Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

I finally got to see the documentary (I signed up for Netflix on my Xbox 360–cool). I think it was very well done, and it points out the true state of science and academia. While it made use of strong visual rhetorical devices, I found them compelling and not inappropriate.

I would also say that I bet Ben Stein was a handful as a child (in school and elsewhere)! He plays dumb with  the best of folk when talking to the radical atheist naturalists (Dick Dawkins, Paul Zachary, Eugenie, et. al.). As an aside, I find that as a shrink, asking ‘dumb’ questions is an art form, and absolutely necessary. “So eating every meal under your basement stairs in complete darkness is much more pleasurable than eating it at the kitchen table like most people do?”

Also, poor Dickie D was feeling so magnanimous1 that day that he hypothesized that life on Earth could have been seeded by aliens who were the result of Darwinian evolution. Fortunately, for the theistic evolutionists and atheistic evolutionists, he is no longer feeling magnanimous.

1 A Naturalistic Fairy Tale-Part VIII


ID and Counterorthodoxy

Denyse O’Leary has an interesting post about Thomas Nagel’s views on ID in the educational system. (1) Thomas Nagel is an atheist philosopher from New York University. (2) I found this quote to be interesting.

The political urge to defend science education against the threats of religious orthodoxy, understandable though it is, has resulted in a counterorthodoxy, supported by bad arguments, and a tendency to overstate the legitimate scientific claims of evolutionary theory.

It seems to me, that the rampant hysteria of many naturalistic evolutionists about the ID movement, has indeed caused many evolutionists to overstate the scientific claims of evolutionary theory. They seem bent on saying, “But we can explain that! You’re being stupid again!” They then resort to “just so” stories out of a fear that ID might get a leg up on them. They’ve been doing that ever since Darwin anyway, but it appears to have taken on a tone of desperation in recent years. There’s not much room in legitimate scientific inquiry for desperation. The scientific method, at its best, is a tool for increasing the objectivity of observations. It is not a panacea for establishing truth. Desperation negates the scientific method. The results of science are only as objective as the interpretation of the results (Garbage in garbage out; as the frequent commenter Olorin notes who is on hiatus in Australia and vociferously disagrees with me in most ways).

While I agree that there is a counterorthodoxy element to the Darwinist movement, there is also orthodoxy. And with the orthodoxy (3) of the Darwinists, ID and Creationism are seen as apostasy (4). In the hallowed halls of higher academia, one must be an orthodox evolutionist in order to thrive and survive, lest you be naturally selected for career death. (5) This is true to a lesser extent in my chosen field of psychology. There seems to be a bit more humility in the field of psychology than the field of biology–although I use the term rather loosely as psychology has the highest percentage of atheism of any other field in the US (67%). I can only hope that Darwinism matures. If your theory is sound, what need have you of desperation and hysteria? I hope that Darwinists can, eventually, obtain the much-needed objectivity required for scientific inquiry, and calm down a bit. It really is okay to say, “I don’t know.”

(1). Intelligent design and high culture: Philosopher says teaching students about intelligent design should be okay, Denyse O’Leary

(2). Thomas Nagel
(3). Orthodoxy. Wikipedia.
(4). Apostasy. Wikipedia.
(5). Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed