Expelling the Intelligent from the ‘Expelled’
There was a new story about Intelligent Design vs. Darwinism lately and it has also sounded the blogosphere; story of expelling an intelligent biologist, PZ Myers, from Expelled movie!
“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” is the title of new documentary film claims that educators and scientists are being persecuted for their belief that there is evidence of “design” in nature. It claims that “Big Science” allows no dissent from the scientific theory of evolution, and blames the theory for a range of alleged societal ills. 1
This film would be released on April 18, 2008. 2
Expelling PZ Myers from theater sounded even more when he wrote the story in his famous weblog Pharyngula and it became hottest topic throughout the blogosphere on Monday, March 24th according to BlogPulse, a service of Nielsen Buzzmetrics. There were also over 800 results on Technorati. Read here and here for the next events.
The movie has been criticized by several of the interviewees, including biologists PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins and NCSE head Eugenie Scott, who say they were misled into participating by being asked to be interviewed for a film named Crossroads on the “intersection of science and religion”, with a blurb which described the strong support that had been accumulated for evolution, and contrasted this with the religious who rejected it, and the controversy this caused. Then they have cheated on scientists. 3
Also today, Richard Dawkins has written an article entitled ‘Lying for Jesus?’ about this fraud on his website.
Here is the story and about 120 links (till the time I am writing the post) that coverage it: PZ Myers Expelled, Gains Sainthood
By the way, although evolution is unequivocally accepted by the scientific community, [4,5] it is not because it is dogma, but because of the overwhelming evidence for evolution. The science community rejects intelligent design not because it is associated with God, but because it is not scientific and instead is pseudoscience. And also intelligent design is not a credible scientific challenge to the modern theory of evolution for explaining the complexity and diversity of life on earth. 3
——————————————
1. Cornelia Dean. “Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life’s Origin“, The New York Times, September 27, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-09-28.
2. New mutation in Darwin debate – Entertainment News, Weekly, Media – Variety
3. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
4. “99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution” according to Finding the Evolution in Medicine
5. One 1987 estimate found that more than 99.85% of almost 500,000 US scientists in the earth and life sciences supported evolution over creation science. As reported by Newsweek, “By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared ‘abruptly’.” (Keeping God out of the Classroom, Washington and bureau reports, Larry Martz and Ann McDaniel, Newsweek, CIX (26): 23-24, June 29, 1987, ISSN 00289604)
Join the Conversation
Hahahahaha. These people advocate expelling anyone who questions darwinism from academia. Somehow I will get over them being expelled from a private movie showing. It’s a small taste of their own medicine.
And as far as being mislead, they said all the same stuff they say in their own blogs and books.
I don’t really see what the big difference is between Intelligent Design and the Theory of Evolution. Why not say: ” God, the sum total of all the creative energy in the universe, created life intelligently by using natural selection as His tool? Doesn’t that help to bridge the gap? Aren’t we once again going at each other’s throats without really knowing why?
In a way you may be right Nissim. There are theories that our own mind (also?) works through mutation/selection/expansion mechanisms, of ideas/words/images. I think that’s an interesting area to explore when trying to understand what we exactly mean with ‘intelligent’.
To Nissam.
This IS what plenty of religious scientists from all faiths say about evolution. The point you are missing is that ID is not a science because you can’t test it. What yard stick could you possibly use to measure God? Also the ID group say that all the various creatures just ‘poofed’ into existence by magic. They catagorically deny the proofs of evolution instead using the bible for their source. Also America is a secular state. It is not fair to push religion into a neutral science subject, it’s not fair on believers of other faiths like Buddhist or Hindu etc.. or people without faith.
Martijn, you draw an interesting comparison between natural selection, and the way our minds work, through mutation/selection/expansion mechanisms, or ideas/words/images, etc. to come to an understanding of things. So perhaps God is working his way through life, using natural selection, just as we work our way through our thoughts and ideas to come to knowledge.
The Bible, and most religious traditions, say that we were created in God’s image. I think it’s true. And I believe that we can draw all sorts of comparisons between the way we work, and the way God works, since in a very real sense, we reflect His existence, because we are the product of His creation. The nature of a watch may not tell us everything about the watchmaker, but it certainly tells us a lot about what makes him “tick.”
And Thomas, there is no question that Intelligent Design advocates are trying to infuse their religious beliefs into the public sector. What I am saying, though, is that their religious beliefs can be reconciled with science. And that is the challenge: to convince religious people that secular studies do not threated them, and are infact expressions of the beauty of creation, even though some people would not want to think of it that way.
