CNS NEWS: Intelligent design theory, or ID, is opening new doors of scientific
research, particularly in cancer and other disease research, according to its
adherents, but a new movie, "Expelled" starring Ben Stein explores how an
"elitist scientific establishment" is apparently muzzling and smearing
scientists who publicly discuss ID.
Wha...?? Call me biased, but... cancer is pretty much the greatest evidence, whatsoever, that there is no intelligent designer. Cancer is, basically, the result of unnatural cells growing faster than they should in places that they shouldn't. If there's an "intelligent designer", then you'd think we wouldn't have cancer to begin with. What designer walks into your house, looks around, and says, "You know. That wall would look GREAT covered in crap. Oh! And, let's put the carpet on the ceiling, grout the floor with horse shit and attach the couch to that wall. It'll look perfect!"?? If your interior decorator pulled anything like that; a) you'd question his or her intelligence; b) you'd fire him. NOT WORSHIP HIM. If the decorator then said, "Well... I know it's tough to sit on that couch, now. But, it will teach you to appreciate normal couches and you'll learn tolerance from smelling the ca ca'.", then you'd tell that decorator to get the hell out and you certainly wouldn't recommend him to a friend (unless you really don't like the friend).
The First Amendment is under brutal attack in the scientific community, Ben
Stein, a former presidential speechwriter-turned-actor and commentator, says in
the film, which opens in theaters on Feb. 12.
Mmmmmkay. Where to start? Why is Ben Stein in ANY WAY an authority on scientists? Stein's resume is long; trial law, professor, actor, game show host, lay economist, and ex-White House speech writer. He's not a scientist!! At most, he's a social and political commentator. So, why would anyone consider him an authority on the sciences or what motivates ALL scientists? I'm sure Ben Stein is a very smart man. But, I fail to see how he could reasonably come to the alarmist conclusion that the First Amendment is under attack.
"I always assumed scientists were free to ask any question, pursue any line of
inquiry without fear or reprisal," he says. "But recently, I've been alarmed to
discover that this is not the case."
I'd be alarmed to discover that, too...if it were true!
Stein contends that rigid Darwinists are silencing their critics in
academia, which the film explores, and discusses how ID ideas are helping in
cancer research and similar work.
I'm still waiting to learn how intelligent design is going to hold the cure for cancer. Quite obviously, prayer isn't an effective treatment for the disease. And, even if - by some billion to one, last minute Hail Mary (pun intended) pass- you could prove there was an intelligent designer, you still haven't cured cancer!! And, I'm guessing that this will remain a nebulous, hypothetical statement. Who wants to bet that no where, in the rest of this article, will Stein actually demonstrate scientifically how putting our money into intelligent design will cure cancer? Furthermore, the 1% of scientists who believe in ID aren't silenced by critics because the critic is secular or believes in Darwinism. Hell, the IDers aren't even "silenced". How many websites are there, now, that promote ID? What happens to most IDers is that they present a hypothesis that is frequently purely hypothetical. Then, they decide what they want their conclusion to show and work backwards. If their data starts to suggest that their premise (that there's an intelligent designer and the Bible is evidence) is wrong, they then attempt to manipulate the data, or drop the experiment entirely, rather than accept the REAL outcome. THAT is not science. THAT is why REAL scientists, and people who actually care about finding the truth, ignore or criticize the IDers. They don't play by the rules of science, so why should we respect their scientific conclusions?
Yet the ID research that could potentially produce medical breakthroughs, says
Stein, is also being undermined by Darwinian scientists who don't want ID
research viewed as legitimate.
Note, once again, that these "breakthroughs" are nothing more than pure conjecture. And, let's get real - if there were ANY scientists, in any religion or culture or country, who had truly found a breakthrough for treating or curing cancer, then you wouldn't be able to keep it a secret. And, if the theory held up under scientific scrutiny and showed promise, I can't think of one person in this world who would dismiss the findings. The problem, as I see it, is that IDers are constantly asserting things for which they have no evidence (or... things for which they've manipulated the evidence). And, when you dare ask them to bring more than a Bible to the table, they order invitations for their pity party. The key is deciding what our standards should be for "legitimacy". Science has pretty rigorous standards. The Bible....?? Eh'. Not so much.
