EXPELLED the tip of the iceberg

I cannot seem to post at UD any more. Could somebody look into this please? {DH: Patience. scordova reports: "Apologies to the commenters in advance for the delays in posting your responses. The spam filter is set very high as UD is under intense spam attacks at this time. Thank you in advance for your patience." Please save your posts in case they get accidentally deleted.} William Wallace

Bob O'H I am sorry, I accidentally attributed Allen's words to you. A copy error. Obviously, I was responding to your comment about evolutionary materialism. StephenB

-----Bob O'H: "i.e. “I can’t be expected to follow rebutals to my posts. I’m only a university instructor with exams and summer courses, and I exhaust all my discretionary time right about time proof of my allegations are required.” Actually, that is a fair point, inasmuch as Haught is an oddity among the TE's. He does allow for some semblance of a "life princeiple," which could be interpreted differently than pure law and contingency. In that sense, he would be arguing for an "internal principle" or a blending of same with "external adaptation." So, he is not pure neo-Darwinimism. Anomalies aside, the fact still remains that methodological naturalism is the means by which the academy defends the Darwinist paradigm and shuts down the ID paradigm. I gather you are OK with that, meaning that you subscribe to the oppression. You don't seem willing to deal with that. StephenB

StephenB - why should I call "it" "evolutionary naturalism, evolutionary materialism, eo-Darwinist/materialism, Darwinist naturalism, modern evolutionary synthesis, NDE, ToE, or whatever you like"? These might not be the same things. kairosfocus introduced a term I was not aware of. It might have nothing to do with methodological naturalism (John Haught thinks they are different things). Bob O'H

-----Bob O'H: "StephenB - I have heard of “methodological naturalism”, but not “evolutionary naturalism”. -----"Please make the effort to read what I write." That is a monumental evasion. Call it evolutionary naturalism, evolutionary materialism, neo-Darwinist/materialism, Darwinist naturalism, modern evolutionary synthesis, NDE, ToE, or whatever you like. You are either on board with the practice of imposing it under the aegis of methodological naturalism or you are not. StephenB

StephenB - I have heard of "methodological naturalism", but not "evolutionary naturalism". Please make the effort to read what I write. Bob O'H

-----Bob O'H: "No, I’m not defending that, because I’m not aware of anyone wanting to re-define science as “evolutionary materialism” (whatever that is)." You have got to be kidding. Have you never heard of “methodological naturalism,” which is really nothing more than “enforced” naturalism? In effect, it redefines science. In the past, science was concerned “primarily” with natural processes, because, at the time, all known knowledge pointed in that direction. At no time was science concerned “exclusively” with natural causes, because science must always be open to challenging its own paradigms. Methodological naturalism’s rules are presumptuous, arbitrary, and oppressive. It was conceived solely as a means of protecting the EvoMat paradigm and ruling out the ID paradigm. In effect, it rules out the design inference in principle, even before the investigation begins. You will not find it in any textbook on the philosophy of science prior to the 1980’s, It is nowhere to be found in the history of the philosophy of science. It is pure novelty and it is all about keeping ID from having a place at the table. That is what the KC science “standards” are all about and have been about for 10 years---discrediting ID as science and enabling its persecutors. StephenB

Think, really carefully, about what you are defending: in effect, if you disagree with evolutionary materialism being imposed as the effective re-definition of science — regardless of evidence otherwise — you are ignorant, stupid, insane, incompetent or wicked.

No, I'm not defending that, because I'm not aware of anyone wanting to re-define science as "evolutionary materialism" (whatever that is). Bob O'H

Bob: Think, really carefully, about what you are defending: in effect, if you disagree with evolutionary materialism being imposed as the effective re-definition of science -- regardless of evidence otherwise -- you are ignorant, stupid, insane, incompetent or wicked. E.g. I just followed the link tot eh "exposed" site and found the claim "flunked not expelled." I am fairly sure that Messrs Kenyon, Dembski, Sternberg, and Gonzalez, as well as Ms Crocker, were not incompetents and were treated abusively; in some cases horribly slandered as well. FYI, an unjustified "flunking" is one way to expel. Similarly, Ms Comer of Texas (who features in an opening page video clip) plainly behaved in an indefensible fashion -- so there is no comparison to the REAL cases of abuse. That's fallacious immoral equivalency in pursuit of blaming the victim. Bob, stop trying to justify the indefensible; it turns you into an enabler of the partyline bullyboys. GEM of TKI kairosfocus

