Say Anything Blog

Now, at least politically, they’re little more than bastions of indoctrination where only one belief set (liberalism) rules the day and all others are silenced.

It isn’t just these institutions but the those joined to them at the hip like the scientific community.  That is the point of Stein’s “Expelled”.  These intstitutions are no place for dissenting views contrary to the liberal status quo.

I’m waiting to hear one of the grownups in the “we stand for tolerance, inclusiveness, and diversity” Democrat party condemn this sort of activity.

The silence, not surprisingly, is deafening.

Let’s see… John McCain rebukes a state party for an ad, and makes a point of repeating his insistence on an honorable, issues-based campaign.  Meanwhile, on the left…

Grownups?  What grownups?!

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Liberals are very fascistic when they hear opinions they don’t approve of. They’re some of the most intolerant people on this planet. And just look at their ideological allies: communists, dictators, radical Muslims, and pretty much anybody who hates America and the free market. They easily rule over those too acquiescent to challenge their authority and throw pies at the rest.

Liberals are knuckle dragging Neanderthals; creatures not known for their powers of persuasion, but rather their bumbling and brute force.

Lik,

You make an excellent point.  The most important free market, the one on which all others depend, is the free market of ideas.  And in that arena, Democrats are as intolerant, and dishonest about it, as Stalin, Mao, or Usama bin Laden.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

That is the point of Stein’s “Expelled”.

“Indoctrination U” is a better example. “Expelled” looked like something out of the Right wing Michael Moore. I had to cringingly sit through that movie… at least F 9/11 was funny nonesense.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Sorry Hairy, couldn’t disagree more.  The unwillingness of the scientific community to accept the possibility of design as a explanation is exactly the same closed-minded elitist ignorance.

HG, I saw Expelled and would have to say that it’s pretty thoroughly one-sided.  As an atheist, creationism certainly isn’t my thing, but I do agree with you that some scientists are a little too close minded to the possibility that there is some sort of intelligent creator.

I, personally, don’t feel there is one.  But maybe I’m wrong.  I’m willing to admit that.  Some aren’t.

But, on the flip side, one thing Expelled didn’t cover nearly enough of is the intelligent design folk who insist on perpetuating myths about the earth only being 2,000 years old or something, and man living among dinosaurs.

Science isn’t perfect, admittedly, but there comes a point at which religion becomes crazy superstition.  Refusing to acknowledge verifiable scientific fact falls under the latter.

Personally, I don’t see why evolution and intelligent design need to necessarily be mutually exclusive (why not evolution guided by the hand of an intelligent creator?), but there are “my way or the highway” folks on either side of the debate.

Stein’s movie wasn’t very good because he highlighted one side of the debate and not the other.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

And by the way, if you folks haven’t seen “Indoctrinate U” yet you should absolutely either go to a theater and see it or order the DVD.

I got a review copy, and it’s first-rate.  Excellent stuff.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

The unwillingness of the scientific community to accept the possibility of design as a explanation is exactly the same closed-minded elitist ignorance.

The operative word is scientific. As an open minded person, I could perhaps accept creationism as an alternative to science (I couldn’t really, but somebody more open minded than myself might). But I certainly couldn’t put something that defies every principle of science (Occam’s Razor, falsifiability to name two) under its pervue.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Either way, I think the main point here is that I don’t see Ben Stein throwing pies at anyone.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Rob, Stein’s movie wasn’t intended to prove ID. It was simply to point out the major flaw in the scietific method, that being the exclusion of design guided by intelligence, and the closed-minded atheistic bias of the scientific community.

From the perspective of modern science, science and ID are not mutually exclusive, that is the point.  The possibility that intelligence guided evolution is one of a few legitimate explanations. 

My own problem with modern scientists is the circular reasoning.  If I say accept the premise of modern science that only natural explanations are scientifically credible, then I present a naturalist explanation, this is not proof that my premise is correct (circle).  Nor is it then proof that there is no God. 

When dealing with a subject as vast as life, we ought to concede that the ability to offer an explanation isn’t proof there is no other explanation.

Hairy, intelligence is a natural occurance. It does not defy any scientific principle, although it may currently escape it.  Intelligence is observed and it offers a completely logical and simpler (Occman’s razor) explanation for life and the presence of knowledge in the most fundamental building blocks of life, as well as the design present in all we observe.

