Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Science Says It, So It Must Be So, Right?….Right?…Right?


Science says it, so it must be so, right?  Well, here we have one of the most famous studies of all time coming under fire for presenting false data and conclusions.  Shocking (pun intended). 

Sixty-plus years ago, Yale University professor Stanley Milgram used a fake shock-torture setup to show that people are frighteningly easy to manipulate into doing as they’re told. One researcher described the setup as designed discover whether “ordinary Americans would obey immoral orders, as many Germans had done during the Nazi period.”

The answer Milgram gave that question was a disturbing yes.

I recall this study well.  One of my jobs in grad school was taking films from the library to show in various classes on the old 16mm projectors.  One of the films I showed several times was the film of this famous Stanley Milgram study.  Like everyone else at the time, and since, I thought it was true.  Guess not.  There were important bits of data that were conveniently left out of the conclusions…data that give a completely opposite view of the result.

Those of us who have closely followed the ID/Evolution debate over the years are no strangers to extravagant claims made on sparse to non-existent data.  When will the day come when a widely followed science journal admits to data that counters the accepted narrative, as we’re seeing happen with the Milgram study.  There’s so many possibilities to present, one would hardly know where to begin. 

Massam @ 16 You're welcome and I'm not surprised. It didn't get much press when they quietly brought the study to an end. They were convinced they would find evidence to support Darwin, but it never happened. Not one positive mutation was witnessed during the course of 30 years, just as no positive mutation has even been viewed by any species at any time. Without positive mutations, you cannot have evolution as the Darwinists feel must exist. There's nothing scientific about the cult. BobRyan
Bob Ryan @11, I've never seen that study before. Very interesting and thanks for sharing. It seems the more and more that nature refuses to conform to man made theories. massam
"theory of evolution in biology makes no moral prescriptions whatsoever" But the product of evolution (Sev) itself does. So where do your moral prescriptions come from Sev? You just make them up? We are back where we started. Nowhere. Andrew asauber
It is more important to note that the theory of evolution in biology makes no moral prescriptions whatsoever.
There still isn't any scientific theory of evolution.
Independent analysis of the data and replication are essential.
And that is one reason why there isn't any scientific theory of evolution. ET
The thing about Sev is that he'll come back next week like none of this information has ever been presented to him. Andrew asauber
Seversky- Two of the main keys to science are observation and experimentation , so what do these thing tell us about the origin of life from non life.Well science tells us it has never been observed and the opposite is the observed fact life always, always comes from life. Then what does experimentation tell us , it tells us the more we try make life in the lab the further away we get as more and more of the difficulties of life forming from non life through some random process are exposed. So Sev will you go with the science or with your beliefs , will you go with the science or with the scientists who hold the same beliefs as you, I will go with the science. Marfin
Seversky @ 8 You state, " Independent analysis of the data and replication are essential." When has macro-evolution ever been replicated. A couple of years ago, the longest running evolution experiment came to an end. 67,000 generations of E. coli were studies, which is the equivalent of 1,000,000 years to people. After 30 years of watching e coli continue to do what e coli has always done, the project was brought to a halt. The hope was they would be able to witness macro-evolution occur, but it never happened. The E. coli had remained E. coli in every way. https://newatlas.com/evolution-experiment-bacteria-thirty-years/51872/ BobRyan
Seversky states that
I believe that science is the best method we have at present for discovering the nature of the observable universe
That statement is false. Seversky believes in atheistic materialism no matter what the scientific evidence says to the contrary.
Theism compared to (Atheistic) Naturalism - Major predictions of each Philosophy (compared to the scientific evidence we now have in hand) - video https://youtu.be/WY5ppoqPNVo (January 2019 - defense of all 16 predictions against Seversky’s flimsy naturalistic counterclaims) https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/philosophy/michael-shermers-case-for-scientific-naturalism/#comment-670894
