christian' runs counter to what character Christians ought to display. A central truth of Christianity is a belief in a good God who wouldn't create our senses to deceive us. Therefore nature can be studied which results in accuracy and truth.
Peace
JPJ There ARE no supernatural knowns. You believe there is a God, you have faith, but there's no way to be sure.
Additionally, not only is there no way for you to prove there is a God, there's no way for you to prove [scientifically] that your God is the right one. It's an unknown, hence faith.
Do you understand? I know you believe there's a God, you might think you "know" there's a God, but there's no way for you to ever be sure. It's a supernatural unknown.
HH
I posted a response comment - did it disappear in cyperland?
Looks like it did. Hopefully isn't wasn't too long and you can try again.
However, if you were going to use "I feel Him in my heart" or "The Bible tells us" as your evidence for why the Christian God is a supernatural known then don't bother.
Hehe classic!
Na, I wouldn't give it to you on a platter like that!
Re-written post:
”There ARE no supernatural knowns”
Correct, but I didn’t say that - sorry for not being clearer. I meant it to read:
“supernatural solutions to scientific unknowns should at least be considered.
Take this example:
There are many reports of after-death experiences. Most of them are ’I saw a light and two large gates’. The rational mind quickly dismisses such reports (and rightly so) because the claim is not falsifiable.
But there are recorded reports where a patient dies in an operating theatre and is revived minutes later only to describe an after-death experience where they recite a whole conversation that took place during their death 4 floors below. Witnesses are interviewed and the facts fit the experience.
- Naturalism concludes ’Maybe the voice from 4 floors travelled there somehow and only the patient heard it’
- Supernaturalism concludes ’Maybe the dead patient had an out-of-body experience’
Who’s right? Both views have two things in common:
- they are consistent with their own world-view
- they are both far-fetched solutions
It would be bad logic to conclude ’Since only the natural exists, the naturalistic answer is the correct one’
Science will never discover the supernatural – science is a naturalistic approach to a discovery of reality. Science can build models on which predictions can be made under certain causes but it starts with an assumption that only the natural exists and then observes, tests, and studies the natural to draws conclusions.
Some eastern religions are the opposite. They believe that the natural is an illusion and only the supernatural exists. This belief is counterproductive in growing human knowledge through science.
Christianity believes in both the natural and the supernatural.
”there no way for you to prove there is a God”
True. I can’t prove God exists; I have to believe in God. But I would add that personal commitment shifts rational probability into certainty.
”there's no way for you to prove [scientifically] that your God is the right one”
Maybe we can leave this discussion for another time…
Enjoying the dialogue
Peace
No supernatural considerations should NOT be considered because they dilute the real science. As you said, science can never find the supernatural, so what point then would there be in "considering" a supernatural solution, scientifically?
The point is that it wastes time that could be better spent on finding real, testable, falsifiable, physical solutions. Instead of sitting there, looking at a theory and an accompanying body of research and saying "I think it couldn't happen that way, therefore God did it, therefore pay me my grant money".
From our discussions it appears that we both fill the gaps with faith:
- I place my faith in God as the source of ultimate knowledge
- You place your faith in science prevailing in all knowledge.
I must admit that Christians over the centuries have concluded ‘God’ when a gap in knowledge appears. (ie lightning strikes, and many more examples) This is counterproductive to knowledge growth and to a Christian world-view of God desiring us to understand his creation.
To fill gaps with faith (in science or religion) when there is no evidence is misguided.
Rather we should explore both options and conclude which system truly represents reality.
Would you say that science draws from the systems of reason and philosophy to form conclusions?
What exactly is the point that you're trying to make, that we should allow religion to be taught in science class "just in case" ? Religion has plenty of other places to dispense witness from it doesn't need to take over the science classroom with supernatural superstitious mumbo-jumbo magic tricks.
It seems to me that you are talking at cross-purposes.
JPJ has been quite clear that he is against 'God answers' filling gaps in scientific knowledge.
Try to understand what he meant by this:
"But when supernatural answers fit scientific unknowns there has to be some consideration."
I would even venture to state it this way:
"But when supernatural answers fit scientific knowns there has to be some consideration."
That is, I don't think it is appropriate to look to God to explain, for instance, where DNA came from - even though it is a very hard question for science to answer. However, it is more than appropriate to look at a scientific theory and notice that it is consistent with, and even points towards, God.
The difference is that God is not being used as an explanation, but the explanation is used to point to God.
