3/6/09

"Expelled Exposed" Exposed

FYI: this post has been moved here.
Share |

TwitThis

Posted by Ken
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

17 comments:

  1. ReynoldMarch 6, 2009 at 10:37 AM

    God, there's so much to respond to, it's not even funny. I will say that the ID complaint of no "academic freedom" is complete bullshit. Why? No one is stoppping them from publishing their books, which places like Pandas Thumb regularly pick apart in public. Public analysis of a book is the opposite of censorship.

    No one is stopping the ID people from publishing in peer-reviewed journals, but with the sheer number of factual $%$-ups they have, as the reading of any Panda's Thumb review of any of their books attests to, none of their stuff would make it past peer-review. Same as any submission by anyone who submitted work to be published that had errors in it; only instead of correcting them, the ID people just go and whine about it.

    In fact, real biologists are still waiting for some ID work that was supposed to be published already but hasn't.

    Now, as to the "Darwin-Hitler" connection? Again, bullshit, as I show here.


    Here's something Mariano: What evidence FOR intelligent design was shown in the "Expelled" movie? After all, if they're complaining of being "censored" and all that, that would be a golden opportunity to show the public just some of what is actually being "suppressed", wouldn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousMarch 6, 2009 at 7:33 PM

    I had to make sure it was Casey Luskin who wrote this, before I posted this comment, just so I wouldn't look dumb.

    But yep, I was right: Casey Luskin.

    As Reynold said: where is this evidence FOR ID?

    ReplyDelete
  3. ModusoperandiMarch 6, 2009 at 8:15 PM

    Anonymous "I had to make sure it was Casey Luskin who wrote this, before I posted this comment"
    Yup. That is the genetic fallacy though, I believe (just because Luskin is a weasel doesn't mean that everything that comes out of his weasely mouth is weaselish). No attribution from Mariano, either.

    ReplyDelete
  4. ReynoldMarch 7, 2009 at 7:58 AM

    Well, Mariano does attribute it in a way, he said that it was published, not the he published it, and he's got a link to the original article.

    ReplyDelete
  5. FroggieMarch 7, 2009 at 8:42 AM

    Reynold,
    "No one is stoppping them from publishing their books,...."

    Well said. After all, Darwin did not publish "Origin" in a peer reviewed journal. He published it as a stand alone book.

    ReplyDelete
  6. LeslieMarch 7, 2009 at 2:24 PM

    "No one is stoppping them from publishing their books, which places like Pandas Thumb regularly pick apart in public. Public analysis of a book is the opposite of censorship."

    And the writers of those books regularly pick apart the criticism in public. But the point is not what is done in public on a blog or website somewhere. Obviously the Darwinists are going to be able to criticize the stuff in public. The problem is that a) whenever someone writes a book, they deal with persecution, not just analysis, and b) they can write books, but there is a lot of trouble publishing in journals.

    On point B in particular, I think we agree - but we disagree on the reasons for this. I hear the claim often that "if ID theorists would just produce some real evidence..." then they would get into the journals. But I personally doubt this. I don't think anything ID could ever do would get them accepted, at least not in the current environment. There needs to be some serious paradigm change occur before most Darwinists would accept that evidence could even exist.

    After all, Darwin did not publish "Origin" in a peer reviewed journal. He published it as a stand alone book.

    Be that as it may, that was published 150 years ago, in a totally different environment. Just about anyone can publish a book today. Books can certainly have an effect, but generally not the kind desired in this context. So in order to make real headway today, ID is going to have to get into the journals, and I think we all know this.

    ReplyDelete
  7. jdhueyMarch 7, 2009 at 2:59 PM

    Mariano,

    Can you provide a specific source for the Dawkins/Mathis conversation? I would like to check it's validity.

    ReplyDelete
  8. ModusoperandiMarch 7, 2009 at 4:16 PM

    Reynold "Well, Mariano does attribute it in a way, he said that it was published, not the he published it, and he's got a link to the original article."
    Wups. My bad. No commentary, except for the bit at the beginning (and I wouldn't characterize Shermer as a "self-assured atheist activists who make authoritarian assertions". "Skeptic" fits the bill nicely for Shermer. It's his defining characteristic. That and his generally state of virtually unrelenting niceness. He makes me sick).

    Leslie
    "And the writers of those books regularly pick apart the criticism in public...Obviously the Darwinists are going to be able to criticize the stuff in public."
    What do you think peer review is? The criticism and analysis of their books in public is the same as the criticism and analysis of everyone's papers in private.

    "So in order to make real headway today, ID is going to have to get into the journals, and I think we all know this."
    And in order to get published in them, they're going to have to do better than the arguments so far. Repeating the same failed arguments
    works as well for ID as it does for Creation Science. Why do you think they don't bother? Why do you think they've gone legislative (with
    "academic freedom" legislation in States) and "grassroots" (with school boards)? They failed to convince their peers, but rather than keep
    trying, rather than finding better evidence, they've decided to bypass them entirely (except when their peers show up for the inevitable court case). It's much easier to convince a YEC schoolboard member (who only know that their pastor is against things like "evilution") or a politician (in states where wedge issues like that help prospects for reelection) of the verity of the argument than it is to do the same for people who study it for a living. That's why scientist's critiques of ID books mean something, that's why Behe got hoisted on his own petard at Dover ("I personally don't know of anyone who knows about the blood cascade" won't get you into a journal, as the peer review of a paper on the blood cascade will have peers who do know about it), and that's why ID isn't working on scientific concensus anymore.

    jdhuey
    "Can you provide a specific source for the Dawkins/Mathis conversation? I would like to check it's validity."
    The only hit I get for "You were not forthcoming with me that you were making a film" in google is a page on Vox's site (warning: makes up for a dearth of charm with a surfeit of smarm, which will amuse me for hours because I just accidentally made a rhyme. I'm deep like that) which, in turn links to the fact-challenged (at least if the abhorrent expelled blog was any indication) Expelled
    themovie.com site    .

    ReplyDelete
  9. LeslieMarch 7, 2009 at 5:13 PM

    Modus,

    I recognize that they have failed to convince their peers. I just don't think that means they're wrong. From everything I have read and studied on this particular point, I'm not convinced they were open to it to begin with.

    Have you ever had a discussion with someone who seemed to simply be waiting for you to stop talking so they can jump on what you're saying, without actually considering what you're saying? I think this happens a lot in this particular discussion. To be fair, it seems to happen on both sides, though I feel it's a bit more heavy on one side than the other.

    Here's how I perceive a lot of this stuff going:

    IDist: "Here's my scientific thoughts on this"
    Darwinist: "Here's why that is hogwash and unscientific."
    IDist: "Here's why your response is invalid."

    For some reason though, whenever this discussion is recounted by Darwinists, it tends to stop at the Darwinist's response, as if the IDist simply stopped us his ears and made loud noises. If this was allowed to happen in the journals, it would be fine. But by keeping it constrained to the internet, the IDist lose opportunities to make headway. So I will agree - peer review is going on in one sense, but only in such a way as to keep ID from being able to make headway. If they're willing to do this kind of back and forth on the web, I'm not sure why they're unwilling to do it in the journals, save that reason.

    Incidentally, I've not actually watched Expelled yet. Most of my conclusions come from reading up on the cases.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Scary JesusMarch 7, 2009 at 6:11 PM

    Leslie, you just don't know how science works, you just don't. Do you really think there is a conspiracy to exclude ID? Really? If ID had a shred of promise, science would jump all over it. The fact is, ID (Creationism) is driven by Christian ideologues, period. You know that.

    Should we take seriously the Ken Hamm theory that the grand canyon was caused by the flood and that dinosaurs and humans existed together? Who has time for that? Science is pretty good at weeding out goofy shit right from the get go and ID is just persistent "goofy shit" that just won't go away because of people like you, because it has religious implications. Do you really think you can "trick" your religion into science somehow? Go screw.

    Once again ID has no merit scientifically, zero, nada. Wake up guys, this is getting tiring.

    Oh, Mariano doesn't even read these comments, so don't bother addressing him.

    ReplyDelete
  11. LeslieMarch 7, 2009 at 7:26 PM

    Scary,

    I won't try to say that I'm extremely well studied on science (though I will say I'm not ignorant), but I don't think I need to be in order to discuss whether there is something to ID complaints.

    I'm not saying that there is a conspiracy to exclude ID. Conspiracy denotes there being some sort of big behind-the-scenes plan. I don't think that's the case. What I think is that the general populous of the natural sciences is unwilling to consider ID on a (faulty) philosophical basis. I don't think there is any type of evidence that could potentially be presented that they would work with. That's why I said there would need to be a paradigm change.

    As for being driven by Christian ideologues, I would disagree with this, but it seems irrelevant to me - isn't this the genetic fallacy? Darwinism is just as much driven by naturalistic ideologues, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

    There are intelligent, well-studied people on on the other side of the argument here, who are using their studies of the world to support it. It seems far too disingenuous to me to simply shirk off what they're saying as if they're religious zealots who don't care about reality.

    I simply disagree that ID has not scientific merit. The main reason this is generally held is because there is a conveniently narrowed definition of science that doesn't allow for anything but particular types of conclusions. I know you may think I'm ignorant here, and that's fine ... you wouldn't be the first. But I am only doing justice to what makes the most sense to me. If I preached something else, I'd be a liar, and I'd much rather be accused of ignorance than deceit, especially of myself.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Scary JesusMarch 7, 2009 at 10:05 PM

    I understand what you're saying Leslie, and you present it well. I'll give you that. But I disagree with you, and the majority of science agrees with me. I don't mean to be condescending or pejorative, I just think you can't get beyond your religious bent. I was there for maybe 30 years. Please don't mistake my outbursts as a personal attack.

    But when it comes down to it, science can only do what science can, give us the best answers based on an understanding of the natural world, and I suspect that you'd like to have supernatural consideration invited to the table. That's out of the realm of science. Dude with all due respect, you're wrong. Science is self moderated, personal agendas die quickly in the world of science. It is the best process we have to figure out what works and what doesn't. And ID has been tossed to the curb years before it was called ID. It just fails.

    You seem like a good guy with an open mind but ID just fails, it just does, it's never going to be science, ever.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Scary JesusMarch 7, 2009 at 10:14 PM

    Ok that being said, check this out:

    The Roots-Don't Say Nothing

    Thought I'd be a bud and share my latest addiction, it rocks!

    Yeah I've got no sense.

    ReplyDelete
  14. ReynoldMarch 8, 2009 at 9:08 AM

    Leslie, you should check out that link I posted earlier, about scientists waiting for the work that the ID people promised to do but have yet to do so.

    If the ID people were seriously worred about "persecution", why would they make such promises in the first place? Why would scientists give the ID people grief for not publishing their work as promised?


    They could even, if they're that afraid of the "establishment", publish their work anonymously on the web, for other people to confirm their research and repeat their experiments. It would not be able to be suppressed for long.

    You may want to read this for some more paranoia from the ID people.

    In the meantime, enjoy.

    ReplyDelete
  15. jdhueyMarch 8, 2009 at 1:33 PM

    Frankly, ID has received far more attention and inspection by scientists than it deserves. I know that I have read, at least, several dozens of articles and letters written by scientists that have looked an ID and found it wanting - I'm also sure that there are many many more that I have not read. What is clear is that ID is a bogus concept that is a complete waste of time and mental energy. It deserves as much attention and consideration as the idea that ancient astronauts built the pyramids.

    ReplyDelete
  16. jdhueyMarch 11, 2009 at 6:46 PM

    “Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive — except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable.

    Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed — except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers.

    When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”

    —Philip S. Skell

    Member of the National Academy of Sciences and Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University


    The sentiment in this quote is somewhat strange. We have the situation that we have a species (ourselves) that possesses a wide variety of behaviors - some manifestly contradictory. Moreover, not only are those contradictory behaviors seen across the species but are also seen within the individual.
    So it seems to me that any explanation of those behaviors that does not account for that diversity is inherently inferior to an explanation that does. So, the suppleness of the TOE (including Natural Selection, Sexual Selection, Kin Selecetion, etc.) is not a weakness but is a necessary property of a good explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  17. AnonymousMarch 16, 2009 at 1:08 AM

    PLEASE, spell "heel" correctly!

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)