Moreover, contrary to what many people have been falsely led to believe by Darwinian atheists about Intelligent Design supposedly being a pseudo-science, the fact of the matter is that all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism. From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man. Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place. Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism. Moreover, following the restriction of methodological naturalism on science, that is to say, following the presumption that only natural, material, and/or physical causes are allowed to be given in order to explain any effect in science, leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science itself.
Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must hold beauty itself to be illusory. Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, - Darwinian Materialism and/or Methodological Naturalism vs. Reality – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaksmYceRXM
Thus, although the Darwinist may firmly believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic and/or naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinian materialists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. Again, It would be hard to fathom a worldview that turns out to be more antagonistic towards modern science, indeed more antagonistic towards reality itself, than the presumption of methodological naturalism has turned out to be.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
Bottom line, without God nothing turns out to be truly real in the atheist’s worldview. Not even the atheist himself turns out to be truly real in his materialistic worldview. i.e. If a worldview, such as atheistic materialism, denies that you really exist as a real person, which is, by far, the most certain thing you can possibly know about reality, then you can be absolutely certain that that worldview must certainly be false. bornagain77
Bornagain77@ 6
While morality cannot be so easily compromised “for no reason other than following orders”, it is also important to note that morality, especially the morality of a nation as a whole, is severely compromised by the teaching of the false doctrine Darwinian evolution within that nation
It is more important to note that the theory of evolution in biology makes no moral prescriptions whatsoever. Wherever that has been attempted in the past it has been an improper leap across the is/ought gap. That "survival of the fittest" is observed in nature does not mean that it is a moral principle that should be applied to human societies. It is also important to note that in most countries where evolution is taught as a theory in biology there has been no no observable predisposition to genocide. Indeed, the countries where evolution is taught largely unopposed, are generally less violent that, for example, the United States where there is significant popular opposition to it. It is also important to note that, prior to the genocides of the twentieth century, many of those types of atrocities were perpetrated against indigenous populations by the colonial powers of Europe and North America. Furthermore, most of them happened before the publication of Darwin's work when those countries were predominantly Christian. So, if you want a source of genocidal behavior, you should be looking at religion not science. This is where Weikart's thesis, if you are reporting it fairly (which I doubt) that Darwin's theory was the mainspring of Nazi atrocities, is flawed. The population of Germany was overwhelmingly Christian, predominantly Protestant. Christian anti-Semitism had been endemic in Europe for centuries before with Martin Luther's On The Jews And Their Lies being a particularly virulent expression of that antipathy. With such attitudes so deeply embedded in the cultures of the continent it is purblind ignorance to pretend that a new theory in natural history from an English naturalist would lead inevitably to the Holocaust in Nazi Germany. You might as well argue that Newtonian mechanics led inevitably to the strategic bombing campaigns of World War II and Isaac should take the blame for Dresden. And even if both cases were true, they would still have no bearing on the science. Seversky
I believe that science is the best method we have at present for discovering the nature of the observable universe but, no, it is not always right. It is just more likely to be right than any of the alternatives. One of the reasons that it is more likely to be right is that it warns against the assuming that the results of a single experiment are dispositive. Independent analysis of the data and replication are essential. If Milgram was improperly selective in his reporting of the data then it is quite right that it is exposed and corrected. Seversky
AaronS78, reading this, I couldn't help but feel there is something peculiarly disgusting, to the point of obscenity (rather like simony), about the infinite resourcefulness so many atheists are able to summon, when they are seeking to defer due consideration of the likelihood of divine judgment on each one of us, to avoid a condign respect for the moral order. You scientists have to deal with the sub-infantile 'three monkeys' nescience on the part of the Establishment on a daily basis. I say, 'sub-infantile', as young children, as yet unburdened by worldly considerations, simply want to learn the truth about everything. Axel
