quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: It should also be noted that the people making Expelled reportedly lied to the scientists that they interviewed as to the purpose of the interviews.
Primary source? The personal blogs of those scientists. The movie was described to them as a film called "Crossroads" which was supposed to be an objective look at the intersection of science and religion.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It should also be noted that, in the past, OSC has claimed that people were falsely accusing the ID movement of having the goal of sneaking creationism into schools, this being some time after the high profile Dover case established this was in fact exactly what they were doing.
Of couse, he's also claimed that the majority of people in the U.S. believe that premarital sex is wrong, using as evidence a poll that says the exact opposite and, when praising an article that, as part of it, showed a list of the research proven benefits of self-esteem, said that he had never seen articles that showed benefits of self-esteem. Or there's the string theory thing, or the gay research thing, and so on.
He doesn't have a very good track record of not saying things that are demonstrably false in areas like this.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: No idea, but I'd be happy to condemn anything he says that I think is intellectually dishonest, too.
For instance, if he has ever said that evolutionary theory is incompatible with a belief in God, I'll gladly condemn it for intellectual dishonesty.
edit: and I'm not certain that's very relevant. Even if I were to accept some theory of retaliatory intellectual dishonesty, Stein is painting the advice of all scientists as like Nazis on nationally televised television show, while PZ Myers has mostly been saying things on his blog, and in quotations edited by Stein in Expelled.
It may not be an example of retaliatory intellectual dishonesty, but retaliatory hyperbole.
EDIT: Not that I'd know. But without context, the information that has been provided on Nazi segment of 'Expelled' isn't that useful to draw a conclusion from.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not that I'd know. But without context, the information that has been provided on Nazi segment of 'Expelled' isn't that useful to draw a conclusion from.
There are some pretty thorough reviews of the film, as well as its companion "Leader's Guide". I'd say there is more than enough information available to draw a conclusion.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is a thought. Let's say I believe in Intelligent Design, but here is my Intelligent Design theory. Space Aliens came wandering into our galaxy and stumbled across our solar system, took one look at earth and said, this place has potential. So, the sowed the seeds of intelligent life on this planet and so began the 'evolution' of man.
Periodically, the aliens returned to check up on their experiment. I'm guessing they haven't reach a success or failure conclusion yet.
That is a perfectly acceptable Intelligent Design theory. It accounts for everything that Intelligent Design accounts for. Life on earth is too complex to have spontaneously occurred, there had to be an intelligent designer. It is no easier or harder to prove than the 'god' theory.
Now the question, will religious conservatives accept that theory. Will the let me teach that version of I.D. to their kids?
And there is where I.D. fails the test. It can only be Intelligent Design, if they get to pick the designer. If God is the designer then Whoo-Hoo, but if we pick any other likely designer then most certainly we are wrong.
Since the only allowed intelligent designer is God, this is a religious matter, not a scientific one, no matter how much pseudo-science you throw at it.
No matter how much they try not to say 'God' when explaining Intelligent Design, the fact remains that for most, God is the only intelligent designer allowed.
But how is hyper-intelligent alien life any more far fetched than God? I would say, that Alien life makes more sense than God does. Alien life, if it exists, is at least real and tangible, not some unprovable immeasurable intangible abstract pure-faith God.
Perhaps all the great miracle workers in the Bible were just space aliens come down to check on their experiment. Perhaps, Jesus, if he was the miracle worker they claim, was himself a space alien scientist trying to get the barbaric world under control. Trying to push the next step in social evolution? It makes just as much sense as anything else.
Personally, I think those professing Intelligent Design and literal creationism are doing God an immense injustice. In reality they are creating God in their own image, not the other way around. I mean, how weak is you God if the best he can do is wave a magic wand to get things done?
God is infinite and all powerful. Evolution to him is hardly enough work to fill his day between breakfast and first coffee break. I mean, how dumb is your God if Intelligent Design is the best he can do. Now, Evolution, that is the work of a real and powerful God. That is a master piece of self-sustaining self-adapting life.
As far as I'm concerned, science simply documents the methods and means of God to the best of our ability to understand it in the moment. As we learn more, we understand more.
Keep in mind that for over 2,000 years every scientific break through and general world discovery has been denounced by the church as both not existing and being the work of the devil. Church simply does not like what it can't control, and the church has NEVER been able to control science, and has NEVER been right about the validity of any scientific discovery.
Yet, eventually the science become so compelling that the church has to accept it, but then, when that time comes, of course, they knew it was right all along.
Your Intelligent Design only works if I get to pick the designer.
