Science Rage
So this Ben Stein film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed slipped under my radar (as many films do). Here's a trailer if you're unfamiliar with it.
So this movie is offensive to me on a number of levels.
Now, the whole crux of this film is that Scientists are collaborating to quash the intellectual and vocal freedom of the proponents of intelligent design so I want to make it very clear that this is not the purpose of this post. I am posting because this trailer (I have yet to see the film but I plan to) is quite simply wrong. There are logical fallacies and propaganda techniques being used to distract people from the truth.
Though not formally a Scientist, I fancy myself a man of Science. I view the world around me with a skeptical and scrutinous eye that I use to draw conclusions about the world around me. In addition to natural phenonmena, Scientists turn this same eye to the conclusions of their peers, ever looking for inconsistencies and fallacies which would serve as an unstable foundation upon which to lay futher knowledge and understanding. This is called peer review and is crucial to controlling the scientific process.
The paper talked about in the trailer was attacked not because it took an unpopular position, but because it was bad science. I can't make any claims about Dr. Sternberg's supposed persecution since I simply don't have any information. I have however taken the time to read the Meyer paper. It starts off arguing that the information required to generate the number and complexity of animal forms we see in the world today can not be explained by any current materialistic theories (here materialistic means concerned only with tangible, measurable phenomena and processes). This is fine. No, not fine. Spectacular. Science not only encourages this type of criticism but would die without it. Science must always move forward, and fault-finding is the basis for this forward movement.
The main issue is that even if we were to suppose that all of Meyer's arguments about the inadequacies of current theories (itself controversial, as many biologist feel it demonstrable that it is possible for current theories to explain the types of things Meyer talks about), he then makes a tremendous logical leap and says that since we can not explain them, that the deliberate hand of an intelligent designer (not necessarily god) is an acceptable alternative explanation.
There isn't a word for how inappropriate this is. Suppose you wanted to explain how magnets pull things from a distance. You don't know about electricity or magnetism. Since no theory known to you can explain it, you decide to attribute the action to ghosts. This is not science. The reason is that no future observation can ever disprove this assertion. There is no experiment that can be done to test this statement and there is no observation that can be made to lend credence one way or the other to this theory.
This is such a basic principle of Science that I am utterly disgusted that anybody holding the title of Dr. could even attempt to make the argument.
This is not science. This is the pseudo-theory of man who already knew what his conclusion was to be before he ever looked at an data.
I have no problems letting people believe such things. It is not my place to tell people how to live their lives and whether or not to pursue truth. However, poorly crafted theories have no place as alternatives to solid ones. Science is not afraid of challenges to neo-darwinism. Science is merely intolerant of bullshit. Plain and simple.
EDIT: Also, I'm pretty sure it's considered poor rhetorical style to cut people's quotes off mid-sentence. Dr. Dawkins had not said a period yet. Assholes
So this movie is offensive to me on a number of levels.
Now, the whole crux of this film is that Scientists are collaborating to quash the intellectual and vocal freedom of the proponents of intelligent design so I want to make it very clear that this is not the purpose of this post. I am posting because this trailer (I have yet to see the film but I plan to) is quite simply wrong. There are logical fallacies and propaganda techniques being used to distract people from the truth.
Though not formally a Scientist, I fancy myself a man of Science. I view the world around me with a skeptical and scrutinous eye that I use to draw conclusions about the world around me. In addition to natural phenonmena, Scientists turn this same eye to the conclusions of their peers, ever looking for inconsistencies and fallacies which would serve as an unstable foundation upon which to lay futher knowledge and understanding. This is called peer review and is crucial to controlling the scientific process.
The paper talked about in the trailer was attacked not because it took an unpopular position, but because it was bad science. I can't make any claims about Dr. Sternberg's supposed persecution since I simply don't have any information. I have however taken the time to read the Meyer paper. It starts off arguing that the information required to generate the number and complexity of animal forms we see in the world today can not be explained by any current materialistic theories (here materialistic means concerned only with tangible, measurable phenomena and processes). This is fine. No, not fine. Spectacular. Science not only encourages this type of criticism but would die without it. Science must always move forward, and fault-finding is the basis for this forward movement.
The main issue is that even if we were to suppose that all of Meyer's arguments about the inadequacies of current theories (itself controversial, as many biologist feel it demonstrable that it is possible for current theories to explain the types of things Meyer talks about), he then makes a tremendous logical leap and says that since we can not explain them, that the deliberate hand of an intelligent designer (not necessarily god) is an acceptable alternative explanation.
There isn't a word for how inappropriate this is. Suppose you wanted to explain how magnets pull things from a distance. You don't know about electricity or magnetism. Since no theory known to you can explain it, you decide to attribute the action to ghosts. This is not science. The reason is that no future observation can ever disprove this assertion. There is no experiment that can be done to test this statement and there is no observation that can be made to lend credence one way or the other to this theory.
This is such a basic principle of Science that I am utterly disgusted that anybody holding the title of Dr. could even attempt to make the argument.
This is not science. This is the pseudo-theory of man who already knew what his conclusion was to be before he ever looked at an data.
I have no problems letting people believe such things. It is not my place to tell people how to live their lives and whether or not to pursue truth. However, poorly crafted theories have no place as alternatives to solid ones. Science is not afraid of challenges to neo-darwinism. Science is merely intolerant of bullshit. Plain and simple.
EDIT: Also, I'm pretty sure it's considered poor rhetorical style to cut people's quotes off mid-sentence. Dr. Dawkins had not said a period yet. Assholes