I would venture to suggest that there has never been a time in history where science better supported Christianity. (I'll post a video on TCA where Antony Flew explains this further.)
HH, can you prove scientifically (or even otherwise) that "there [is] no way for you to prove there is a God"?
HH: Ok I'll try to be clearer.
To continue your example in the classroom:
My hope would be that science would be taught as it really should:
- a system of discovering reality
not
- the system of discovering reality.
An example to highlight what I mean :
- To prove something non-existent requires complete knowledge.
- Science is a closed system of naturalism
- Therefore science alone cannot prove the non-existence of the supernatural.
- Philosophy must be incorporated to answer this adequately.
You describe the supernatural as “superstitious mumbo-jumbo magic tricks”, am I right in concluding your mind is made up on the existence of supernatural realm?
Really enjoying the challenging dialogue.
Haysey - keen for your coming post
So JPJ what is it, specifically, that you want taught in SCIENCE class? Remember that we're talking about SCIENCE class here. Why shouldn't SCIENCE be taught in SCIENCE class as the key method for discovery reality? Should all church leaders remind their followers that Jesus Christ isn't the only way of discovering reality, that maybe they should consider science as well? Because I don't see it happening.
How would you try and prove the supernatural, using non-naturalist means? How much weight would you saying "I feel Jesus in my heart" have in such a class? How about divining rods - how much weight would you give to the claims of a psychic using them? You can't claim it's a fake unless you are also a psychic, using supernatural means - you have to consider that maybe the psychic really IS using divining rods, and they really ARE working.
That was, by the way, a completely serious question. How would you, in one of your new science classes, prove the supernatural using non-naturalist means? Or is it like Andrew says, you just meant that the science could point to a supernatural cause? Like what for example. That the existence of fire points to a Fire God? Would you temper each and every piece of scientific information with "... or maybe, God did it" ?
Like I said there's a reason science is based on naturalism and it's because those things can be tested.
Now, Andrew, my statement was incorrect. There is a way to prove God exists. Have him come down and show us in a way that leaves no room whatsoever for doubt. Beyond that though, beyond God herself coming down and proving without a doubt that she IS god, and proving she's the ONLY God, there's no way to prove God scientifically. There are no measurement devices that pinpoint the location of the soul, or prove a person goes to heaven, no measurement devices that show where heaven and hell are physically located....
Now, you might claim Jesus, but while I have previously stated there could have been a person named Jesus, there's no proof (proof up to today's standards) that he was the son of god, or that he had supernatural magic powers.
It's not a very hard question for science to answer where DNA cam from by the way. It's just hard to answer with certain degrees of certainty. There are hypothesis' as to where, there are theories, but we can't be sure which of the theories is the RIGHT one, or if DNA came about in only one way.
Now Hayes, you could use the scientific evidence to point towards God. You could use it to point towards a lot of things - aliens, someone ELSE's God(s), Qauntum Mechanical spontaneous formation, a whole range of things. I can point to fire and say "the existence of fire points towards Fire God". It's total crap, it's not scientific, but I could still say it. Out of curiosity though, what are some specific examples of what you're talking about? What, to you, in science, points towards God?
Finally though, and sorry for the length of this reply and the disjointed nature - my mind is not closed, JPJ, to the existence of the supernatural. If I saw proof, actual real scientific proof of something supernatural it would be a bit odd for me to ignore it. The problem being, I have never seen any such proof. That's kind of the point of "supernatural" though isn't it? "Beyond natural means and understanding" ? How is one supposed to see proof for something that is by definition unprovable?
”What is it, specifically, that you want taught in SCIENCE class?”
I agree with you that science should be taught in science class. The confusion between us must be in how we define the scope of science. My answer to your following question may help explain our differing definitions:
”Should all church leaders remind their followers that Jesus Christ isn't the only way of discovering reality, that maybe they should consider science as well?”
I would respond that Jesus claimed to be the truth and have all authority therefore He is the ultimate way of discovering reality - OR – He’s wrong and an inferior way.
On the other hand, science admits to a limited natural scope but then passes judgement on all things.
Concluding: I think that science should be taught in science class but with a disclaimer of ’these studies are limited to the natural universe’. To say anything further approaches the realm of philosophy. Students can then decide whether they will investigate other approaches of discovering reality.
”How would you, in one of your new science classes, prove the supernatural using
non-naturalist means? … How is one supposed to see proof for something that is by definition unprovable?”