OK, how about a bit of empiricism. Or will that be Expelled too? :-) Bob O'H

I can't say Bob -- perhaps it was considered bad taste. Not knowing the context I couldn't begin to speculate. Apollos

BobOH Maybe the link was lost by random processes. Why don't you use the Explanatory Filter and see if you can make a design inference. DaveScot

Apollos - so why was the link removed, then? Bob O'H

(I’ll be a good boy, and not put a link to Expelled Exposed in this time. Dave would only take it out again)

Blog comments (and typically forum comments as well) instruct Google and other responsible crawlers to ignore comment hyperlinks. (rel="nofollow") It makes a good spam deterrent, and prevents Google bombing from spurious blog and forum commenting. You need a cluster of "legitimate" sites, committed to the same purpose, for a Google bomb to work properly, AFAIK. Apollos

What, Sal? So, you expelled some pro-evolutionists? (I'll be a good boy, and not put a link to Expelled Exposed in this time. Dave would only take it out again) Bob O'H

By the way, here is another episode where the one-time grad student Casey Luskin was "outed" by PT-mafioso Wesley Elsberry. Elsberry was intent on making trouble for Luskin, and pulled a lowly stunt when he came to speak at Casey's class. See: No comparison to Celeste Biever. PT-mafiosos have been coming to our IDEA meetings in 2006. That was creepy!!! I have sinced cancelled publicly advertised meetings and call the meetings privately. scordova

I guess we shouldn’t be impressed, then, with the recent work of Ben Stein, David Berlinski, etc.

I never said that. Several in the ID debate studied under Darwinists, but they were not getting in their professors faces in the classroom, that's not the place for it... When you are in school you are there to learn, not to preach to your professors.... For the reader's benefit here are two cases from our IDEA club at GMU, the first is Jessica, a senior in biology. She was featured on Nation Public Radio, November 10, 2005. The NPR audio is available at NPR here, and here is a transcript reproduced at the discovery institute here. Jessica was lucky, the most that happened to her was that she walked into class and then the professor had her interviewed played before her classmates, much to her surprise. She got a A in the class, but she knew she was identified. I pleaded with her to reconsider being on NPR. She replied, "I'm a Christian first, a student second." She got an A in her class and went on to grad school, she was lucky...another student was not... The other GMU IDEA student was Irene Fanous Kamel reported here in the Washintgon Post February 2006, here. After coming forward with her story, she was confronted by her Darwinist professors. They screamed at her. She was in tears for days. She maintained a 4.0, but unfortunately she was not able to gain entry into medical school. We do not know why, and it might be pre-mature to say it was ID related, however, her letter of recommendation was from Dr. Caroline Crocker. Nevertheless how many parents want to send their kids to schools and departments where their kids will be treated like that by their teachers...the intimidation is enough to prevent entry into these careers... It should be noted that in that same NPR report, Mendelsohn referred to pro-ID students as academically "disabled". The constant vilification and demeaning of capable minds eventually takes its toll. Finally, I want to say I'm proud of those students. Let the record show that the NPR reporter was quick to notice this about the students at our club meeting:

They settle in for the lecture, some with Bibles placed next to their notebooks. .... these students with their Bibles are Exhibit A in the case against intelligent design. It has a religious agenda, she says, because it singles out the origins of life for scrutiny.