To Nissim.
So we’re basically making the same point. Sorry for the mix up.
My pleasure, Thomas.
Dear Nissim,
It would help to bridge the gap between old irrational, paganism and also religious at one side and science at the other side about falling rain: God or godess through clouds make rains and orders the drops to fall and makes the earth wet this way!
And maybe godess of fertility tells the a bull to copulate with a female and tells the ovaries and oviduct how to function through hormones and rear the embryo! And she orders the placenta to evolve and nourishes the embryo. And also she may have an assistant (another godess or angel) to excrete the embryo feces. then orders other one to proliferate cells and tells them to differentiate and so on …
Yeah, it bridged the gap, didnt? But as you are into Common Sense and believe that we should be on it, then its a bullshit to common sense and even makes no sense! We all know how rain functions, then there is no need to believe god or angels fall the drops! We call it stupidity these days if we consider it as science!
We left god and religion behind by starting to be scientific! You know many cases that at the begining religion stood against science and at the end religion confirmed.
When you want bridge the gap in this case, you are the same as bridging the old testament stories to science! It may be very good to believers but when we are talking about science, it makes no sense! When Science has revealed a function for diversity, then insisting on Creationism and ID (Intelligent Design) also makes no sense!
Thats what science is about!
Dear Lord, (You see, even just saying your name sounds religious.)
Thanks for the biology lesson, but how do you explain that Einstein often referred to God as the Creator? I mean, he was pretty scientific, wasn’t he? I am not a scholar of Einstein, but I think that his idea of God was; the force that put certain scientific laws into existence, and then walked away. So He is not a personal God, but rather the initial cause who stands back and let’s things happen.
For me, Lord, it’s all about definitions. How we define God makes a lot of difference as to how we perceive Him, and how we can make sense of Him. To my mind, there is no contradiction between God and science, because I think of God as the sum total of all the creative energy in the universe, including the energy of intelligence. Therefore, things like natural selection, or that bull you were talking about, are just expressions of that creative energy.
Why do I think of God as energy? Because some 13.7 billion years ago there was nothing; not even time and space. And all of a sudden there was a huge explosion, and lo and behold, there was everything. Whatever made that happen is God, as far as I’m concerned. And I believe that His energy flows through me, and my energy flows through Him. If God created me, in His image no less, it makes sense for me to live; not to kill, and not to die, before my time.
If we use our Common Sense, we can understand God, and a proper understanding of God leaves no contradiction between Him and science. Science, in effect, becomes a logical description of the miracle that God, the creative energy in the universe, brought into existence, through that first act of creation we call the Big Bang.
Am I being naive, or am I beginning to make sense?
I personally agree that ID and evolution are linked by one being the philosophy and the other the mechanics, but there is a very good reason for the scientific community to be testy when it comes to the religious community trying to “help out”. One of the fundamental principles of science is learning from past experiences. Scientists tend to remember things, and view past relationships between different bodies. In this case, the relationship that the scientific community has had with the Christian religious community over time, in particular when said community had the power to do very unpleasant things to those it did not approve of. Such history would logically generate a certain amount of “ahem” reluctance to give any kind of credibility or authority to that relationship now.
It is true, Eric, that in the past, the religious community used its authority and its power to oppress and punish anyone, including scientists, who challenged accepted dogma. And that past probably colors the attitudes that some scientists harbor toward religious belief, and toward the religious community.
However, I believe it is important to bring the world together ideologically. Why? Because at present, we threaten ourselves and our environment in a menacing way, and we have within our reach the technological wherewithal to do ourselves in.
Therefore, every opportunity we have to break down fences should be taken advantage of, in an effort to bridge the ideological divide between: science and religion, between religious and secular, between rich and poor, between men and women, between developed and developing, between one religion and another, etc.
The truth is, Eric, that a lot of what we beleive is BS. I don’t mean that disrespectfully. I say it as a simple description of how things are. For some reason, don’t ask me why, people are dead set on drawing pitiful distinctions between one another, and going at each other’s throats, over who knows what. Call it a pastime of sorts. But it’s getting old, and it’s becoming dangerous.
We weren’t always this way. For some two million years, or 99% of the time we were here on this good earth, we acted pretty reasonably with one another. We helped each other out, and did not go out of our way to kill one another. Since the advent of civilization, some 11,000 years ago, we brought contentiousness into the picture, and we seem hellbent on creating so many divisions between ourselves, to the point where our very survival is quickly becoming an open question.