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: Keep in mind that for over 2,000 years every scientific break through and general world discovery has been denounced by the church as both not existing and being the work of the devil.
Wrong. Until a couple of centuries ago, every scientific breakthrough and general world discovery has been conducted BY the church. The rest of your post is well-reasoned, but that statement needs addressing.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wrong. Until a couple of centuries ago, every scientific breakthrough and general world discovery has been conducted BY the church. The rest of your post is well-reasoned, but that statement needs addressing.
Where did you get that information? It is not actually true.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer:
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: Keep in mind that for over 2,000 years every scientific break through and general world discovery has been denounced by the church as both not existing and being the work of the devil.
Wrong. Until a couple of centuries ago, every scientific breakthrough and general world discovery has been conducted BY the church. The rest of your post is well-reasoned, but that statement needs addressing.
With the exception of breakthroughs such as the discovery that the earth is round, that the earth revolves around the sun, and that planetary orbits are elliptical*?
* Not that Kepler was persecuted by the church but he certainly didn't work for it
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It depends on what you mean by the "discovery" that the earth is round. The conclusion based on shadows came up long before Magellan. And the earth revolving around the sun part (I assume you're talking about Galileo and not Copernicus) was persecuted for political matters; Galileo named his textbook character that argued for the earth-centered universe Simplicio, which one of Galileo's political opponents pointed out to the Pope to be a possible insult.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Keep in mind that for over 2,000 years every scientific break through and general world discovery has been denounced by the church as both not existing and being the work of the devil.
I don't think this is accurate, nor is C3PO's assertion that every discovery was by the church.
I'd say Gregor Mendel's work with beans was a huge scientific breakthrough and his work was sanctioned by the church.
edit: Sorry peas not beans, I don't know what I was thinking.
posted
Ah, so the church persecuting people for 'political matters' is ok, then?
Apart from that, would oyu like to point to some of these scientific breakthroughs that you credit to the church?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: It depends on what you mean by the "discovery" that the earth is round. The conclusion based on shadows came up long before Magellan. And the earth revolving around the sun part (I assume you're talking about Galileo and not Copernicus) was persecuted for political matters; Galileo named his textbook character that argued for the earth-centered universe Simplicio, which one of Galileo's political opponents pointed out to the Pope to be a possible insult.
But this doesn't help you. You claimed that every scientific breakthrough was done BY the church. Even if you demonsrated that the church had no religious reason to deny heliocentrism, that doesn't demonstrate that the church lifted a finger to discover it. You demonstrate that the church paid Galileo to observe the planets through telescopes and to publish his findings, maybe you'd have a case.
But since you brought him up, how do you claim that Copernicus's research was conducted by the church?
Sure, Mendal was a monk, that doesn't mean that his work was done by the church. He did it on his own time, not because the church wanted it done.
Surely there's someone who can post a short list of scientific breakthroughs found by the Chinese (paper, variolation, gunpowder, for starters) and Arabs, how do you claim that those were found through work conducted by the church?
Heck, you are argung that there was not a single general world discovery at all until 2000 years ago? I'd say that bronzemaking should count for something.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sure, Mendal was a monk, that doesn't mean that his work was done by the church. He did it on his own time, not because the church wanted it done.
He conducted his research in the monastery gardens, at the behest of friends both at the monastery and at the University of Vienna. I find it hard to believe that he could have used the monastery grounds if the church did not approve of that sort of activity.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, he also labored in near-obscurity, on questions few even knew how to formulate, and his research wasn't rediscovered until much later, but I agree the church would have been okay with his research if they had really known anything about it.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I find it hard to believe that he could have used the monastery grounds if the church did not approve of that sort of activity.
I know a bunch of kids in my HS church youth group who used church grounds to make out and/or smoke. I don't think the church would have approved, and it certainly didn't support or initiate that activity, simply because it took place on church grounds.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sure, Mendal was a monk, that doesn't mean that his work was done by the church. He did it on his own time, not because the church wanted it done.
He conducted his research in the monastery gardens, at the behest of friends both at the monastery and at the University of Vienna. I find it hard to believe that he could have used the monastery grounds if the church did not approve of that sort of activity.
Come on now. You are grapsing at straws, and you know it.
No, letting a monk count his pea plants doesn't mean the church conducted genetic research. At most, it demonstraes that the church didn't disapprove strongly enough of a monk's harmless hobby to make him stop.
If you had evidence of a the abbot getting a letter from the bishop saying "Let Mendel do his pea research, have him print up his findings to share", then you'd have an argument.
Making some claim with "every" in it is naturally going to bring out the exceptions. And in your case, they are legion, and I figure will greatly outnumber whatever research you can name that was "conducted" by the church. Really the smart, honest thing to do is to retract your claim, because it's flat out wrong.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can we also claim that the Catholic church believes in lying since it is pretty well established that Mendel fudged his data?
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
swbarnes2: I don't think I am grasping at straws. And I think you are confusing my defense of church sanctioned research with another poster's belief that all scientific research came through the church.
I am simply avoiding both extremes because I feel neither is true. Mendal became a monk before he attended university. It was quite common for monks to be encouraged to study all the classic studies of the day so that they could better teach theology. Jesuits were especially famous for their establishment of universities and colleges that emphasized both theology and science.
I don't know the motives behind Mendal's experiment, but it's doubtlessly true that monks were encouraged to be smart and to conduct research. It's false that Christianity even in the middle ages stifled all scientific progress.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Can we also claim that the Catholic church believes in lying since it is pretty well established that Mendel fudged his data?
He did? As in made mistakes or intentionally fudged his data?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer:
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: Keep in mind that for over 2,000 years every scientific break through and general world discovery has been denounced by the church as both not existing and being the work of the devil.
Wrong. Until a couple of centuries ago, every scientific breakthrough and general world discovery has been conducted BY the church. The rest of your post is well-reasoned, but that statement needs addressing.
I wasn't aware that newton was a member of the cloth.
I was also under the impression that there existed a very great deal of scientific work BEFORE the establishment of the church. I was under the further impression, from my studies of scientific history, philosophy and the church, that the greater part of the scientific tradition that ever existed inside the church was adopted from outside the church, as was the overwhelming majority of Christian philosophy.
Let's see: Algebra, Astronomy, Anatomy, Architecture, Geometry, Music theory, Metalworking, geology... all areas of interest that could not easily be said to have been advanced very much by the church- especially considering the advances made secularly in recent years, and during the height of the church's power. (Despite popular wisdom, secular music is a larger part of music history in any time period, fyi.) Wasn't there a period of European history, before "a couple of centuries ago," when people forgot how to make concrete?
And why, please do tell us, do we find so many of the great philosophical texts of ancient Greece from Arabic translations? They were not written in Arabic, but the Arabs preserved them, not Europeans, and not the church.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I don't know the motives behind Mendal's experiment, but it's doubtlessly true that monks were encouraged to be smart and to conduct research. It's false that Christianity even in the middle ages stifled all scientific progress.
Well, such a task would be impossible anyway, but you can agree, I'm sure, that the church did not encourage scientific progress in the way that it has been encouraged in the last two centuries.
That being said, there are uncounted reasons why scientific progress has been so keenly motivated in that time- and this has certainly hastened the fall of the church's wealth and political capital. IMO, the church is very simply outdated, and has been grasping for ways to cling to society's coattails since the enlightenment. Scientific research was certainly less threatening to the church at one time, but as the swift societal changes have racked up over the years, conspicuously related to the dispersal of knowledge and intellectual capital outside the church, the church has changed- it has tried to hold on to that fading capital in any way it can.
In some instances, perhaps starting most visibly with the obvious case of Galileo, it has struck out aggressively against progress not motivated toward the consolidation of information and intellectual capital within the church. In the timeless words of Jeff "freaking" Goldbloom: "it's the most awesome power the world has ever seen, and yet you wield it like a kid who's just found his dad's gun." I just like the quote. Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
You know, it's this great myth that scientific discovery was completely stifled during the middle ages, that the before the renaissance people were unwashed and uneducated, waiting to fall down dead of the plague any second.
Silly.
The so-called "Dark Ages" was a time of great discovery and growth in Europe. Better understanding of farming techniques (revolving crops) allowed the population to grow so that people could do things like start the renaissance. While we know now that humeric medicine (the five humours etc) is bunk, it was thought to be true in the Middle Ages because it *worked*, and there was contemporary research to back it up. Hygiene was different, because without understanding of germs or bacteria, there was little understanding of sterility, but cleanliness was still valued. Formal education with reading, philosophy, etc. was rare even for the rich, though the best way to gain an education was through the church.
The Dark Ages laid the stage for more discovery in the Renaissance and later.
quote:The so-called "Dark Ages" was a time of great discovery and growth in Europe.
What were some of these discoveries and growth? Are we talking primarily agricultural?
I don't know the period that well, but I was under the impression that most of the growth came from exposure to Muslims, who were the ones doing most of the discovery and who preserved the writings from Greek and Roman times.