I think you are defining existence as scientific provable certainty. This definition excludes many things we know to exist ie: individual rights cannot be proved scientifically, yet we know them to exist.
I would define existence as scientifically provable or self evident.
True, you can’t prove the supernatural through lab testing. Using your example: If God came today would you reserve judgement of His existence until you test His attributes in a lab? Or would God’s existence be self evident through his coming?
This is of course an extreme example. I wouldn’t start my case for God’s existence with His coming - the whole idea of God seems silly to you. But I did describe possible supernatural incidents such as after-death experiences. If we were to dialogue on this and you came to the conclusion of a supernatural realm, this would be one step towards the possibility of God’s existence.
You want a DISCLAIMER reminding students that "science only deals with the natural universe" ? That's ridiculous. And "these studies" ?
So when should this disclaimer of yours be read out? Should it be at the bottom of every page of any science-related text book? At the end of the chapter, maybe on the cover? Should the teacher have to say it out loud after every class?
Maybe churches should have a disclaimer: "These sermons only deal with things you can't see, feel, hear, taste, smell, measure or prove".
Thanks for your response HH :) Now it is my turn to apologise for a long comment. Please bear with it!
A couple of follow-up questions, if I may?
"There is a way to prove God exists. Have him come down and show us in a way that leaves no room whatsoever for doubt."
For speculation's sake, what would He need to do to show that?
I'm not aware of any theories for the origin of DNA. Can you think of or link to any?
"You could use [science] to point towards a lot of things - aliens, someone ELSE's God(s), Qauntum Mechanical spontaneous formation, a whole range of things."
True. But would it change it if one thing was by itself consistent with a whole lot of science?
Instead of a separate entity for each 'scientific discovery', one single entity for all.
Consider also this: If we had no prior knowledge of fire, except 1/6 of the world believed in a Fire god one of whose attributes was the causation of the phenomenon fire - and then we discovered fire... would that change your example?
The discovery wouldn't prove the Fire god, but it would vindicate the prior belief.
Where is science consistent with God? Off the top of my head: (read: incomplete)
a) God is the creator - science tells us the universe had a beginning (in contrast to the accepted scientific view of less than a century ago. Christianity got there first).
b)God is eternal - science tells us time is another dimension of space. Anything outside that space, therefore, is not bound by time. Again, science only got here last century, Christianity said this about God millennia ago. (As an aside, modern science now makes a God outside of space conceivable, given that the universe is finite)
c) God is purposeful - the staggering improbability of:
i) life occurring
ii) DNA arising
iii) complex, conscious, moral animals evolving
iv) the universe being inhabitable!!!
etc
These do not require God, but nor are they inconsistent with Him. Furthermore, that it happened despite the incredible improbabilities involved supports a purposeful Creator. Prior to Darwin and various other biological and cosmological discoveries, the universe was considered to have existed like this and there was no basis for inferring a plan or purpose behind its development.
d) God is intelligent - Scientists say the universe possessed characteristics from the beginning that lead it to its current form. To achieve the aforementioned purpose would require intelligence.
e) God is meaningful (as opposed to an indistinct 'force') - we found in something previously thought to be little more than nuclear packing material, a program containing meaningful, readable information. (Can chance create meaningful information? How would it be distinguished from meaningless garbage? Jean Luis Borges wrote a short story in which every possible book was contained in an infinite library. Every truth was contained in the library, but maddeningly the library was useless for finding truth because, in the extraordinary even you found a book that wasn't filled with nonsense, it could just as well be garbage as truth (and was a good deal more likely to be the former, statistically.) My point is that even if chance could produce 'information' it would be indistinguishable from junk, and so would not be information. This would be so except(ironically) for the case in which some other information could be used as a criteria, if and only if that other information did not arise by chance.)
Do you want me to explain that better in another post?
I can't think of any neat characteristics of God to categorise these, but further evidence comes from:
f) appearance of design (by inference to the best explanation)
g) orderly physical laws - consistent with an intelligent purposeful God, cannot be accounted for otherwise.
Less-scientific but still observable:
h) We are conscious. This is consistent with a conscious God.
i) We have consciences. Again, consistent with a moral God.
j) God is creative - the whole universe, from its smallest to its greatest realms, is full of beauty.
I firmly believe Christians are very wrong to shy away from science - if their God is true, science cannot show otherwise; if false, they gain nothing from avoiding it.
Yet, everything I learn about our world - everyday observation of nature, reading biology books (my current phase), studying physics (especially that lecture I linked above) - everything declares God. Take any one piece and it is extraordinary but relatively meaningless. Take it all together as a magnificent, dovetailing whole and it is mindblowingly absurd* apart from God, but with Him a beautifully complete announcement: "I am".
The question isn't where is God in the world, but where isn't He?
What parts of science are inconsistent with God?
Moving along.
"Would you temper each and every piece of scientific information with "... or maybe, God did it" ?"
I think we are still mis-communicating. God did it is not the explanation. The explanation is how God did it.
Thus, we would look at every piece and say, "this is how God did it". Each piece makes more sense when this is attached. God looks more probable when the pieces are consistent with what has been claimed about Him in the Bible, and vice versa.
Is such a disclaimer really ridiculous? The subject area Philosophy of Science is just such a disclaimer, as is any decent epistemology. An inability to come up with a reasonable method of delivering something does not make that thing itself ridiculous. What is wrong with simply making it part of the scientific curriculum, not as a mantra but as a dot point (I assume you would not object to the teaching of the scientific method in science, so why not the nature of the evidence acquired by such a method? That would seem a natural place to put it... oh and that's where I learned it!)
Finally, "Beyond natural means and understanding" ? How is one supposed to see proof for something that is by definition unprovable?"
To be beyond natural means and understanding is not to be unprovable, it is to be beyond natural means and understanding. You have merely asserted, and not shown, that it is unprovable. I challenge you to find a definition of supernatural that includes being unprovable.
Sorry this was so long!
*The utter absurdity of the world is easy to forget. One can focus on the process by which something occurred and miss the absurdity that it happened at all. We can explain what the big bang was and the process of forming stars, the evolution of heavier elements ect. But if you step back and look not through the lens of a process, but at the process itself: it is absurd. 'There was a singularity, it decided to explode, and just so happened to do so with the precise qualities needed to produce planets ect'
When I look at ANYTHING in this manner, even though I know how it happened, I find it simply absurd. You know those advertisements on TV where a ball knocks something which knocks something ect and an incredible chain of events is set off, ultimately starting a car or something?
That can be explained by simple kinematics. But that doesn't make it less fun to watch: it is fun to watch because it is absurd. It is astonishing, even though it can be explained.
Same with the Universe.
(Oh, and I thought maybe you might like to address my comment in a post since otherwise we will have a comment thread several kilometres long. Maybe.)
Over to you, my atheist friend :)
Oh, I forgot to mention those videos I promised are up on TCA. You may need to scroll down a bit to find them.
You've used a lot of oft-repeated and flawed arguments Hayes.
First, the morality one. Morality does not magically come from the bible, it evolves over time thanks to our evolving thought processes. It used to be "moral" a few hundred years ago to slowly lower cats over fires in front of a crowd and burn them to death. If morality comes from your God why then is morality not more easy to define? Why doesn't everyone have the same sense of morality?
You say God is eternal, outside time. Where then comes his concept of time? Where does science say God outside of time is conceivable, how is this your bible somehow "winning" ?
c) You use the improbability argument. Which is crap - probability only means something when predicting the future, it means a lot less when analysing the past. It doesn't matter how low the odds of it happening were - the fact remains it still happened. I do like that you admit it doesn't REQUIRE God though. It doesn't particularly "support" a purposeful creator though. It "supports" that enough time has passed.
d) No, no it wouldn't. What you're forgetting is that if things were different, a different kind of universe could have formed. Even one WITHOUT us. Just because by chance this one allows our existence by no means shows that it's the ONLY one that would have supported us. Science doesn't show that the Big Bang happened, and then things were forced into a certain pathway - they occurred naturally afterwards.
e) ?Yes it can create meaningful information, AND a lot of garbage. See "Junk DNA"
f) If you're talking about evolution here, NATURAL SELECTION IS THE DESIGNER.
g) Are they laws because they simply are, or because we say they are? Of COURSE they can be accounted for otherwise, they don't require a God.
h, i, j) All rather stupid points sorry. We think, therefore God exists? We feel, therefore God? We create, therefore God?
As to the disclaimer yes I think it's stupid. The addition "fucking" comes to mind. Why do you want so much to have science pander to your religious beliefs? If science has to make such a disclaimer, would it not be fair to remind church goers that their beliefs might just be based on wishful thinking?
You can take science all you want and say "See, Jesus!" But nothing in science REQUIRES God. Only certain PEOPLE "require" God.