So that’s why I try to use concepts like Common Sense to bridge seemingly divergent views, because in the final analysis, that may be our only hope of coming together, and passing the blessings of life to countless future generations, which are held captive to the choices we make.
Nissim,
With all due respect, I cannot help but feel a lot of what you’re saying sounds naive. Although I commend your desire to break down fences and bridge gaps, I believe you’re misunderstanding the intentions of scientists and what the goals of science are. If one feels the urge to reconcile scientific truths with their religious beliefs they are free to (although atheists such as PZ Myers, Dawkins and myself would not wish to). What scientists are concerned about first and foremost is the truth, and they do not shy away from argumentation, because unlike in other areas of our lives, scientific arguments don’t result in violence. A scientist, no matter how concerned they may be about hurting your feelings will not hesitate to tell you you are wrong. Their concern is not to “bring the world together ideologically” unless that ideology also happens to be true. There are many scientists who try to reconcile science with the irrational or non-rational domain of religion, but none of them will compromise truth and science for it. (These are not the ID advocates.) They do like you say and hypothesize that although science has shown evolution to be a fact, it could have been guided by a creator. It’s hard to deny them that, but like Laplace said “I have no need for that hypothesis.”
I need to be careful to point out though, that Intelligent Design advocates are nothing like these scientists I have just described. They are nothing more than creationists in a cloak and they reject evolution outright. In fact, in this film they claim that Darwin’s theory was the root of Nazism and the Holocaust. They would welcome your call to reconcile their ideas with evolution. They call it “teach the controversy,” even though there is no controversy to speak of. Evolution is science, ID is not. Also they have no honest intention to have a fair debate. This is only a tactic they use to spread their ideas. They know now that they have failed to ban evolution in schools, so they resort to this deceptive tactic. But, like eric said, where was this “teach the controversy” when they were the ones in control? Intelligent design says:”Evolution is not true, things look like they are designed. Therefore they were designed.” This cannot be reconciled with evolution. There can be no compromise for harmony’s sake at the expense of the truth, or else what use is science?
As for your view of human history, I have to tell you that, as an anthropology student, I have to disagree. Many people subscribe to the idea that primitive human beings lead a charmed life, communing with nature, living off the land in harmony, but this simply isn’t true. I understand that all of the environmental degradation and wars that come as a result of “civilization” may lead some people to idealize the past. During the industrial revolution people in cities idealized country life in spite of the fact that millions of peasants came into the cities, enduring terrible conditions simply because it really was an improvement over scratching a living out of the land. There is evidence that human beings in “primitive” societies suffered terrible hardships and that violence was not a rare occurrence. People fought over land, women, blood feuds, politics, anything you can think of. Anthropologists have shown that in modern, isolated hunter-gatherer societies, violence is extremely common. Some have even argued that murders amongst these societies rivals the deaths caused by wars amongst the “civilized” world, they are simply not obvious for us to see. So violence and contentiousness has always been with us.
I believe the solution to this is not simply to bridge divergent views and to find a compromise, but to use reason. The best answer is not always in the middle of two extremes. Sometimes one thing is right and the other is wrong. If one is a rational scientific argument, then a rational thinking person when faced with all the evidence cannot help but accept it. On the other hand dogma and irrationality does not allow for the kind of compromise you are looking for. Dogmatic thinking like ID cannot be argued with, it cannot be reconciled with anything else, it can only be accepted or denied. It is often dogma that leads to violence when those that believe it cannot accept those that don’t.
Dear Nissim,
First of all its my nickname that I start to use 4-5 years ago in internet and as you mentioned the definitions of words, I should tell you I never refered to Lord as God, but some noble nickname as Duke and Duchess! And Kavi is an old persian Mythical that has no usage in todays conversations; Thats the story of ‘Lord Kavi’. Then its not religous!
There is a great controversy on Einstein belief in our world. Atheists refer to his other sentence when he says I dont believe in personal god and other quotes and say he was an Atheists! Religous say that he was religous! Pagans say the same and also other beliefs say he was into ours! Then we cant conclude what was his!
With all regard that I have for you, should I say to my mind raining is act of a godess that her energy evaporates the water and creates the clouds? Her sum of energies is very creative as making rain falls! Then I as you consider always God’s Hand in phenomena! Both logics are the same I think!
Note: As I am starting to answer your questions, I should say that these are NOT science what I mention below, just some reasoning to answer you.