So what if the students have an agenda. The question of ID is still a scientific question... I'm proud of these students. They stand up for what they believe in even it may cost them, they make it evident who they are, but they don't go around preaching to their professors. And they don't defend the hypothesis of ID by appeals to the Bible, they defend ID based on the physical evidence of design. The evidence is there to be used by ID proponents, and it was placed there by design. I encourage them to argue the evidence... scordova

Gerry get real. No offense. Cops SAVE lives by going under cover. This is a no brainier. Maybe if he has time he should find a way of approaching a troubled individual before luring him into a trap but most of the time the resources are there. IF illegal drug like heroin weren’t available you wouldn’t have all of the people in this world dieing in part because of them. Drugs like heroin are so addictive that it only take one or two tries for a stupid and troubled high-school to get addicted. A lot of times those addictions are life long. I have lost a friend to heroin and I have no respect for the souls of the Drug dealers who helped to facilitate his death and the life long misery of his parents. I know two other kids who’s lives are on total holt and in ruins because of their rehab and arrests. Also I think the idea that heroin should be legal to be one of the stupidest ideas ever thought up. If you had places where the heroin addicts could go to get their fix you would only be increasing their addictions and problems and they would still be ODing because the addiction just gets worse and worse in the far majority of cases until they cant stand to even be alive. The only way the state could deal with this is to revive them each time they OD but this is way to expensive and horribly immoral. There are people in this with far more important and imminent problems that aren’t a matter of morality like starvation. Under cover in numerous other ways is just about the soundest moral way of dealing with criminals there is. This way you don’t have to go in shooting in many cases risking the lives of other and killing before the criminal has an honest trial. It would be very immoral not to do under cover work. Frost122585

"No need to make waves." "No need to get in people’s faces." I guess we shouldn't be impressed, then, with the recent work of Ben Stein, David Berlinski, etc. Whatever made me think that most people on this site admired them? Gerry Rzeppa

Gerry Rzeppa (27) Polanyi embraced the existence of objective truth (Personal Knowledge, p. 16). Aeroplanes fly, and there’s a reason, and one’s paradigm can’t affect these facts. Of course, Polyani said much else besides. It’s a question of what your ambitions for ID are. duncan

scordova:

...be truthful, but there is no need to make waves.

Exactly. The admonition to "be wise as serpents and harmless as doves" comes to mind. One can work quietly and diligently knowing that every discovery washes a little more sand out from underneath the Darwinist castle. Patience and a long-term view of things are important. There is no need to get in people's faces or be a flaming crusader -- just work with quiet confidence that the evidence will point to design. Don't try to grab headlines or expect to win the victory tomorrow. A little piece here, a little piece there and eventually the cumulative evidence will be so strong that even the willfully blind must see. sagebrush gardener

The topic of this thread was "The Tip of the iceberg" about the persecution going. How it is dealth with is a related but separate point.... Our IDEA group at GMU is now a stealth group with the names of biology majors who are pro-ID kept confidential. I encourage people to be truthful, but there is no need to make waves. If professors profane the name of Christ in class, the student can decide he wants to bail out of the biology curriculum rather than deal with the garbage. In that case, the Darwinists have won a victory through intimidation... Some pro-ID students in our IDEA clubs have been fortright, and some get taken aside privately and screamed at by their professor. I suppose there is no law against rude behavior, and the professor is free to be rude. At that point the student might decide he can make more money driving trucks (like Dr. Norbert Smith PhD biology) then put up with such hassles.... I encourage the students to be cautious, "be at peace with all men as much as it is in your power", but to be truthful. I discouraged some from coming forward to the reporters. One student paid a price another did not, it is hard to say whether retaliations will happen or not. I admire the student's willingness to stand up for what they believe, however, there is no need to be confrontational... The persecution does not need to be especially severe to destroy a promising career in the biological sciences since there are often other jobs with competitive opportunities. A little intimidation of students is enough to prod them to become gainfully employed in other fields.... Think about it, you're a student and your intro biology professors are bigoted creeps. That is your introduction into the discipline. What is the student to think? Some will decide they want no part of the hassles....and thus the Darwin's evil empire is perpetuated through intimidation.... scordova

duncan says, "...I hope you can see that “what he believes” is entirely independent of the scientific indicators..." I suggest you read Personal Knowledge by Michael Polanyi. You greatly overestimate our ability both to acquire and to act on objective facts. Gerry Rzeppa

Gerry (20) What are the religious implications of, say, ‘which way is magnetic north?’ Answer: none. ID aspires to the same scientific objectivity. I hope you can see that “what he believes” is entirely independent of the scientific indicators for the veracity or otherwise of ID. duncan

"A biologist I know recently bleached his hair and changed his appearance in other ways so as to be almost unrecognizable. I’m being deliberately vague about his looks and identity because he was going undercover. When I last saw him, he was ready for a stint of researching and lab work on intelligent design at a university that he declined to name." I'm with sagebrush gardener on this. It makes no sense to me. Can you explain this more, Dave? My understanding of how university research works is that no one is looking over the shoulders of professors or even postdocs, so the biologist could simply do his ID research in his own lab and no one would be the wiser. Also, aren't "researching" and "lab work" the same thing? Russell

Charles:

If employers have made it clear (and it seems so) that ID-related research is not to be done...

But if ID is true, then all research is ID-related and no competent, honest researcher can help discovering evidence for design. The only question is whether the researcher admits it or not. The famous XVIVO animation for example clearly supports design for anyone with eyes to see. The laboratory does not need to say "ID Research Department" on the door. I don't see why someone whose eyes are open to design can't work ("undercover" if necessary) alongside design-deniers and let the results speak for themselves. sagebrush gardener

Gerry Rzeppa @ 19: I was merely using the story as a springboard to remind my fellow Christians of a couple of general principles we don’t want to lose sight of. There is also the Christian principle of being obedient to the authorities over us, the servant tending to his master's business. If a researcher has agreed to conduct research along assigned lines of inquiry, then the Christian ethic is to do that work to the best of their ability and not 'steal' from their employer's by hijacking that for-pay research along disapproved lines. If employer's have made it clear (and it seems so) that ID-related research is not to be done, nor time resources spent even proposing feasibility, then employee's should abide by those edicts so long as they are in that employ. Nor is there any Christian obligation to be seeking grants from other sources. So, no amen. Charles

Gerry wrote:

And I’m still waiting, brothers and sisters — can I get an “Amen!” to the statements at the end of post #19?

No, you can't.

"I was merely using the story as a springboard to remind my fellow Christians of a couple of general principles we don’t want to lose sight of."

You do that on many threads Gerry. You're springboarding into making accusations of moral compromise about those involved in ID, from what I see. There is an overarching theme to many of your posts: suggest that ID is akin to a Christian heretical sect (also a TE strategy btw) -- and no topic here seems off limits to your soapboxing. Just to note, you're on record as believing that ID is a disingenuous, unscientific pursuit. How about this: consider us all warned and move along from the subject, it's been addressed by you ad nauseum; and springboarding seems to be your M.O. for directing discussions to revolve around your low opinion of the practices of ID proponents. Here you've managed what amounts to blame the victim in order to make your point, and you were correctly challenged to quit moralizing -- to which you invoked the "bro" defense (nice one :wink:). I detect not a shred of good faith on your part, in regards to your participation on this thread. No Amen, bro. Apollos

Gerry It's morally wrong to make good people feel bad about themselves. What's your goal with all this? To make thousands of good Christian scientists feel guilty about doing what they must to provide for their families? That sucks. Big time. Try a little understanding and forgiveness instead. Isn't that part of your Christian calling? DaveScot

duncan says (apparently after moderation so his post appears out of sequence): "...one of the theoretical cornerstones of ID is that religion has got nothing to do with it..." I hope you can see that in practice it is impossible to maintain such a position. If one believes in intelligent design he must, eventually, either stand up for what he believes or not -- and that is a moral/religious question. If he intends to research or promote the theory, he must decide when and how it is appropriate to do so. Those, too, are moral/religious questions. Life cannot be lived in a moral/religious vacuum. And I'm still waiting, brothers and sisters -- can I get an "Amen!" to the statements at the end of post #19? Gerry Rzeppa

Guys, guys! I don't personally know the individuals involved in the story, nor the details of their situations, nor am I in a position of authority over them, so of course I can't and shouldn't "pass judgment" on them. I was merely using the story as a springboard to remind my fellow Christians of a couple of general principles we don't want to lose sight of. Specifically, I think we should teach our children that, in the absence of extreme and unusual extenuating circumstances: 1. It is morally wrong to dissemble in order to keep or promote one's position in the world. 2. It is morally wrong to dissemble in order to maintain or further one's research. Can I get an "Amen!" to that, brothers and sisters? Gerry Rzeppa

I have no objection to all this Christian theologising but I am moved to say that (i) one of the theoretical cornerstones of ID is that religion has got nothing to do with it, and (ii) some of us (well, me, at least) who visit UD are not religious. As such, I personally find it all a bit irrelevant and distracting. duncan

Well, the Bible does tell us in fact that we need to make judgment. I wouldn't pile on with the "don't judge others" line. But, we are advised not to judge too quickly, either. As for not casting the first stone, that wasn't judgment, that was the penalty, the sentencing for the judgment. Jesus was saying that we, as sinners, didn't have a moral enough high ground to condemn. He still told the woman to leave her life of sin, however. I very much agree with Gerry and the concept of not entangling yourself/ourselves with the world and it's economy. I believe, however, that how that is to be carried out, over the course of every step we take on this narrow path, isn't written in stone. I believe the narrow path is finer than a razor's edge, yet, in the Spirit, we can freely dance upon that edge as if it were infinitely wide. Brent

Hi Gerry, Thanks for your response and your merited thoughts. My first follow-up has already been asked by Brent. And perhaps you already answered it. There is no reason to think that the scientist is a Christian. Second, even if he is a Christian, exposing his ID leanings is not necessary even if he is upfront about his Christian beliefs. There is no reason he must disclose his information at his own peril. Rather than disclose his location Paul escaped Damascus out a window. And rather than be stoned prematurely Jesus slipped through the crowd in Galilee. When He healed he charged that the leper man tell nobody. Did the allies owe Hitler a heads up before D-Day? Were they immoral to send him deceptive information about their plans? Christians are supposed to spread the Word to all nations. What would you suggest a Christian do who feels moved to preach in a nation where it is illegal for him to do so - write the government a letter expressing his intent and then announce his presence when he arrives at the border? Or might he enter the country without announcement? While I agree with your sentiment I must disagree on a point or two more:

The end does not justify the means. It is not right to do evil that good may come of it. No matter how important one perceives his position or his research to be, lying to maintain or advance that position or research is just plain wrong. Thou shalt not bear false witness.

1) The end very well can justify the means. It is evil to kill but not to preserve innocent lives. 2) It may be more evil to leave a lie hidden than to lie to expose it. 3) You've left off part of that commandment. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Your conviction about how you live your life is noble and Biblical, but it is also BIblical that you are not the one to judge how others ought to live theirs. Sorry to be piling on here, but I think there is a time when stealth is appropriate and Christ-like. Anyway, the researcher in question doesn't owe his colleagues a full accounting of his time spent away from them, does he? Charlie

Gerry I'm no religious expert but a couple of things I recall from somewhere seem to be relevant to your general behavior. Judge not lest ye be judged. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Maybe you should do a little less preaching and a little more practicing. By the way, is your question for Dawkins "Do you know enough to come in out of the rain?" You're starting to look a little wet yourself. DaveScot

Bill I understand that Premise has what they called "8 hours of solid gold" which had to be reduced to 90 minutes of documentary footage. The DVD release won't have a 90 minute restriction. I suspect a lot of that gold will be leveraged to sell the DVD even to people who already saw Expelled in a theater. DaveScot

Gerry - like the Pharisee's of old, you are over your head on judging this one. alan

Gerry: Wise as serpents, gentle as doves ... Why do you classify this as evil action? I struggle with that. Who said that this individual was trying to protect his own hide? Apparently he was trying to protect someone else's. Who said this scientist was a Christian? Are all I.D. researchers born again believers? Apparently angels go undercover; we have the opportunity to entertain them unawares. I'm seriously into black and white, Gerry, but I think there are some cases where it's wise to hold onto that brush a moment or two before applying. Perhaps this is one of those times? Brent

Charlie asks, "Is it morally right for a cop to go undercover?" If he's a Christian, I don't think so. As a Christian his job is to make disciples of all nations, love his wife, his kids, fellow believers, neighbors, etc. It's certainly not his responsibility to take up a career that requires frequent and sustained lying to assist the secular government in the management of the unregenerate. And if he's not a Christian, the only advice I have for him is to become one. Charlie asks, "Is it morally right for an employee to blow the whistle on a corrupt company?" If he's a Christian, it's clearly his responsibility not to be part of such a company. And if the established government requires his testimony against them, it's his duty to give it. But again, it's not our job, as Christians, to "fix the world" except by the approved method -- one soul at a time. Charlie further asks, "What is the moral obligation in throwing yourself under the bus unnecessarily?" None, of course, if you really meant "unnecessarily". In fact, Christians are prohibited such acts. One may choose to "lay down his life for his friends" as an act of love, however. But I suspect you're speaking of a metaphorical bus, and so... Charlie continues, "...Especially if it results in your inability to do the good work required?" The end does not justify the means. It is not right to do evil that good may come of it. No matter how important one perceives his position or his research to be, lying to maintain or advance that position or research is just plain wrong. Thou shalt not bear false witness. Gerry Rzeppa

Hi Gerry, Why would it not be? Is it morally right for a cop to go undercover, for an employee to blow the whistle on a corrupt company, or for an anonymous tipster to report a crime? What is the moral obligation in throwing yourself under the bus unnecessarily? Especially if it results in your inability to do the good work required? Charlie

Apollos says, "Did you really just play the “brother” card?" I didn't realize it was a "card". Or that this was a game. I take the Body of Christ seriously. And I think there are serious issues here, as well. "Religious moralizing" is taking place on both sides. Consider just two questions in the context of this thread and I think you'll see what I mean: 1. Is it morally right to dissemble to protect one's career? 2. Is it morally right to dissemble to advance a cause, such as intelligent design research? Gerry Rzeppa

LOL :lol: Gerry, did you really just play the "brother" card? Apollos

Dr. Dembski says, "I know the case in question, and it is a matter of getting the ID research done in a hostile environment." You obviously have me at a disadvantage. Are there are no other means of getting said research accomplished? Is said research is important enough to justify "hiding one's convictions"? Say "yes" twice and I'll take your word for it. Or better, write me privately with the facts so we can discuss the matter on level ground. But there's really no need to threaten a brother like that. Gerry Rzeppa

Gerry: Watch the religious moralizing -- I have very little patience for it. I know the case in question, and it is a matter of getting the ID research done in a hostile environment. William Dembski

"...scientists and professors who feel the need to hide their convictions in order to survive in the academy." It sounds like these guys value an unequal yoke with unbelievers more than friendship with their own consciences. Our best moral decisions are made when we leave the consequences entirely in God's hands. Gerry Rzeppa

"So much for standing up for one’s beliefs." Loose the battle to win the war. Jesus probably didn't believe that mere thieves should be crucified, but he was on a mission. My wife describes it as going with the stream, around the boulders, and not trying to make the boulder move out of the way for your canoe. Of course, I just try to move the boulders (and what's a tiny boulder vis-a-vis a little faith?) But we all have our different talents. William Wallace

"The purpose is to avoid being spotted by scientists hostile to intelligent design." So much for standing up for one's beliefs. Gerry Rzeppa

I can't wait until Friday. I am trying to find a backup baby sitter as our first choice has prior engagements (I think she's going to the film too). The evolander establishment has been so concerned for so long that I expect some of them to go apoplectic Monday morning, when evolander professors might have their hands full. William Wallace

See this is why the Darwinists are so dangerous to science! It's just like Galileo in the 1500s, but at least the establishment wasn't as established then. Is there any way to see what research this scientist has done without revealing his identity? All the information around this movie has me so excited that there's proof of a designer and I can't wait to see the research and evidence when - hopefully - this movie allows people to start seeing what's out there! Marie