as to:
We Should Have Doubted It All Along And decades of students have believed it. I bought it myself, as a student. I should have known better. We’d all be hard-pressed to think of anyone we know who’d hurt someone that way, for no reason other than following orders.
While morality cannot be so easily compromised "for no reason other than following orders", it is also important to note that morality, especially the morality of a nation as a whole, is severely compromised by the teaching of the false doctrine Darwinian evolution within that nation. As Weikart noted,
How Darwin's Theory Changed the World Rejection of Judeo-Christian values Excerpt: Weikart explains how accepting Darwinist dogma shifted society’s thinking on human life: “Before Darwinism burst onto the scene in the mid-nineteenth century, the idea of the sanctity of human life was dominant in European thought and law (though, as with all ethical principles, not always followed in practice). Judeo-Christian ethics proscribed the killing of innocent human life, and the Christian churches explicitly forbade murder, infanticide, abortion, and even suicide. “The sanctity of human life became enshrined in classical liberal human rights ideology as ‘the right to life,’ which according to John Locke and the United States Declaration of Independence, was one of the supreme rights of every individual” (p. 75). Only in the late nineteenth and especially the early twentieth century did significant debate erupt over issues relating to the sanctity of human life, especially infanticide, euthanasia, abortion, and suicide. It was no mere coincidence that these contentious issues emerged at the same time that Darwinism was gaining in influence. Darwinism played an important role in this debate, for it altered many people’s conceptions of the importance and value of human life, as well as the significance of death” (ibid.). http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn85/darwin-theory-changed-world.htm
And as Viktor Frankl, a survivor of the holocaust, noted,
"When we present man as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind-machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instinct, heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone. I became acquainted with the last stage of that corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment or as the Nazi liked to say, of Blood and Soil. I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers." Viktor Frankl - in 'The Doctor and the Soul'
Indeed, indoctrination into Darwinian ideology was integral to Nazism:
Was Darwinism Banned from Nazi Germany? - Richard Weikart - November 21, 2016 Excerpt: This notion that Darwinism was banned in Nazi Germany is pretty widespread on blogs, especially those by atheists and freethinkers.,,, If we want to know whether Darwinism was taught or banned in Nazi Germany, the logical place to start would be to look at the schools and universities. The Nazis were zealous about controlling the educational institutions, so they could inculcate their ideology into the minds of the youth. What was in the official Nazi biology curriculum and the textbooks? As it turns out, the Nazi Ministry of Education published curricular guidelines in 1938, and the biology curriculum mandated extensive teaching about evolution. Further, the National Socialist Teachers' League developed a biology curriculum in 1936-37. Of the ten major topics covered in the higher grades, one was biological evolution and another was human evolution. I have examined numerous biology textbooks published in Nazi Germany, which were approved by the Nazi Ministry of Education, and they uniformly taught Darwinian evolution, devoting considerable attention to it in the higher grades.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/11/was_darwinism_b103304.html
As Hitler stated,
"Give me a child when he's 7 and he's mine forever," - Adolf Hitler https://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Scinto-Hitler-quote-used-to-stress-early-432121.php
Not only the Nazi's, but "from Lenin to Trotsky to Stalin and Mao Tse-tung" considered evolution "essential to the self-respect of Communists. ... Darwin provided stiffening to the scaffold of laws and dialectic they erected around their seizure of power."
Historian Paul Johnson is Darwin's Latest Biographer -- and a Pretty Devastating One - David Klinghoffer - October 14, 2012 Excerpt: "Both Himmler, head of the SS and Goebbels, the propaganda chief," were students of Darwin, ,,, Hitler apparently carried the theory of natural selection "to its logical conclusion." "Leading Communists," moreover, "from Lenin to Trotsky to Stalin and Mao Tse-tung" considered evolution "essential to the self-respect of Communists. ... Darwin provided stiffening to the scaffold of laws and dialectic they erected around their seizure of power." Even Stalin,, "had Darwin's 'struggle' and 'survival of the fittest' in mind" when murdering entire ethnic groups, as did Pol Pot,,, ,,the "emotional stew" Darwin built up in Origin played a major part in the development of the 20th century's genocides.,,, No one who is remotely thoughtful blames Charles Darwin "for millions of deaths." But to say, as Johnson does, that Darwin's theory contributed to the growth of a view of the world that in turn had horrendously tragic consequences -- well, that's obviously true, it did. We have documented this extensively here at ENV, as have historians including our contributor Richard Weikart (Hitler's Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, Socialist Darwinism: Evolution in German Socialist Thought from Marx to Bernstein). There is, or should be, nothing controversial about this (fact of history). http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/historian_paul_065281.html