Occam’s, my mistake.

"Because God made it...” is not a simpler explanation. It leads to more questions than any is capable of answering:

Who is God? Where is he? How do I know he exists? Is it a he or a she? How did he make it? WHO MADE GOD? etc…

Plus (THIS IS THE BIG PART), ID cannot be falsified. I can falsify evolution by saying “If we do not find any fossils to prove it, then it must not be true.” How do I falsify ID? Please name one scenario that would make it untrue. Falsifiability is the number one criterion of a scientific theory. Otherwise it is just a belief. You cannot prove or disprove it.

So please, don’t toss ID into the mix with science. Lets just agree that it could be an alternative to science, kind of like alchemy is an alternative to chemistry.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Let me reiterate. I am not arguing your belief in God. You are welcome to that. Athiesm is as much religion as deism as far as I’m concerned. What I am disputing is mixing ID with science. They are two separate branches of belief (yes, I admit, even science requires certain basic beliefs, like the belief that we actually exist). But the basic premises of science and ID are so different, it is wrong to group the two.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

But, on the flip side, one thing Expelled didn’t cover nearly enough of is the intelligent design folk who insist on perpetuating myths about the earth only being 2,000 years old or something, and man living among dinosaurs.

Rob,

The young earth creationists, like myself, question the evidence of an old earth.  These take into consideration the testimony of supernatural events and the impossibility to scientifically explain the force of these events.  Also considered is the liklihood of not knowing the exact conditions and circumstances present prior to supernatural events.  Take the flood for instance.  The biblical record is that the previous state of things prior to the flood no longer existed after that event. How then can science which assumes a constant state presume to know beyond any possibility the exact age of the earth if supernatural events occured?  The power and workings of supernatural events are beyond the understanding of science.

“Because God made it...” is not a simpler explanation. It leads to more questions than any is capable of answering:

Hairy, that is a gross mischaracterization of ID.  ID does not say “because God made it”, rather that information and design observed in nature can be explained by an intelligent cause.

Intelligence effects knowledge and design.  Human intelligence is an observable example of this natural occurance.  Therefore, intelligence is one possible explanation for the presence of knowledge and design observed in nature. 

Hairy, I agree that we cannot know God scientifically.  Who God is, is a matter of faith exclusively.  But, the liklihood of an intelligent cause is a fair scientific inquiry which should be allowed without the threat of losing one’s job or entire career.

But, the liklihood of an intelligent cause is a fair scientific inquiry which should be allowed without the threat of losing one’s job or entire career.

I agree. But once you find that it carries no weight against other scientific theories, I think that you ought to lose your job as a scientist if you continue to push it. Like I said, just separate it. Teach science in one classroom and teach ID in Sunday school (or maybe a philosophy class).

Let me give you one interesting biological take on ID: The male prostate. There is no intelligent reason why the urinary tract has to run through (rather than beside) the prostate. When, as a 60 yr old, I’m busy trying to make a drop of pee fall into the urinal, I’m gonna be remembering that God is a sadistic fuck.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Rob, Stein’s movie wasn’t intended to prove ID. It was simply to point out the major flaw in the scietific method, that being the exclusion of design guided by intelligence, and the closed-minded atheistic bias of the scientific community.

But the film itself is biased in not focusing on the close-minded bias of the religious community.

The young earth creationists, like myself, question the evidence of an old earth.  These take into consideration the testimony of supernatural events and the impossibility to scientifically explain the force of these events.  Also considered is the liklihood of not knowing the exact conditions and circumstances present prior to supernatural events.  Take the flood for instance.  The biblical record is that the previous state of things prior to the flood no longer existed after that event. How then can science which assumes a constant state presume to know beyond any possibility the exact age of the earth if supernatural events occured?  The power and workings of supernatural events are beyond the understanding of science.

I don’t think that any scientist out there has ever claimed to know the exact age of the earth.  You conveniently set up that straw man to attack, but the truth is that scientists are guessing at the age of the earth and backing their guesses up with proven science such as carbon dating, among other things.

They can use those proven sciences not to pin point an exact age, but certainly to prove that the earth is one hell of a lot older than “young earth creationists” say it is.