"It's not just scientists versus scientists. It is a particular subset of
science which does not admit any kind of questions - it is a kind of perversion
of science, which doesn't allow for any kind of questioning of itself. Science
should always be in the business of attempting to disprove itself."
Evolutionary science doesn't allow questions? Bullshite! Utter and complete bullshit. There are tons of questions yet unanswered in evolutionary science. I've never, ever met a scientist (evolutionary or otherwise) who can't think of another question. Because, that's how science works -even when you complete a study and have a data set with a conclusion, you're always thinking "what's next?" Or, "How can I understand what I'm observing, better?" Or, "If my conclusion is factual, then I invite other scientists to critique my work and verify the results for themselves by following the careful criteria I have made public knowledge." Stein's last line (above) is brimming with irony. He's right, of course: Science should always be in the business of trying to disprove itself. But, that doesn't mean you toss out a largely proven theory. It means you continue gathering information. If, over time, the theory is re-validated time, after time, after time, then we keep looking at the world objectively. Each new discovery is considered as it's own experiment or sample. The problem with ID, and why Stein's statement is so ironic, is that they will never, ever, ever, ever, infinity ever(!) attempt to disprove themselves. For, if they did, there theory isn't the only thing they lose. They lose their life's philosophy and religion.
"Neo-Darwinian science is exactly in the opposite business of endlessly
trying to rationalize itself - and reprove itself, you might say - reprove that
it's right without any kind of test. So it's not scientists - it's really, I
would say, scientists are the ones willing to look into intelligent design. The
people who are anti-science are the ones unwilling to look at anything new or
different. So I'd say it's a perverted kind of science versus what I would call
a more classical science. But it is also science versus at least the possibility
Pot. Kettle. Black. Yeah...we all know how objective and flexible IDers are. Cripes! They still insist that, despite all evidence to the contrary, evolution is false because the great big book of multiple choice says so. I'm willing to look at my atheism and belief in evolution with the possibility of being wrong. Are IDers willing to look at their theories and abandon their god if their theory doesn't hold water?
The people who are anti-science are the ones unwilling to look at anything
new or different. So I'd say it's a perverted kind of science versus what I
would call a more classical science. But it is also science versus at least the
possibility of belief.
How many times am I allowed to say "Bullshit" in one post? What's the netiquette on that one? Creationists and IDers seem to be the ones hanging onto ONE acceptable answer. Evolutionary biologists have already been through the necessary rigors of allowing the studies to be peer reviewed and tested over-and-over again. They are still learning more and more about how evolution works. And, when they see something that doesn't fit an expected pattern, they open the floor to others for an exchange of ideas or other explanations. Let's say that one of the possums got out the glue, some leftover chicken bones, some leftover fish bones, and a furry rug from the Goodwill store. Now, imagine the possums creating a really bizarre looking creature and burying it in the Mojave. Fast forward a thousand years. Now, there are two teams of scientists in the area: the evolutionists and the IDers. The evolutionist will probably look at the evidence, compare it to what is known in the world, examine each piece of discovery for evidence suggesting where it may have come from or how it came to be configured as it is. They'll take it back to the lab and ask other scientists to come take a look at give observations. These observations will be the basis for a hypothesis. Then, they'll test those hypothesis. Rinse. Lather. Repeat. If it doesn't match what they know of evolution, then they continue to study it until they find an ALTERNATE EXPLANATION. Now, let's compare that to the IDer who stumbles across the remains of this rainy day project. The IDer looks at this and thinks, "THIS is like nothing I've seen before. It's amazing. Only a complex creator could have created something this complex!! Let's take this back to the lab and see how we can make this fit within the confines of God's design. After all, it MUST have been created by God." See the problem?
Stein goes on to equate Darwinism to the Holocaust and a variety of other irrelevant and nonsensical...read if you want. Personally, I got tired of the hypothetical cures for cancer and fallacies.