Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Expelled at Biola — Ben Stein Receives the Phillip Johnson Award

Categories
Expelled
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Last evening I attended a big Expelled event at Biola University in La Mirada, California. Presenters included Ben Stein, Walt Ruloff, Caroline Crocker, Guillermo Gonzalez, Stephen Meyer, and Biola faculty.

Expelled executive producer Walt Ruloff began with a short presentation. He talked about his background in computer technology and how he founded a logistics-optimization software company in his early 20s that became spectacularly successful, primarily, according to Walt, because they thought outside the box and questioned everything.

After Walt sold his company he became involved with the biological research and technology world, and discovered that the exact opposite was the case: people in this field were and are not allowed to ask questions. Walt was totally shocked when it was revealed to him by one of the leading genomic researchers in the U.S., who gets all his funding from the NIH and NSF, that the only way to get funding is to pretend to believe in Darwinian orthodoxy. Even more horrifyingly, this leading genomic researcher (whose face is blacked out and voice disguised in the movie, to protect him from the destruction of his life and career by Darwinists) said that as much as 30% of the research in his field is shelved and never published because it might provide ammunition for “creationists.” In order to stand any chance of being published, interpretations of biological research must be artificially force-fit into the Darwinian paradigm, regardless of the evidence.

Walt decided to do something about it.

Ben Stein talked about his early years in the civil-rights movement, and how he and others in that movement were spat upon, denigrated and vilified, because they dared to challenge the reigning racist orthodoxy.

Caroline Crocker talked about how she was blacklisted in academia for daring to suggest that there might be problems with orthodox Darwinism, even though her students could not detect what her personal opinions were.

Guillermo gave a timeline about his expulsion from academia, for daring to suggest that there might be evidence of design in the universe.

The main thing that struck me about Caroline and Guillermo was that they displayed no hostility or vitriol toward their persecutors. Think about this, and what it indicates about personal character on both sides.

At the end of the evening Ben was presented with the Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth, to a thunderous standing ovation.

While accepting the award, Ben commented that in the end ID will win, because the truth is on our side. He also commented that Americans don’t like to be bullied and told what to think — by anyone.

I paraphrase Ben: “People don’t like to be told that what is obviously true is false.”

Amen to that.