---
Also, from what I've read, at least in Spain, cleanliness and/or education (outside of the Church) put one at risk for being accused to the Inquisition as being a secret Jew or Muslim.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I could go on and on for hours about why the confusion of "Darwinism" (read: evolution by natural selection) with other scientific theories and even unanswered, as-yet-untheoried scientific questions makes me flaming mad.
The theory of evolution by natural selection does not seek to - nor has it ever needed to - explain anything other than how organisms change over time in response to their environment. That's it. That's all there is to it. "Darwinism" never once sought to explain abiogenesis or any of the other problems over which Card and Stein and other supporters of allowing the ID non-science into the science classroom feel confused. Science is OK with saying, "We don't know yet, but we're trying to find out." There is nothing wrong in science with admitting that there are gaps in the knowledge. And no serious scientist, nor any serious student of the sciences, has ever claimed that "Darwinism" explains the origin of life, defines what life is, or even touches on the various other mysteries of the universe. Evolution by natural selection ONLY shows how life changes over time. It doesn't pretend to hold a theory for anything else, period.
Insisting that just because scientists don't understand yet how life began, it MUST have been an "intelligence" that did it all is grossly disturbing. There is less scientific evidence for intelligent design than there is for DNA arising via lighting striking the primordial soup. And the existence of an intelligence capable of designing life with a purpose only opens up an infinity of questions. The idea of intelligent design is nothing but an infinite regress of questions that can never be answered. ID supporters expect serious scientists and students of science to accept the idea that a magical being who is outside the realm of understanding did it all, even though the very purpose of science is to understand the true and real cause and effect of the observable world. "Magic intelligent being did it all for totally unknowable purpose" doesn't fit into that framework and is, frankly, completely silly in the context of science.
It's fine with me if people want to have religious beliefs. Variety is the spice of life, and there are plenty of good reasons to be religious if that suits you. But it is not okay to put the pseudoscience of ID into the science classroom. It's wonderful for students to say, "Wait...where did life come from in the first place?" That's great! The more people wonder about that very question, the more likely it is we'll some day find an answer to that question. It's fine for kids and adults to question science. After all, scientists question science all the time.
It's not okay to brush off such a serious and important question by saying, "Well, since we don't have a well-developed theory yet, I guess we should just assume that some unknowable intelligent being did it for a purpose that was all his own. Also, we can never begin to understand the intelligent being, so stop trying to inquire right now. It's not possible to ever know the answers to this. Just be satisfied with the idea that some intelligent being did it." How disturbing!
Let kids question science all they want. Let them explore it. Let them dissent. Let them research and find answers to their questions. Don't fill their heads in the process with such unscientific ideas as "Magic man did it." That's just insulting to everybody's intelligence.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
My understanding, for what it's worth, is that initially learning and science everywhere outside of Asia were fostered by religion as a means of understanding God/Allah/whichever deity was worshiped in that time and place. It was only when science began to show that deities were inherently illogical and likely to not exist at all that religious institutions began opposing scientific advancements and decrying them as "the work of the devil" or whichever "bad guy" suits the religion you're examining.
Asia's progress was only different because most Asian "religions" do not include the belief in deities and are essentially atheistic. In many cases the focus of these philosophies is on the natural world by itself, without the assignment of a personal god/gods to make things work. Therefore, there was no need for the establishments to get in the way of science and try to hold it back or denounce it.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I don't know the period that well, but I was under the impression that most of the growth came from exposure to Muslims, who were the ones doing most of the discovery and who preserved the writings from Greek and Roman times.
And how would Europeans have even come into contact with Muslims if not for the Crusades? Hmmmm??? So there!!!
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
sarmup, I can certainly emphasize with having a lot of knowledge about a subject that contradicts common beliefs about it and with either not having the time or not really feeling the inclination to do other people's research for them when the information is extremely easy to access.
That being said, the pages you linked me to don't really answer my question about what discoveries were being made in the Middle Ages and only tangentially touched on cleaniness and education putting you at risk with the Spanish Inquisition.
I've no problem with reading sources you suggest rather than you having to do all the work for me, but that's not going to help if they don't contain what I'm looking for.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ungh someone woke me up and had me read this article not telling me who wrote it.
I kind of shuffled through it.
I liked these parts — "Expelled is not trying to preach or even defend ID" and "Ben Stein links Darwinism with, of all things, the Holocaust. But that is one of the most important – and valid – points in the movie. First, Hitler was a Darwinist."
So I read again, just to make sure that the article was as massively retarded as I thought it was.
then my friend asked me "What do you think?"
I got some coffee started and I mulled over this test and wondered what was behind it and said 'umm it's pretty phenomenally dumb, why?'
and he said something like 'you sure you want to say phenomenally dumb?'
And I said '.. yeah?'
And he pulled out the surprise and said 'ha ha, I thought you liked orson scott card!'
I told him it wasn't much of a surprise because I've been watching this progressive freefall in OSC's nonfiction and wouldn't think to defend them anyway.
MORAL OF STORY: seriously guys, that article was pretty indefensibly braindead. OSC is sticking up for a petty piece of weakly reasoned propaganda, the most amazingly poor one in recent memory, to boot.
It just grinds gears on his credibility (what's left of it, I .. suppose?) when he rants about the smug liberals and their terrible "play fast and loose with the truth" technique and then in the same article says hey but this expelled movie is something you should see nur nur nur nurPosts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squick, the point I'm kinda failing to make is that Serious philosophical and scientific research DID occur in the Middle Ages, as evidenced by the philosopher Aquinas (who was touched on) and my earlier comment about humeric medicine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_medicine or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humorism) shows that while the scientific method didn't quite exist yet, people were still working toward making discoveries to make everyone's lives a little better.
While I am not incredibly informed about Medieval Hygiene and Spanish history (my emphasis is elsewhere in Medieval pursuits), I happen to know people who *are*, and will converse with them to get to the bottom of that particular claim. I'm not brushing off your question, but I'm simply trying to say that many things people assume about the middle ages are simply wrong, and I'm willing to give the Spanish Inquisition the benefit of a modicum of doubt.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I am simply avoiding both extremes because I feel neither is true. Mendal became a monk before he attended university. It was quite common for monks to be encouraged to study all the classic studies of the day so that they could better teach theology. Jesuits were especially famous for their establishment of universities and colleges that emphasized both theology and science.
Avoiding the extremes doesn't mean the truth isn't closer to one of the extremes than the other. From your arguments, that appears to be what your saying, but I think it can be safely said that most scientific discovery in human history was done without Church/religious support (which does not mean that the church actively interfered).
Now that doesn't bother me, because scientific research really shouldn't be a church's concern, so it should surprise no one and shouldn't be seen as a slight against the church that this is the case.
What percentage of the Christian population is Young-Earth Christians?
No, that's the wrong question.
What percentage of the US population would be considered Textual Literalists in either the Bible, Torah, or Koran?
Because, honestly, those are the people who find direct contradiction in moder scientific theories that they label together under the phrase "Evolution" or "Darwinism."
This small percentage who believe that the earth is only 10,000 years old, or 6,000, or 3,000 or however many years old can not fit the millions of years the evolutionary process would have taken into their time-limited universe.
They don't like this contradiction to their core beliefs to be taught in State run schools. The State is basically saying that their religion is wrong.
However, their numbers are so small that no one else seems to want to take up their cause.
So they stretch the contradiction.
Now science is not contradicting their young-earth religions, its contradicting ALL religion!!!!
Now more of the religious believers out there listen to this fear and start protesting on the side of their young-earth brethren. After all, to not do so puts you in the camp of the non-believers.
Now a movement has emerged that puts the livelihoods and beliefs of many secular folks at risk.
They don't see a small group of Young-Earth believers facing them. They see a large organization of Believers, Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc.
The only thing this group has in common is faith and their anti-evolutionary arguments.
That is why some of the secularists start turning against everyone of faith.
Which drives more people of faith to attack the secularists, etc, etc.
All because a small minority of those of faith can not reconcile that faith with what Science has proclaimed.
Its a shame.
However, before you people of faith start labeling Evolution as Satan's Science, realize that it only disagrees with the small percentage of you who are literalists, are Young Earth believers.
And before you secularists start labeling Faith as the tool of ignorance, realize that the unshakable foundation that science is to your world, a young, Genesis based creation as written down in the Holy books, is to some people, and they don't want their kids forced to lie or fail a test because they believe differently than you.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that's just too bad. If they insist on having their children make assertions which are massively contradicted by the evidence, then they'll just have to get used to their children failing honest tests. You would not defend a religion which believed that two and two make five; creationism is a very short step up from that level of dishonesty.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: swbarnes2: I don't think I am grasping at straws. And I think you are confusing my defense of church sanctioned research with another poster's belief that all scientific research came through the church.
Ah, you are right. My mistake.
quote:I don't know the motives behind Mendal's experiment, but it's doubtlessly true that monks were encouraged to be smart and to conduct research.
At some times, maybe. But can you demonstrate that it was true in this case?
If the church was supporting all this research, can you name another, say, two monks who were so supported?
I'm not even sure you can demonstrate that this was true for a majority of the 2000 year history of the church. The church's business was saving souls, not looking at planets through telescopes.
quote:It's false that Christianity even in the middle ages stifled all scientific progress.
Of course not. At the very least, I'm sure that the science of beer-making was an exception.
As for Mendal's data, he reported that the 7 traits he studied all assorted independantly. This is only possible if those 7 traits are all on separate chromosomes. Pea plants only have 7 chromosomes. As far as I know, the data that Mendal reported are accurate, those 7 traits do assort independantly, but the odds of him hitting on 7 traits on 7 chromosomes by chance is quite small. What's most likely is that he studied more than 7, and then reported on the 7 that matched his simple genetic model, and just didn't report the data that didn't match his model. Not good scientific technique, but there's a limit to how much one man could research alone. Perhaps if the church had given Mendel more time and more helpers, he might have been able to sort out gene linkage, and been able to publish a more complete model of inheritence. As it was, he published what he understood, but it was enough to get people started.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't seen Stein's movie, so I can't comment on the validity of whatever methods he uses in his film. I also am not an expert on evolution, so I won't comment on the validity of claims that the evidence for it is flawed.
However, I will comment on what seems to be the main issue OSC is talking about in his article: the claim that scientists act too dogmaticly about evolution. And I will say that in my experience, it is extremely difficult to deny that the scientific community is pretty disrespectful towards dissenting opinions on the intelligent design issue. The professors I've had in college that discussed the topic and most commentary I've read by scientists seem to suggest many scientists consider evolutionary theory to be irrefutable fact, view efforts to question it as dangerous to science in general, and define such efforts as inherently unscientific. I will admit that it is certainly possible this anecdotal evidence on my part may be a coinsidence; maybe I have just happened to have come across the few scientists who take such a dogmatic viewpoint. However, I'm inclined to think it is not a coinsidence.
Part of the problem is that, like experts in many disciplines, scientists seem to often believe that because they work within the discipline, they are also automatically experts on how to define it. In most disciplines, but especially in the case of science, this is not true. To understand what is or is not within the scope of valid science, one needs to do some combination of philosophical analysis on what science is and/or systematically study how scientists have operated throughout history. There are real experts that dedicate their academic lives to that studying exactly that, and they have come to many conflicting conclusions about the true boundaries of science - some of which would contain Intelligent Design, many of which would not. It is not a clear cut issue. So it is a problem when scientists who have expertise in genetics or biology or some other discipline (rather than in the study of science itself), simply assume their understanding of the nature of science is correct, and then exclude ideas accordingly. It is in some ways similar to the classical music player who considers rap to be "not real music". It may, in fact, be true that Intelligent Design Theory can't possibly be "real science" in any form - but it isn't obvious. And, even if it does seem obvious to you, it certainly isn't a good reason to be disgusted by the fact that some people don't see it as obvious. There are far far better things to be disgusted about.
Of course, it is no secret what motivates scientists and others to feel that way. It's pretty clear that lots of Intelligent Design enthusiasts are playing dirty, plain and simple. Often they spin and distort the facts, or even make stuff up, in order to advocate a view that typically comes more from religion than any science-based evidence. But I don't think the best solution is to respond in kind. It is sort of like trying to respond to diry politics with dirty politics of your own - it usually just ends up muddying up everything. That is why I'd prefer if the scientific community stuck to the high road, and respect those who are trying to find flaws in evolution, even while critically and fairly judging any evidnece such dissenters put forward.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It may, in fact, be true that Intelligent Design Theory can't possibly be "real science" in any form - but it isn't obvious.
Yes, it is. You don't understand scientific epistemology. You never have, but you continuously try to use your ignorance as a tool.
It's not complex and shifting. There really aren't that many rules. ID violates them. It cannot be science. It is outside its scope.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I will say that in my experience, it is extremely difficult to deny that the scientific community is pretty disrespectful towards dissenting opinions on the intelligent design issue. The professors I've had in college that discussed the topic and most commentary I've read by scientists seem to suggest many scientists consider evolutionary theory to be irrefutable fact, view efforts to question it as dangerous to science in general, and define such efforts as inherently unscientific.
That is because the only criticisms of evolution that have actually appeared over the past 150 years have been, bluntly, stupid and repetitive. Sorry, but there it is. If anyone wanted to come up with an intelligent, testable critique of evolutionary theory, scientists would welcome it. But after 150 years of refuting the same three stupid arguments presented as though they were new and exciting, the community has understandably got a wee bit testy on the subject.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my experience scientists would be happy to listen to an actual flaw. The problem is very few non-experts have enough knowledge to make an intelligent statement on the issue. If you read over some of the debates with resh on the boards, he admits to not understanding many basic scientific ideas, which are crucial to understanding the evidence behind evolutionary theory (ex PCR). Scientists LOVE ripping each others work apart, they love pointing out flaws and gaps in data. But they also expect people who point out the flaws in their data to have taken the time to understand it first.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:That is why I'd prefer if the scientific community stuck to the high road, and respect those who are trying to find flaws in evolution, even while critically and fairly judging any evidnece such dissenters put forward.
I believe the scientific community does respect those who try to find flaws in evolutionary theory. I would not include ID advocates in this camp, however.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Scientists LOVE ripping each others work apart, they love pointing out flaws and gaps in data.
It's been my experience that, in the scientist circles I travel in, a friend is someone who tries to destroy your ideas before they are published. And, honestly, they're doing you a favor.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I haven't seen Stein's movie, so I can't comment on the validity of whatever methods he uses in his film. I also am not an expert on evolution, so I won't comment on the validity of claims that the evidence for it is flawed.
However, I will comment on what seems to be the main issue OSC is talking about in his article: the claim that scientists act too dogmaticly about evolution. And I will say that in my experience, it is extremely difficult to deny that the scientific community is pretty disrespectful towards dissenting opinions on the intelligent design issue.
Creationism doesn't deserve any intellectual or scientific respect, because it has no intellectual or scientific validity.
If you disagree, by all means, present the intellectual and scientific positives of Creationism.
quote:The professors I've had in college that discussed the topic and most commentary I've read by scientists seem to suggest many scientists consider evolutionary theory to be irrefutable fact, view efforts to question it as dangerous to science in general, and define such efforts as inherently unscientific.
If "scientists" really think that evolution is inarguable fact, why are they haveing discussions like this:
"Russ Doolittle presented an analysis based on individual folds in proteins that clearly resolved the Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukaryotes, while a distant relative, Ford Doolittle, argued that the prevalence of horizontal gene transfer at the bacterial level made any such trees questionable, or at best uninformative. Meanwhile, Thomas Cavalier-Smith argued forcefully that gene-based trees miss out on significant evolutionary events, such as the transition that gave the Archaea a radically different membrane chemistry. Almost anyone who touched on the subject (and there were several speakers that did) gave a confused picture of what the genome of a Eukaryote looked like before it first took a mitochondrion on board. "
Scientific questions of a scientific theory are never unscientific. Do you argue that ID is scientific?
quote:Part of the problem is that, like experts in many disciplines, scientists seem to often believe that because they work within the discipline, they are also automatically experts on how to define it.
Whereas you think that evolution, and evolution alone should be defined by young Earth Creationists instead?
Rather than hypothesize, why don't you give us an example where you think that the scientific community has erred in this way.
quote:In most disciplines, but especially in the case of science, this is not true.
Really? Can you name one technical term that you use at your job, that has a definition completely contrary to what you and the community of experts in your field think it should mean?
quote:To understand what is or is not within the scope of valid science, one needs to do some combination of philosophical analysis on what science is and/or systematically study how scientists have operated throughout history.
Science is about testing hypotheses with real data. It's really that simple.
quote:There are real experts that dedicate their academic lives to that studying exactly that, and they have come to many conflicting conclusions about the true boundaries of science - some of which would contain Intelligent Design, many of which would not.
Can you name one who does count ID as science?
quote:It is not a clear cut issue.
No, when the ringleader of ID claims that ID is the logos of John recast in scientific jargon, then it's clear cut. When ID journals languish because not a soul has any research to publish, it's pretty clear cut.
quote:So it is a problem when scientists who have expertise in genetics or biology or some other discipline (rather than in the study of science itself), simply assume their understanding of the nature of science is correct, and then exclude ideas accordingly.
I'd argue that those who can, do, those who can't, philosophize.
But regardless, can you name these philosophers of science who do think that ID is real science? I'm inclined to think you made them up, but I stand ready to be corrected if you can furnish a name that satisfies the board.
quote:It may, in fact, be true that Intelligent Design Theory can't possibly be "real science" in any form - but it isn't obvious.
They don't do research. They are Creationists. That's what makes it obvious.
quote:There are far far better things to be disgusted about.
The fallacy of relative privation?
Sorry, but ID is Creationism. If you want to defend an pack of obvious lies that's your problem. I don't see why I should apologize for opposing it.
quote:Of course, it is no secret what motivates scientists and others to feel that way.