It is also interesting to note that although Nazi soldiers had been indoctrinated into Darwinian 'survival of the fittest' ideology and/or morality during grade school,,,, (for instance, this example of Darwinian morality),,,
At some future period … the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous [Having or suggesting human form and appearance] apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope … the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla” Charles Darwin,The Descent of Man pg. 201, published in 1871:
,,,, It is also interesting to note that although Nazi soldiers had been indoctrinated into Darwinian 'survival of the fittest' ideology and/or morality during grade school, that the Nazi soldiers who were forced to participate in the mass murder Jews at close range were, none-the-less, psychologically "finished for the rest of their lives". And that is one of the main motivations for why gas chambers were subsequently developed so as to spare the Nazi soldiers themselves, (not the victims mind you), from being psychologically traumatized.
Death by Firing Squad In 1941, SS General Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski told his superior Heinrich Himmler that the Nazis had been murdering Jews, including women and children, at close range and in cold blood all summer. Bach-Zelewski was worried about this method's traumatizing effects on his men. Himmler recorded in his diary the General's concerns: "And he said to me, 'Reichsfuhrer, these men are finished for the rest of their lives. What kind of followers are we producing here- either neurotics or brutes?'" Himmler realized he had to find new methods that would spare his troops the psychological strain of killing human beings at close range. https://www.pbs.org/auschwitz/40-45/killing/
Thus while people, especially grade school children, can be easily deceived into believing false things, i.e. Darwinian evolution, that compromises their moral intuition, and therefore subsequently commit acts that are grossly immoral, (i.e. close range mass murder), none-the-less, the consequences of these grossly immoral acts are still fairly devastating for the participants who commit those grossly immoral acts, i.e. "these men are finished for the rest of their lives." In other words, there simply is no escaping the consequences of transgressing the objective moral law of God no matter what false doctrines we may have been taught that deny the existence of objective morality.
Romans 14:12 So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.
https://books.google.com/books?id=Rb0sAAAAYAAJ This article is a 1922 experiment along the same lines. The professor was unusually candid in describing the responses. Basically the grad students were mainly concerned with faking and manipulating the results. They also tested a black janitor who happened to be around the building. He was not concerned with cheating. He knew the difference between good and evil, and after he realized the experiment was evil, the prof couldn't even bribe him to continue. "Social" "science" has always been devoted to perfecting torture methods and training torturers. polistra
Reminds me of the book "Catch-22" where the cook says no one appreciates his cooking. So he puts soap flakes in the mashed potatoes. That day, everyone lined up for seconds on the mashed potatoes. "See?" the cook wailed, "they have no respect for my food." Well actually, Yossarian reported, everyone knew it was soap flakes. They also knew that diarrhea would exempt them from flying dangerous bombing missions. So they figured it was an opportunity not to be missed. Likewise, I'm sure those who knew the difference between grad students faking it and grad students feeling it, also saw the opportunity. For what it's worth, 4 years of acting have taught me that some things are really hard to fake. Pain being one of them. Humans (or at least parents) seemed to be wired to sniff out the fakers. Milgrim should have known--or perhaps, it was an opportunity. Robert Sheldon
Fixed the broken link. Sorry about that. DonaldM
Is this really coming under fire this is one of the proofs against free will, there appears to be a lot of studies that have information that has been purposely fudged to show a false positive, particularly in the field of Freewill neuroscience and showing that we don’t have free will AaronS1978
The link isn't working for me. cmow

Leave a Reply