Gil

Comments
Atom-You are reading me right. I was glad that thread was closed, because it was too long, but sorry because I was enjoying the discussion. The stone hunting tools you mention are indeed evidence for humans, but in large part because we know that humans existed at that time and had the ability to create similar things. We know that because of multiple lines of evidence. I guess our difference is that what you call carbon-based artifacts, I call biological phenomena. I don't think there is any evidence that those phenomena are artifacts, merely an intuition that they sure are complicated. I'm not yet convinced by the vague mathematics and information theory that intelligent design proponents find so compellingly preclusive of the possibility of unintelligent origins. As an aside, I would say the most likely explanation for the tools was humans, rather than intelligent agency. Do you think the first archeologist who found some said "hmm, I bet an intelligent agency created this!"congregate
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
congregate, Forgive me if I'm misreading you, but it seems you're raisng the same objection you raised earlier in the thread on Chimpanzee-Human Hybrids, namely, that if we are to claim intelligence as the most likely cause we somehow need independent evidence of the presence of that intelligence. I answered your objection there, but the thread was closed, so you had no opportunity to respond. My response remains the same*:
Artifacts are [sufficient] evidence [for] the historical presence of an intelligent agent. When we first found stone artifacts in the Americas from the ice age, it overturned the long-held idea that there were no humans on the continent during that time: the designed artifacts established historical presence. So ancient carbon-based machinery and digital coding devices establish the prescence of (an) ancient Intelligence(s).
The point is, if we find artifacts they are usually taken as sufficient evidence of historical presence. It was the case when we found stone tools lodged in ice-age bison ribs...the artifact (the tools) needed an explanation, and the most likely explanation was intelligent agency. Even though this was the first evidence we had of Ice Age intelligence on North America, it was sufficient. I don't see why it should be different in the case of carbon-based artifacts. (*Note, I included edits from my original post to make my point clearer and fix an error I made earlier.)Atom
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
DS:
Intelligent agency is no different. If it happened once and it is presumed that the physical laws which permitted it once operate the same way in other times and places it a reasonable possibility that it happened elsewhere in the vastness of time and space. So we search for signs of them.
And have we found any signs yet?
When something is observed in the present and the physical laws which allow it in the present are presumed to have worked the same way in the past then science works on the presumption that it was possible in the past and is possible again in the future.
You and I exist in the present. How much would you invest in the search for signs of prehistoric DaveScot and congregate?congregate
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT
StephenB-I've noticed you asking other people to state their worldview. Why are you asking? With respect to neo-Darwinism, I'm not sure what you mean by that. With respect to theism, I don't believe in any gods. With respect to intelligent design, I think it is an intuition with as yet nothing substantial to back it up and no explanatory power, though it is not impossible that some day there might be more. As an unsupported and unuseful intuition, it is not an appropriate subject for US public school science classes.congregate
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT
“The overwhelming view of scientists worldwide is quite different - virtually all save a handful consider that the appearance of design is not a result of actual design.” And that’s the difference between a worldview and a method. Just for the fun of it (and until the coffee kicks in), let’s revisit this notion of selection. As we know, Darwin himself was uncomfortable with his most famous phrase. “Selection” cannot be invoked without agency, and there is no agent in nature per se. “Survival of the fittest” was thrown in as an alternative; but this is a tautology and tells us nothing about the how of origins. So we’re back where we began—how to account for the self-evident goodness of nature, which was the whole point of Darwin’s book to begin with. Naïve religious people have a way of accounting for this goodness, since they believe that God created the heavens and the earth and his eternal qualitites are evident in everything that has been made. But what about the followers of Darwin—you know, those sober greybeards who don’t have a worldview but only a scientific method? Just what is their method of accounting for the high degree of selection necessary in order to draw something of great value from undifferentiated matter—or for that matter of accounting for matter itself? So far this mysterious ameliorative power has not been demonstrated in any lab under natural conditions. There is no empirical method for making it show itself or casting light on its nature. The only hard evidence we have is inferential. But then what “method” distinguishes Darwinism from a worldview? It interprets what is seen in nature according to the theory of natural selection. There is no clear difference between the “method” seen, for instance, in evo devo, and the worldview it reflects. Show ameliorative evolution in action—demonstrate it for its own sake and not merely by inference. Until then, permit us to be skeptical of Darwin’s rather bold proposition.allanius
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT
-----congregate: "So, DaveScot, we’ve agreed that there is no evidence for the invisible pink unicorns. Indeed someone is making progress. But you’ve left the door open for other possibilities. And no doubt other possibilities do exist. What evidence is there for those other possibilities? And what is it about that evidence that supports those other possibilities while not supporting the invisible pink unicorn?" So, what is your world view with respect to neo-Darwinism, theism, and intelligent design? Are you a materialist Darwinist or a self contradictory TE. My guess is the former. Why remain in the shadows?StephenB
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT
congregate I didn't say that invisible pink unicorns were not possible. I said there was no evidence that any intelligent agency actually took that particular form. The evidence I present to you that intelligent agency could have existed in the past is that intelligent agency exists today and the the physical laws which made it possible in the present are the same, unchanged physical laws that operated in the past and will continue operating unchanged in the future. When something is observed in the present and the physical laws which allow it in the present are presumed to have worked the same way in the past then science works on the presumption that it was possible in the past and is possible again in the future. Take plate tectonics for example. We can measure the rate of movement of the plates today, we know the physical laws that drive the motion today, and we reasonably presume the same physical laws operated in the past to cause the plate movement and the same physical laws will cause them to continue to move them in the future. Another fine example is planet formation. We know that there is one earth-like planet in the universe and we presume that the same physical laws which allowed the earth to form operate the same way in other times and places so we reasonably presume that in the vastness of the universe there are other earth-like planets that may have formed. So we search for signs of them. Intelligent agency is no different. If it happened once and it is presumed that the physical laws which permitted it once operate the same way in other times and places it a reasonable possibility that it happened elsewhere in the vastness of time and space. So we search for signs of them. DaveScot
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT
portishead past experience suggests that there are folks out there - largely creationists - who really do think that the position of evolution is that bacteria mutate straight into baboons. Really? I'm weary of addressing your empty claims, Portishead. Here's the deal. No more of your comments will be approved until I see one with evidential support (names, quotes) of creationists who believe that Darwinian evolutionary theory says that bacteria mutate straight into baboons. Good luck.DaveScot
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT
DaveScot, I'll try to put this as simply as I can. A bacteria cannot change into a baboon. I made this statement because you asked for evidence that a bacteria could change into a baboon. Now, whilst you may be familiar with the concept that accumulated changes in the genome can lead to a diversity of species over billions of years (including baboons and humans), past experience suggests that there are folks out there - largely creationists - who really do think that the position of evolution is that bacteria mutate straight into baboons. Clearly nonsense, but that seems to be the way some of them think. On your question about variation: the variation itself is random. Basically, as you know, our genes are based on a long self-replicating molecule called DNA. Like a lot of molecules, its stucture changes randomly depending on the conditions in which it subsists. That includes random changes which occur during replication (e.g. when reproduction occurs). Those random changes can result in expression of the genes which, in some circumstances, result in an advantage to the organism which gives it a better chance of survival and/or reproduction, in which case the advantageous mutation has more chance of being passed on to offspring. When working at a population level, the result is that the mutation propagates throughout the population because of the selection of the advantageous effects. There is absolutely no evidence for any "purpose-driven" variation.Portishead
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
12:35 AM
12
12
35
AM
PDT
DaveScot at 28:
There is no evidence to support the notion that other or past instances [of genetic engineers] took the form of invisible pink unicorns. I’ll agree with that much of what you wrote. I suppose that’s progress.
So, DaveScot, we've agreed that there is no evidence for the invisible pink unicorns. Indeed someone is making progress. But you've left the door open for other possibilities. And no doubt other possibilities do exist. What evidence is there for those other possibilities? And what is it about that evidence that supports those other possibilities while not supporting the invisible pink unicorn?congregate
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
10:05 PM
10
10
05
PM
PDT
Portishead Forgive me. I could have sworn you said that there was ample evidence that bacteria could slowly change form over billions of years into all the diverse forms of life we see today. So now you're saying that's not possible? Either it's possible for bacteria to slowly change into other forms of life eventually leading to, among other things, baboons, or it isn't possible. Please say which - possible or impossible as I now have no idea what your position is on it. If you think it is possible what's your ample evidence of it being likely to have happened that way? You mention selection in all this. What is the source of variation for selection to operate on? Selection can't do anything unless there are things to select between. Is it random variation, purposeful variation, or some combination of the two? I need you to drive some stakes in the ground so I understand your position on first what's possible, then what's likely, and what evidence there is that what you claim is possible or likely. DaveScot
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT
Jack Golightly (25), "My “worldview” isn’t the result of my personal preference for fantasy over fact, it is the result of the conclusions I have reached based on the evidence that I have been presented with. This is also historically true of a great number of scientists who saw evidence for a Creator and strove to understand His works by studying them and explaining them to the world." Well, if they were reying on "evidence" then it wasn't a faith position. But I think you'll find that when people refer to this "evidence" it turns out not to be evidence, as understood by science - it's usually highly ambiguous and very subjective, and essentially dependent on the desires, the culture and prejudices of the observer. What you interpret as "evidence" of a Creator might not be by me or someone else - and indeed, even two people who see it as evidence of a Creator may have different interpretations of the nature of the Creator.Portishead
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT
DaveScot (23), There is no contradiction, the position is quite clear. Bacteria do not turn into baboons, period. As I mentioned earlier they mutate into other bacteria, which mutate again etc. etc. for aeons. The cumulative effect of those changes over vast stretches of time is the diverse life we see on Earth today including baboons and humans. There is absolutely no contradiction there - the only difficulty is for humans such as you and I to picture a span of time of four billion years and all the events that might happen in that time. Nor do I recognise your "God of Chance". There is no such thing and, as has been pointed out numerous times, evolution operates by SELECTION. If you think there are gaps in the evidence, it is because the fossil record doesn't show each individual that ever lved sho we don't have the "begats" that we do in the Bible. But the overall picture we get from fossils is one of increasing complexity as time goes by, and a good (and improving) record of evolutionary relationships for many creatures, including whales, horses etc. Certainly the picture isn't perfect - but it's a great deal better than any picture we have of design, isn't it?Portishead
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT
congregate there is no positive scientific evidence for that possibility There is incontrovertable positive evidence that genetic engineers can arise in the universe. We are the positive proof of more than just possibility. We are an observed instance. There is no evidence to support the notion that other or past instances took the form of invisible pink unicorns. I'll agree with that much of what you wrote. I suppose that's progress.DaveScot
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
Yes, DS, that's why I included caveats about humans and time travellers. There is certainly the possibility that an invisible pink unicorn created itself and then created complexity in the past, but there is no positive scientific evidence for that possibility. Or any other.congregate
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
congregate Actually you have one source for contingency that exists and is arguably inadequate, and one that is adequate and arguably nonexistent. re; arguably non-existent Non-existent in the past. I don't believe it's arguable that intelligent genetic engineers capable of modifying genomic content with purpose aforethought don't exist in the universe today. So we know it's possible. What we don't know is if we're the first form or the only possible form of intelligent agency.DaveScot
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
Clarence @ 21, "because worldviews are a philosophical or faith position and not evidence-based." I don't think so. This is a classic example of the media-driven false dichotomy between "Science" and "Faith". My "worldview" isn't the result of my personal preference for fantasy over fact, it is the result of the conclusions I have reached based on the evidence that I have been presented with. This is also historically true of a great number of scientists who saw evidence for a Creator and strove to understand His works by studying them and explaining them to the world.Jack Golightly
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT
kf at 19, number 9. Actually you have one source for contingency that exists and is arguably inadequate, and one that is adequate and arguably nonexistent. There is as yet no undisputed positive evidence for (non-human, unless-time-traveller) intelligence acting at any particular time and place in the history of life or the universe (before modern, non-timetravelling humans). The fact that nobody has explained yet exactly how any particular bit of contingency came about by natural processes is not evidence that intelligence did it.congregate
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
Clarence in #20 Fascinating. First you said that science does indeed exclude the notion that bacteria turned into baboons then you went on to describe how bacteria turned into baboons. Then you go on to claim there is ample evidence to support the assertion that time and chance can turn a bacteria into a baboon but fail to provide any of that evidence. I suggest you stop contradicting yourself and start supporting claims of evidence with actual evidence if you want to continue here as a commenter. "Chance of the Gaps" or "Darwin of the Gaps" doesn't impress me any more than "God of the Gaps". Different Gods (one is the God of Chance the other is the God of Purpose) but both share the same evidential vacuousness. Either admit both as equally scientific or discount both as equally unscientific. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I don't really care which course is chosen. The only thing I object to is a double standard. DaveScot
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
Here Ye! Here Ye! Dr. Berlinski's THE DEVIL'S DELUSION in stores tomorrow!PannenbergOmega
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
DLH (18), "However, it was that Judeo-Christian world view within which scientific endeavors were launched. A number of authors have addressed that." Actually, scientific endeavours were also launched in the Muslim world (China and India too) and the legacy is with us today - stars with names such as Betelgeuse and Aldebaran, for instance. "Where is the logic in then explicitly rejecting that world view and calling it “science”?" I don't understand this. Science is a METHOD, not a worldview. Nor is that worldview "rejected" - many scientists accept it (just as many accept Islam or other religions) , it just does not arise in their work and nor is there any reason for it to arise in it. Worldviews do not provide the evidence that scientists need in order to do their work, because worldviews are a philosophical or faith position and not evidence-based. "Once we go beyond searching for “laws” of nature, and begin to seek for the origin of “complex specified information” such as DNA and the cell “factories”, that I consider that natural laws are inadequate to explain that and we must look beyond them to intelligent causation - just as we recognize human agents as such intelligent causes for the information we see around us and this system over which we are communicating." You may consider that, but the overwhelming view of scientists wordlwide is quite different - virtually all save a handful consider that the appearance of design is not a result of actual design.Clarence
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
02:05 AM
2
02
05
AM
PDT
DaveScot (17), "If science is brutally exclusionary to things lacking evidence then why doesn’t it brutally exclude the notion that chance & necessity turned bacteria into baboons?" Actually, it does exclude the notion that bacteria turned into baboons. Evolutionary theory takes the position that, aeons ago, basic life forms (we'll use bacteria for now, but it's not necessarily the case that it actually WAS bacteria) mutated into bacteria with a modified genome. That process continued over the ages. Eventually the modifications to bacteria resulted in new species of bacteria, which also mutated over the ages. The cumulative effect of the mutations, resulting in slightly different organisms, is what produced the diversity of life, including baboons and humans. And of that the fossil record, and increasingly our understanding of genetic relatinships, provides considerable evidence. "There is evidence that bacteria and baboons are structurally related but there’s not a bit of evidence to support chance & necessity as the mechanism behind the relationship." It's one of several dozen mechanisms, amply supported by evidence. It seems many IDers accept what they term "microevolution" because there is ample evidence that they cannot deny - well, that is just random mutation and natural selection. Given time, that process can and does produce entirely new species, and there is considerable evidence for it.Clarence
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
01:56 AM
1
01
56
AM
PDT
DLH, Re 18:
Once we go beyond searching for “laws” of nature, and begin to seek for the origin of “complex specified information” such as DNA and the cell “factories”, that I consider that natural laws are inadequate to explain that and we must look beyond them to intelligent causation
Actually, we can refine this a bit: 1 --> Natural regularities reflect underlying mechanical necessity that we try to capture in statements of "laws of nature." [E.g. we see that heat + oxidiser + fuel --> fire, reliably, and infer to laws of combustion to explain it.] 2 --> That is fine when we seek to explain regularities. But, we also try to explain contingent situations. [E.g. the origin of Garibaldi Hill here in Montserrat - monogentic (one-shot eruption) cooled down dome, or is it that we have evidence that it is a formerly active mini volcano in its own right with its own little history of eruptions, pyroclasit flows and all the way up to plinian eruptions and associated deposits?] 3 --> Highly contingent situations arise form chance or agency, based on our observation. For simple instance: a die sits on the table in front of us, 6 uppermost: necessity, chance or agency? Necessity may explain -- using gravity and the dynamics of intermolecular repulsive forces and elasticity [very slight deflection reflecting distortion of inter-atomic relationships and resulting forces] -- how it simply and reliably sits on the table, but the uppermost face is either chance or agency. 4 --> Science often studies such contingent situations, and we have developed techniques for identifying the source of contingent outcomes. For instance, experiment designs are often based on the statistics of populations and the difference between what could be expected on chance variation and intentful experimenter intervention. 5 --> Now, in certain situations, contingency show itself in information-storage capacity, and further shows itself in functionality dependent on that information, e.g the DNA code and the molecules that hold it and process it in the cell. 6 --> Such FSCI has a contingency pattern in which the functionality is relatively isolated in the space of possible configurations: to better than 1 in 10^150. in particular, when we have information storage beyond 500 - 1,000 bits, we can very reasonabley infer that islands of functional configurations are incredibly solated in teh config space. So much so that no random-walk based search on the gamut of our observed universe could be expected to reach the shores of an island of functionality. 7 --> In short, biofuncitonality is observed to be base don DNA strands of at least of 300 - 500,000 4-state elements. The resulting config spaces start at about 10^180,000 cells, makign islands of functionality so isolated that they simply are not credibly accessible to a random walk based search in any even very generous prebiotic soup scenario. 8 --> but contingencies on the relevant scale of complexity and specificity are routinely produced by agents using insight and intent: more or less reliably functional software requiring 600k bits upwards is something all of us who deal with computers address daily. 9 -> So, we have a choice of two sources for such contingency, one of which arguably is inadequate [chance], the other of which is adequate [intelligence]. It is not hard -- absent selective hyperskepticism -- to see which explanation is superior. That's why evolutionary materialism is doomed to failure as a paradigm. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
01:00 AM
1
01
00
AM
PDT
portishead at 15
“And BTW most of the greatest scientists who ever walked this planet saw science as a way to understand “God’s” handy-work.” Probably true, but their feelings about it weren’t science - the work they did was, but their beliefs were just their own personal beliefs.
However, it was that Judeo-Christian world view within which scientific endeavors were launched. A number of authors have addressed that. Where is the logic in then explicitly rejecting that world view and calling it "science"? Once we go beyond searching for "laws" of nature, and begin to seek for the origin of "complex specified information" such as DNA and the cell "factories", that I consider that natural laws are inadequate to explain that and we must look beyond them to intelligent causation - just as we recognize human agents as such intelligent causes for the information we see around us and this system over which we are communicating.DLH
March 30, 2008
March
03
Mar
30
30
2008
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT
portishead If science is brutally exclusionary to things lacking evidence then why doesn't it brutally exclude the notion that chance & necessity turned bacteria into baboons? There is no evidence of it. There is evidence that bacteria and baboons are structurally related but there's not a bit of evidence to support chance & necessity as the mechanism behind the relationship. DaveScot
March 30, 2008
March
03
Mar
30
30
2008
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT
Allanius wrote: "The point of Expelled (all together now) is that the materialism of the modern age is, first of all, exclusionary and brutal in its tactics, and most importantly, questionable on many fronts." No - it just requires good solid evidence for alternatives as well as itself. If you think that having to provide evidence is "exclusionary and brutal" then you'll never be satisfied because science will always require evidence. It's certainly exclusionary and brutal about ideas that have no evidence behind them.Portishead
March 30, 2008
March
03
Mar
30
30
2008
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT
"Claiming the laws that govern nature “just are the way they are” isn’t science." Correct, which is why science doesn't do that. Newton may have had the first theory of gravitation, but science didn't rest on it's laurels and so we had Einstein later coming up with the general theory of relativity and researchers searching today for gravitons and gravitational waves, whilst astronomers look at possible changes to the behaviour of gravity over cosmological distances. It doesn't end in "gravity is just the way it is", nor does the rest of science. "Claiming that a population of single-celled organisms gave rise to the diversity on this planet isn’t science as it cannot be objectively tested." Perhaps not. This is something that may never be definitively known. "Claiming that matter and energy are all that is required to account for all we observe isn’t science." Trouble is, that IS all we need for what we observe in the universe today. If anyone thinks that something extra is needed they ought to say what else is needed and give their evidence. "And BTW most of the greatest scientists who ever walked this planet saw science as a way to understand “God’s” handy-work." Probably true, but their feelings about it weren't science - the work they did was, but their beliefs were just their own personal beliefs.Portishead
March 30, 2008
March
03
Mar
30
30
2008
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT
Anyone can believe in what they want. The issue is, claiming that your belief is something that it isn’t - like claiming that God created the universe is a science, which it isn’t.--Portishead
Claiming the laws that govern nature "just are the way they are" isn't science. Claiming that a population of single-celled organisms gave rise to the diversity on this planet isn't science as it cannot be objectively tested. Claiming that matter and energy are all that is required to account for all we observe isn't science. And BTW most of the greatest scientists who ever walked this planet saw science as a way to understand "God's" handy-work.Joseph
March 30, 2008
March
03
Mar
30
30
2008
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT
russ - it depends a bit on the field, but genomics is probably one where it is easier to do. Certainly if 30% of the results are being hidden, it shouldn't be too difficult to work out what sorts of results you are getting in your sub-area, and then replicate them in others (ha! In your rival's sub-area) and publish those. It would also be possible to publish results and frame the discussion in terms of "this is something we don't understand, but I'm sure someone will sort it out eventually". Even if this can't be done with every result, it should be doable with a decent proportion of the 30%.Bob O'H
March 30, 2008
March
03
Mar
30
30
2008
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT
“People don’t like to be told that what is obviously true is false.” As David Scot has said, "It appears to require many years of uncritical academic brainwashing for highly intelligent people to sincerely arrive at any other than the intuitively obvious conclusion that complex machines don't design themselves out of thin air. I'm a pretty hardcore materialist but I know a complex machine when I see one and I know how complex machines get designed. Anti-theists should stop kicking and screaming like little kids who don't get their way. Intellectual honesty demands you go where the evidence leads."idnet.com.au
March 29, 2008
March
03
Mar
29
29
2008
11:33 PM
11
11
33
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply