Ben Stein
Wow, so I just saw the super trailer to Ben Stein's movie Expelled. How interesting...
Here is the link to the YouTube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGCxbhGaVfE
Basically, (if you didn't watch the trailer) he is arguing that promoting intelligent design as some kind of alternative to Darwinism should be acceptable. Fair enough. He also portrays "scientists" who challenge Darwinism/Evolution as victims. I haven't seen the movie (nor do I think I ever will as it would probably result in another unpleasant blog), but it appears as though he is asking why intelligent design cannot be suggested/taught/presented/whatever in the classroom. This is fair enough unless you want to teach this in the SCIENCE classroom. The problem with intelligent design in the SCIENCE classroom comes when you try to substantiate it with the scientific method. NO scientific evidence suggests the presence of an intelligent designer. If one could present such scientific evidence, I would be more than happy to support this being taught in the science classroom.
Enough, I've actually been as supportive as I can.
He presents the theory of evolution as "absurd" (at least in his trailer, like I say, I probably won't even watch the film). Yes, Ben Stein believes that logic and reason and scientific facts that can be proven are absurd. He describes the theory of evolution as the progression of mud into animals and then into a "giant" leap from animals to humans. Yes, never mind the fact that our genetics are 98% identical to some primates, we are "significantly" more advanced in every way than they are...sure. I'm sure he's one of these people who actually make a distinction between humans and animals.
I don't know why, but for some reason, I have to bring up statistics. Maybe it's because our hypothesis testing procedure (in the frequentist or Bayesian approach) suspiciously parallels the scientific method. You can prove nothing with hypothesis testing, but you can fail to reject an idea, and you can sure as hell disprove a bunch of shit.
Perhaps I've found a topic for my project next spring: ANOVA (analysis of variance) of the intelligence levels (brain activity, technological breakthroughs, etc.) of species from a variety of biological classifications (I think there are like seven..dunno...have to ask my wife). My hypothesis: humans are not significantly more intelligent than those animals to which we are closely related. Alternative hypothesis of course would be that we're a bunch of god damned geniuses.
I know, that probably sounds like I have an agenda, but Ben Stein seems to think that this prerogative virtually dominates the academic realm. Maybe I just thought of another hypothesis test...
Here is the link to the YouTube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGCxbhGaVfE
Basically, (if you didn't watch the trailer) he is arguing that promoting intelligent design as some kind of alternative to Darwinism should be acceptable. Fair enough. He also portrays "scientists" who challenge Darwinism/Evolution as victims. I haven't seen the movie (nor do I think I ever will as it would probably result in another unpleasant blog), but it appears as though he is asking why intelligent design cannot be suggested/taught/presented/whatever in the classroom. This is fair enough unless you want to teach this in the SCIENCE classroom. The problem with intelligent design in the SCIENCE classroom comes when you try to substantiate it with the scientific method. NO scientific evidence suggests the presence of an intelligent designer. If one could present such scientific evidence, I would be more than happy to support this being taught in the science classroom.
Enough, I've actually been as supportive as I can.
He presents the theory of evolution as "absurd" (at least in his trailer, like I say, I probably won't even watch the film). Yes, Ben Stein believes that logic and reason and scientific facts that can be proven are absurd. He describes the theory of evolution as the progression of mud into animals and then into a "giant" leap from animals to humans. Yes, never mind the fact that our genetics are 98% identical to some primates, we are "significantly" more advanced in every way than they are...sure. I'm sure he's one of these people who actually make a distinction between humans and animals.
I don't know why, but for some reason, I have to bring up statistics. Maybe it's because our hypothesis testing procedure (in the frequentist or Bayesian approach) suspiciously parallels the scientific method. You can prove nothing with hypothesis testing, but you can fail to reject an idea, and you can sure as hell disprove a bunch of shit.
Perhaps I've found a topic for my project next spring: ANOVA (analysis of variance) of the intelligence levels (brain activity, technological breakthroughs, etc.) of species from a variety of biological classifications (I think there are like seven..dunno...have to ask my wife). My hypothesis: humans are not significantly more intelligent than those animals to which we are closely related. Alternative hypothesis of course would be that we're a bunch of god damned geniuses.
I know, that probably sounds like I have an agenda, but Ben Stein seems to think that this prerogative virtually dominates the academic realm. Maybe I just thought of another hypothesis test...