By the way this is getting way off topic. The TOPIC is how stupid Ben Stein is, and how stupid are the people believing him. I suppose you don't think so Hayes? Did you see the video, see the things he was saying? Are you one who wants Intelligent Design taught in Science classrooms? Even though by all definitions it's not science?
Oh as to your link for the origin of DNA, a simple wikipedia search would have found you that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis
True, the original topic has shifted into many different debates.
Would anyone be interested if I were to summarise and bullet point our discussions for a new post?
I'm keen to find some common ground between us and work from there
Peace
Sure. Not too much common ground though really :P
However I would like a final opinion on the matter. Should people listen to someone like Ben Stein on scientific issues, given his obvious and glaring of knowledge?
Hehe! Cool. Will post something later tonight.
Re Ben Stein:
I think he deserves an audience in his philosophy of science arguments.
As for his scientific knowledge - he's not a scientist. So I would expect people to listen to him as they would to Al Gore.
Are you kidding? Did you WATCH the video JPJ?
Also you underestimate the gullibility of the overtly religious. There have already been people sending letters to well-known biologists (see Richard Dawkins website) saying they finally see how evil "darwinists" are.
There will be thousands upon thousands who will take what Stein says and run with it, and never for a second even consider that what he says might have no basis whatsoever in fact.
He has no right to criticise or be in any public scientific debate when he has no idea what he's talking about. Especially when so many people will believe him.
The crowds are fickle and gullibility is not only for the religious - Dan Brown and John Dominic Crossan [Jesus Seminar] act on their right of free-speech and sway popular opinion because people "never for a second even consider that what he says might have no basis whatsoever in fact"
Your right, the vid critiques very well the lack of scientific knowledge Stein displays.
Stein's movie Expelled also deals with the philsophy of science that I think deserves a hearing.
Removed post had screwed up HTML. Retry:
If your interested, an example I've personally encountered that highlights the the non-religious swaying from false-facts: Bible Skeptics
- was written down generations after the events
True. Even that book CraigS sent me agreed. And that's only the new testament.
- was changed over time to suit the church
There have been changes made. Hard to be of the view that it has remained unchanged.
- had left out gospels that contradicted others
Of course it did.
- doesn't even agree with itself
There are quite a few contradictions in the bible. There's also a lot of bullshit, scientifically speaking. Case in point, Genesis. I made a post about it, "The Science of the Bible", where a guy breeds certain coloured cattle by putting coloured sticks in front of them while they're mating.
But no, the Da Vinci Code was a work of fiction. And a terribly boring movie. However just because it doesn't say in the bible that Jesus had children doesn't mean he didn't really have them. Wasn't he God, sent down to be a man? Isn't a vital part of being a Jewish man something to do with marriage and children? Hard to think that "He" got the REAL human experience without some sex.
----------
Anyway JPJ, why are you defending Stein? Why can't you just admit that someone who has no knowledge about science has no place making a "movie" about how crap science is? The movie is NOT about the "Philosophy of Science". It's a propaganda piece about how evolution is evil. If you read the facts none of the people who "lost their jobs for mentioning intelligent design".... actually lost their jobs. Some of them didn't even HAVE "jobs".
The blog post was about how stupid Ben Stein is. He is without doubt fairly stupid regarding his grasp of science. Can we at least agree on that point or will you say something about the "philosophy of science" again?
Also, have you seen or are you planning to see Expelled? Just curious because even some Christians have been giving it terrible reviews.
I'm planing to see Expelled but not for the cause of evolution bashing.
I'm mainly interested because of all the fuss it's causing. Just like DaVinci Code - something provocative to generate discussion.
"didn't actually lose their jobs"
Yes I am concerned about the alleged 'trickery' reported.
Maybe I'm coming across as defending Stein, apologies, I'm just reserving conclusive judgement until I've seen it for myself.
Re Bible skeptic comments: I'll post a response on my original blog.
Also - when I finish the summary did you wanna post it on your site? If so, throw me an email and I'll send it to you. Peace
Summary of what, this entire conversation? Depends on how bad you make me look :P
Glad to read your comments that you're at least concerned about the producers and their dishonesty. Also remember that when they interviewed PZ Myers and Dawkins they said it was for a different film - as in different name that in no way implied what it was going to be.
And they used certain music and graphics without permission in their "film"
I'm going to see it so I can blast it on the blog, but there's no way I'm paying for it, I'll just rip it from bitTorrent. There's no fucking way those bastards are getting a single cent from me.
Post a Comment