Unfotunately I should say that God is also matter refering to your argument! As god made that explosion and then everything (matter) evolved from god then God is also matter (everything)! Then he is not just energy!
I’m not into that God created us in his image; But I accept for sake of argument.
Then as god kills people and animals often before their time by floods, earthquakes, etc. then I think its legitimate to kill others before their time!
And there is a question how do you define someone’s time? Is it 80 or 90? I say it is 48!
But you know why I think god didnt created us in his image? Then he should have reproduction system I believe and he has his children as we do. Or maybe you have other definitions about God’s image! Then tell me how he is.
And with regard to you, I should say that bridging ID with Science still makes no sense to me!
Intelligent Design and evolution may complement, rather than contradict each other. Life itself could have been designed and evolution, by natural selection, would have subsequently followed. What’s more, life might even have been designed in such a way that Darwinian evolution was recruited to carry out distinct design objectives meaning that evolution could have been “rigged by design.” Or perhaps evolutionary mechanisms themselves may have been designed. How could we ever hope to address such fascinating possibilities?
Can we shut the fuck about where we came from and focus one where we are going?
Thank you.
Jina, as President Reagan used to say, “There you go again.”
It helps to know where you’ve been, to figure out where you’re going. And where we’re going should include a new way of thinking, a new way of speaking to one another, and a reconfiguring of our priorities. How are we going to pull that off Jina?
Simon, a few thoughts, if I may. You say you’re an atheist? I belief in God, but I think of Him as the sum total of all the creative energy in the universe. Einstein believed in Him as the impersonal force that created the physical laws of the universe. For you to say you don’t believe in Him, don’t you have to specify all the various interpretations of Him ever conceived of, and refute each and every one? That’s a hard job, if you ask me.
You wonder why I try to reconcile religion and science. Because there are a lot of religies out there and I’m trying to reach them. Remember Pascal’s wager? Pascal said it pays to bet on God’s existence because: If He doesn’t exist, then it doesn’t matter if you believe in Him. But if He does exist, then you had better believe in Him or He may end up damning you soul, or some such thing. Well, along those lines, forgetting for a moment whether or not God exists, there are so many people out there who believe, that to reach them you better be able to talk their language, and to come up with a formulation that they can relate to, so that you could influence them for the better.
You say that science is concerned with the “truth.” I’m not sure that science has a monopoly on the truth. What caused the Big Bang? What brought the first life into existence? What’s wrong with associating God with the first cause, as Aquinas did? If we align our notions of God with the force that made all things happen initially, then I think we are closing the gap between science, which describes how things are, and God, which made things happen in the first place. Laplace says, “I have no need for that hypothesis.” But I do because I have to find a way to talk to people who believe, in a sensible way. To do that, I can’t ignore their beliefs, but have to work around them.
When you say, “There can be no compromise for harmony’s sake at the expense of the truth, or else what use is science?” I’ll tell you what; I would gladly sacrifice the purity of science of a little harmony. Anything, even the search for truth, which is taken to an extreme, can easily become extreme in itself. Let’s cool it with the search for absolute truth, if it means getting along. And maybe you’re right to say that not all truth is somewhere in the middle between extremes, because that would be self-contradictory. But most truth is somewhere in the middle. We can only approximate the truth, and we should never be so sure of ourselves as to take somebody out because he disagrees. Absolute truth is an illusion.
You say that cavemen were violent with each other. I respectfully beg to disagree. They did have a hard life, as you suggest. They didn’t live too many years. But I bet you they were kind to one another. I saw a movie The Rise of Man, on the Discovery Channel, and they were interviewing anthropolgists from all over the world, who said that early man was pretty gentle, before civilization came along. When things were so difficult, it makes sense that people tried to help each other out. What incentive do you have to kill when everyone is hunting and gathering, and when there is no stored food? In one scene a clan is hanging out in their cave, with plenty of food to eat. Another clan comes in search of food and shelter. Would they kill one another? No, the comfortable clan took the new clan in, in increase the gene pool for procreation. That is the instinctive logic that we have to find our way back to.
I like your prescription to use reason, as a way of righting the ship. That’s what I’m talking about. Except I call it Common Sense: The wisdom born of collective experience.
Lord Kavi, I equate God with energy. You counter that God’s presence would therefore be behind every raindrop. That’s the point. If He is energy, He would be everywhere, even in the smallest of things. So you ask: What about matter? Well, didn’t Einstein prove a relation between energy and matter, with E=MC2? Doesn’t matter contain a ton of energy? Therefore, God is energy, and is a part of all matter.
You also make the point that if we’re created in God’s image, and if He kills with earthquakes, and floods, then it’s OK for us to kill. There is a difference. God had no choice, we do. If God wanted to create life, He had no choice but to create death. You couldn’t create life, without also creating death. Otherwise, how would you know the living from the dead? But we know life from death. When we kill we do it for some stupid reason, like religion.
I know I can’t answer these kinds of questions. But I’m proud of us for being able to talk about them, without going at each other’s throats. Sometimes it’s the discourse itself that is more important than what is being discussed.
Nissim Dahan, are you a Hindu? Your version of “god” matches the Hindu concept of the creator.
Jina, what’s the chance that a Hindu would be born in Israel? No, I’m just a run-of-the-mill Jew.
But if my version of God matches the Hindu version, then maybe I am part Hindu. And maybe, since I like Middle East food so much, I am part Muslim as well. And maybe, since I sometimes get teary-eyed at Christmas, I may well be part Christian. And since my wife and I like Yoga, we may very well be part Buddhist to boot.
I don’t put much stock in labels, Jina. I’m like you sometimes. I go off the deep end when I see the stupidity of it all. We’ve been given a chance to enjoy the bounty of life, and all we can do is to conspire against one another, and orchestrate our own demise. What’s the sense?
Yoga is not a Buddhist thing, it’s a Hindu thing tsk tsk
This is more entertaining than being all nice you know, maybe that’s why.
We’ll entertain each other until there will be no one left standing. What a hoot.
I got confused with the Yoga thing. I’ve been meditating so hard I must have forgotten that it’s an Indian thing. Shows you not to think too much.
Lord Kavi
Einstein was most likely a Deist. There is some evidence that he conformed to the ideas of Spinoza.
Nissim Dahan could argue that he is also a Deist. Probably a panendeist.
Thanks Edwin
Does anyone know about Hegellian dialectics?
This is a philosophical form of debate whereby the search to know the truth is found through opposition.
It is a model that is currently dominating the world, meaning that even science is being polarised within a debate where any form of hint of ‘spiritual’ or ‘non-explainable’ truth – is dismissed as superstition to be snubbed at.
This is also pseudo-science. It’s true that ‘religion’ embodies many stories that are not scientific fact. But social scientific theory instead will easily explain that every society and culture throughout the world uses allegories and stories in order to explain truths that are not easily explainable.
There are many aspects of the supernatural or religious world for example that held scientific facts within their systems of knowledge, which were later proved to be fact.
Astronomy for example, grew out of astrology, early religious teachings included astrology as part of the astronomical observations. Most understandings of sub-atomic particles today involve theoretical modelling which was based on astronomy.
Most of the reason that ‘scientists’ choose to deny the existence of any other theory – is based on their own bias.
Even quantum theory dictates that the bias of the observer will have an influence on the outcome.
Many events that were observable by ancient spiritual guides were based on observation of natural phenomena that were used in order to make decisions.
The ancient shamans and prophets of the past, are the same as the weather forecasters, the astronomers, the farmers observing the seasons for the planting of the crops. The modern world even has people who work in stock exchanges to predict the future markets of world trade.
Modern science is mostly a way to examine reality by using a narrow focus.
Social sciences more often than not by definition understand and describe religious truth as a way to understand the psychology of a social group.
Psychologists work within the medical establishment, and their analysis of individual belief systems analyse how people’s world view affect their interaction with the rest of the world.
Dividing the world into science vs. religious belief – is based more on a model of thinking that is dividing America today. That is mostly based on people who are trying to manipulate the stories from the bible and to state that the allegories of the past are the same as literal truth.
Anyone who has studied religion from an objective perspective of social sciences, will still value the value systems that are embodied within each religion. The stories might be allegorical rather than literal, but they still embody collective knowledge.
The modern world should stop trying to define the world as ‘truth’ or ‘untruth’. There are many different kinds of truth. We should stop trying to bend the truth to say that all truth has to be the same. Just because the moon might appear as a full moon on one night, it doesn’t mean that it will always be the same, or that it looks the same from a different direction.
Truth has many different aspects when viewed from different angles or depth of focus.
Different knowledge systems represent different forms of collective knowledge, that should not be denied.
We should aim to live in a more pluralistic open society.
Either science or religion trying to gain supremacy over the other is the same ego game of death, it causes narrow focus.
We should aim to open our minds and realise that truth exists in many different dimensions depending on the angle you take.