This is the sort of intellectual dishonest that makes most people not even want to engage people who believe intelligent design.  You say that because scientists cannot pinpoint an exact age for the earth that the earth might only be 2000 years old.  But given the body of science we have available to us now we know that this cannot be true.

But you ignore that science, because it’s inconvenient for your beliefs.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

There is no intelligent reason why the urinary tract has to run through (rather than beside) the prostate.

Assuming you have learned all there is to know about the human body.

I think that you ought to lose your job as a scientist if you continue to push it.

Even Dawkin’s said that the possibility exists that intelligence design is a possibility when he offered aliens as one possible explanation should we find a signature.  To many, including many scientists, that signature is everywhere and even more dramatic in the blueprints of life evident in DNA. 

But once you find that it carries no weight against other scientific theories

It is fair to say that most are not familiar with the exact claims of ID nor have they looked to it with the same intensity as evolution.  Would you say that of yourself?  Those who have, and have concluded ID the better explanation are blacklisted and run out of thier profession.

But the film itself is biased in not focusing on the close-minded bias of the religious community.

Fair enough.

This is the sort of intellectual dishonest that makes most people not even want to engage people who believe intelligent design.

Easy Rob, I didn’t intend to mischaracterize the scientific dating methods as “exact”.  My mistake.  I simpy intended to stress the huge difference in time which exists between the biblical record and the scientific one.

But you ignore that science, because it’s inconvenient for your beliefs.

Not at all, I haven’t ignored it. I question it based on the what I see as the liklihood of supernatural occurances.

Easy Rob, I didn’t intend to mischaracterize the scientific dating methods as “exact”.  My mistake.  I simpy intended to stress the huge difference in time which exists between the biblical record and the scientific one.

Ok, fair enough.

Not at all, I haven’t ignored it. I question it based on the what I see as the liklihood of supernatural occurances.

Well I can’t exactly argue with the supernatural.  I mean, I can tell you that things such as carbon dating have been proven to be accurate time and again.  It’s been verified again and again by scientists all over the globe.  Now I’m no expert on the subject, but if you expect me to discard that kind of evidence because you question based on the possibility that there may have been some sort of supernatural intervention (something for which we have no evidence at all) I’m going to be extremely skeptical.

I know that the religious say you’re supposed to take these things on faith, but I need more.  I need facts and evidence.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Now I’m no expert on the subject, but if you expect me to discard that kind of evidence because you question based on the possibility that there may have been some sort of supernatural intervention (something for which we have no evidence at all) I’m going to be extremely skeptical.

I’m not asking you to discard anything.  The methods of dating are as scientific as one can get.  We’ve kind of strayed from intelligence as a scientific explanation, to supernatural events.  That wasn’t my intention either.  I simply wanted to offer you an explanation for why some of us are “young earth” creationists. 

Since I see the evidence of an intelligent cause, I don’t presume that science holds all the anwers to the questions of life.  The existence of a higher intelligence than our own means that there are some things that we may never answer. 

I know that the religious say you’re supposed to take these things on faith, but I need more.  I need facts and evidence.

The only questionable science is that which attempts to answer the questions of life and purpose. That in no way condemns or discredits all of science. I too need facts and evidence and regarding the supernatural, and the meaning of life, I have found that in the bible.  But, regarding evidence for an intelligent cause, I see it throughout nature.

The only questionable science

Excluding AGW, of course.  But then again junk science doesn’t even merit being called questionable so I guess I don’t have to exclude AGW.

I’m not asking you to discard anything.  The methods of dating are as scientific as one can get.  We’ve kind of strayed from intelligence as a scientific explanation, to supernatural events.  That wasn’t my intention either.  I simply wanted to offer you an explanation for why some of us are “young earth” creationists.

Since I see the evidence of an intelligent cause, I don’t presume that science holds all the anwers to the questions of life.  The existence of a higher intelligence than our own means that there are some things that we may never answer. 

But you’re skirting the issue.  You say the earth is only thousands of years old, when all the evidenced we’ve amassed thus far suggests that it is billions of years old.

What basis do you have for your belief, other than that it is the one most convenient for your religion?

But, regarding evidence for an intelligent cause, I see it throughout nature.

Well sure, and I’m not denying that.  As I said before, I don’t think that evolution and intelligent design are necessarily mutually exclusive.

