Expelled Exposed…Exposed

From the website NCSE Exposed:

Of course critics of ID (like the folks at the NCSE) should have every right to publish their views within academic circles and should have the full protection of academic freedom. But academic freedom doesn’t just mean the freedom to agree with the predominant viewpoint. Academic freedom in science means nothing if it doesn’t include the right to hold legitimate minority scientific viewpoints. ID proponents have published serious scientific research in mainstream, credible academic venues. Many of them have sterling academic qualifications and accomplishments. They have earned the right to freely express their views without fear of intimidation or discrimination.

But free expression of pro-ID views in the academy is exactly what the NCSE doesn’t want. “Expelled Exposed” is now exposed for what it really is: it’s not just a website making the case against ID (which is perfectly fine if that’s what ID critics want to do)—it’s a website attempting to convince people that ID deserves no academic freedom. In other words, “Expelled Exposed” is an effort to encourage the further persecution of ID-proponents.

Ironically, by denying that professionally qualified ID proponents have a right to “a place in academia,” “Expelled Exposed” has justified the central thesis of the documentary Expelled, namely that qualified ID proponents do not receive academic freedom to hold, discuss, and promote their views within the academy.

I like the Discovery Institute more all the time based in part on the rabid hatred that many Darwinists have for this tiny organization. Can such intense fear and hatred come from a defense of “science” or is there something deeper going on?

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

Ben Stein Responds to Critics

Ben Stein responds to critics on their level in this podcast. There’s something to be said for talking to folks on their level.

“Bein Stein must be completely nuts.” – Roger Friedman – Fox News

“That’s Mr. Stein to you.” – Ben Stein

“It is a slickly produced piece of nonsense.” – TV Guide

“Really? I thought it totally rocked. [voice dripping with sarcasm]” – Ben Stein

Ben Stein addresses critics

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