A respect for science and honesty explains it pretty well.
quote:But I don't think the best solution is to respond in kind.
But ID isn't about science. It's about politics. The only way to engage politics is with politics. Certainly, there's no more battle on the science front. ID lost that one decades ago.
quote:It is sort of like trying to respond to diry politics with dirty politics of your own - it usually just ends up muddying up everything.
Scientist are continuing to do work. And pro-science advocates continue to fight to keep creationism out of public schools. Which is how it should be. Do you think otherwise?
quote:That is why I'd prefer if the scientific community stuck to the high road, and respect those who are trying to find flaws in evolution, even while critically and fairly judging any evidnece such dissenters put forward.
So you think that science adovacates should abandon the public schools to teaching Creationism, because they shouldn't muddy themselves with the "dirt" of politics? You think that the scientific community should say nothing as people lie about Creationism being science? You think that scientists should bend over backwards to treat ID as legitimate science, even though it clearly isn't? And that the scientific community should respect the Creationists who call them Nazis and killers?
Can you even give us an example of what "evidence" you think the ID advocates have brought forth that you think has been ignored by the scientific community?
Really, there are plenty of issues in the world where there is a legitimate stand on both sides. This is not one of them.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
If there were a serious group trying to have Flat Earth taught in schools, scientists would treat them the same way they treat ID people now. Get some real science, or take your faith-based system back to your church, where it belongs.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is a small distinction between Science and the pseudo-science of Intelligent design -
Science-
"Well, I understand this part, and I've figured out that part, but this last part is amazing and incomprehensible -- it's like magic."
Pseudo-Science/Religion -
"Well, I understand this part, and I've figured out that part, and I've also figured out this last amazing part -- it's magic."
Any scientist can disbelieve aspects of evolution and Darwinism, and propose alternative explanations. I have a hard time believing science would deny that right of scientific theory, but when the conclusion of that scientific theory is 'It's magic', then all bets are off.
You have to explain the natural world within the realm of the natural world, or you are not explaining anything at all.
Now there will always be aspects of science that we don't understand. Currently, we don't understand chemistry or electricity, but even in our known and clear ignorance, we have enough of a working theory to make those entities work for us. Flip the light switch and the lights come on. Even if we don't fully and completely understand how and why the lights come on, we do understand it well enough to make it work.
I have no doubt that near the end of this century, assuming we don't destroy ourselves, we will understand a lot more about electricity, chemistry, AND Evolution. A century from now we will look back on 2000, the same way we now look back on 1900, slap ourselves in the forehead and say, oh my God, how did they ever survive, they were practically living in the stone age.
But no aspect of science will ever be advanced by the statement 'It's Magic'. We can see that aspect as 'like magic' and try to find the natural explanation for how and why it is. But 'It's Magic' doesn't further scientific inquiry, it stops it.
Yet, I do believe there is an element of magic in science. The natural wonders that science reveals only confirms the immense complexity of the universe and shows a divine hand it it. That said, I reconfirm, that the answer to any scientific question will NEVER be 'it's magic'.
There are wonders beyond wonders to be revealed in the natural universe, but only if we try to discover what is at the heart of this process that is so like magic to our current sphere of knowledge.
Scientific knowledge is advanced by taking what seems magic, and making it not magic, but with the fall of each new 'like magic', a million new magical things are revealed.
In my view, science makes the magic of the natural universe known to us, and that merely reveal how magical it truly is.
Posts: 803 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:If "scientists" really think that evolution is inarguable fact, why are they haveing discussions like this:
"Russ Doolittle presented an analysis based on individual folds in proteins that clearly resolved the Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukaryotes, while a distant relative, Ford Doolittle, argued that the prevalence of horizontal gene transfer at the bacterial level made any such trees questionable, or at best uninformative. Meanwhile, Thomas Cavalier-Smith argued forcefully that gene-based trees miss out on significant evolutionary events, such as the transition that gave the Archaea a radically different membrane chemistry. Almost anyone who touched on the subject (and there were several speakers that did) gave a confused picture of what the genome of a Eukaryote looked like before it first took a mitochondrion on board. "
But none of these hypotheses contradict that evolution, as such, took place. What they are saying is "I think we got here by path A, path B, or path C." All the paths are within the overall theory of evolution, though. I think you are a bit orthogonal to the question Tres was posing.
quote:Currently, we don't understand chemistry or electricity,
I must say I disagree with that. What parts of chemistry and electricity do you feel are badly understood?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