What bothers me is that you discount the amassed evidence suggesting that the earth is, in fact, billions of years old simply because you don’t find it convenient.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Here’a one for you all to chew on.  What is the scientific proof that there is no God?  Of course, the answer is that there is no proof.  Logically, all things that havs not been proven false should be candidates for consideration and investigation.  Therefore it is illogical for scientific discover to refuse to consider that the universe and everything in it did not come about by chance.

The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

What basis do you have for your belief, other than that it is the one most convenient for your religion?

Well there is a conflict between the science and the biblical record of earth’s age.  Science has taken the evidence, assumed a constant state of things, and arrived at an approximate age.  Because I take the biblical account literally, I question the ability of science to measure earth’s age with certainty.  I look at it like this: based on the evidence we have available and assuming that nothing catostrophic or supernatural would effect the evidence so as to make our dating methods unreliable, scientifically speaking the earth is approximately 150 billion years old.  That is not a problem for me since the inquiry is strictly a scientific one limited by human intelligence, time, and assumption. You call it convenient, I call it reasonable doubt. 

But what difference does it make in my life or anyone else’s for that matter, if I don’t accept all that modern science says, not about medicine, electricity, or other areas of scientific discovery and advances, but about the origin of life on earth?

but about the origin of life on earth

to stay more on topic…

..but about the age of the earth.

HG
Science is not consistent with many of our dearest beliefs. it is wrong about many things initially, but it seems to me that, in the long run, it has done pretty well for us. certain aspects of reality that underpin the various technologies we enjoy are undeniable. there is a problem with the dividing line between normativity and nature. ultimately, one needs to make a line between what they believe is normative and what they believe is natural and the only motivations for drawing that line, in the end, will be normative. the only thing to say about the mess is that it is natural. the trees and the sky scrapers. that is consistent with God, but many people are stricken by the bullshit beliefs that some people are wrong and the truth comes from on high, not from oneself. when your beliefs are only possible in virtue of God, which is what you hold… and so are the ones you disagree with… then why begin all the line drawing? Hasn’t it been said that if you think you know God as separate, as one, or as a thing, then you don’t know him? He is many, no? So how is the creation problem an issue? Why should we interpret as strict truth things that were merely intended to inspire faith in the masses? If it didn’t literally take seven days, where to begin the line drawing? Again, I don’t see where the resistance to science comes from? It strikes me that science is the current incarnation of, what has been over the ages, the effort of man to know God. Why are you hostile to it? Isn’t your holding onto an anthropomorphic, agent-style God kinda sacrilegious according to some passages in the bible? What do you make of the beginning of the Book of John, for example? Shall we give it a literal interpretation? Guess what, its a redaction of Plato.

certain aspects of reality that underpin the various technologies we enjoy are undeniable.

Again, I don’t see where the resistance to science comes from? It strikes me that science is the current incarnation of, what has been over the ages, the effort of man to know God. Why are you hostile to it?

Sparkie, this is a gross generalization.  I am not hostile to science(see my comments above). The undeniable technological advances we enjoy are not in question nor do I question them. 

If you’re asking me why I believe in God, I’ll answer: I believe in life, love, good, justice, authority, forgiveness, wisdom, and that one being who perfectly, without hypocrisy, personifies them all.

If you ask why I believe the God of the bible to be that one being, I’ll answer: Jesus Christ by his life, and words perfectly and without hypocrisy personifies all that I believe to be God. The God of the bible more than adequately answers all my questions about life.

you only speak of god as personification.

what about when we are told that God is the word and the word is God? The gospel of John was written in Greek, no? This ‘Logos’ (what is translated as ‘word’ is Zues’s rationality that cuts up reality into things and beings. It is the combination of limit and unlimit that makes infinity into determiate beings, it is the thing that picks them out. Word. Its merely a redaction of Plato, referring to the King of the Gods.

and hitting people in wheelchairs is just plain wrong. little kids can like whatever politicians they want. and what does bush’s daughter on a book mission have to do with ranting?

what about when we are told that God is the word and the word is God?

Sparkie, I understand this to mean that the “Word” is Jesus Christ. If you read down throught the chapter the context becomes clear and the one of who John is testifying is none other than Jesus Christ (see John 1:14).  John’s other epistles bear this interpretation out (see 1John 1). 

Just as the word is the revelation of God to all humanity, Jesus Christ is the living revelation of God to humanity, that is, Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh.