Chuck Norris reviews Expelled in Town Hall column
| April 22, 2008 | Posted by Dave S. under Intelligent Design |
Win Ben Stein’s Monkey
By Chuck Norris
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Evolution. Intelligent design. These are terms that can cause great consternation in the minds and hearts of many, particularly opponents of each view. Now, that anxiety and debate have resurfaced in theaters everywhere with Ben Stein’s new documentary, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” The press kit says, “(‘Expelled’) exposes the widespread persecution of scientists and educators who are pursuing legitimate, opposing scientific views to the reigning orthodoxy.” (To see a trailer of the movie or access its free resources, go to www.getexpelled.com.)
I like Ben Stein. I think he’s funny, creative and an insightful commentator on a host of issues. I’m not bent on defending him or “Expelled,” but I’m glad he made it. I saw it last weekend, and I liked it. I think it will wake up many people to the truth. What truth? That educational arenas have become limited learning environments because of biases against God, the Bible and creationism. Stein is correct in saying that passionate antagonism and hostility (that parallels any fundamentalist extremism) equally exists in naturalist and Neo-Darwinian camps. Proof of their avid bias easily can be seen in some evolutionists’ reviews of this film. Many are loaded with as much inflammatory language, intolerance and bigotry as any hate-filled group.
42 Responses to Chuck Norris reviews Expelled in Town Hall column
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
scordova:
Wow, that is a stunning revelation! Especially coming from a movie producer! I’m amazed that nobody else here has picked up on this.
It deserves more than a passing mention, don’t you think?
What are these discoveries? Who is making them? Who is suppressing them? What elements of neo-Darwinism would they overturn? What are Ruloff’s sources?
The National Institutes of Health, of all places. If this story can be substantiated, surely a Congressional Investigation is in order.
#27 all scientists continuously question their understanding of the world. this is what science is. to suggest otherwise is ridiculous.
This itself is almost too ridiculous to comment on. This conveniently ignores the countless examples of closed-minded rejection and persecution of “heretics” in many fields of science, not just evolutionary biology. I suppose that there is a little open mindedness, but only when it comes to new hypotheses within very narrowly prescribed limits that don’t upset the mainstream paradigms.
They certainly would not give their eye teeth to have their career trashed. I’m sure Dr. Richard Sternberg has lost any naive notions he might have had about shaking up the establishment with a peer reviewed paper that raised a different perspective on an old problem.
Major paradigm shifts in science are not typically smooth and easy. Understandably, the establishment has an investment in a current paradigm and does not prefer to be shaken up. It does not do so readily.
It took the better part of a century to move from scoffing to accepting the idea that rocks could fall from the sky, contrary to Aristotle’s view of the perfection of the heavens. And that change did not require any change to our view of humanity or of life.
Dean Kenyon was an origin of life scientist who authored a well received text book defending the abiogenesis hypothesis. But the accumulating data eventually convinced him that that hypothesis was unsustainable and he became convinced that the evidence pointed toward intelligent design as the best explanation. What did he get for his this? He had to fight to even continue teaching classes in his own field.
They certainly would not give their eye teeth to have their career trashed. I’m sure Dr. Richard Sternberg has lost any nieve notions he might have had about shaking up the establishment with a peer reviewd paper that raised a different perspective on an old problem.
Major paradigm shifts in science are not typically smooth and easy. Understandably, the establishment has an investment in a current paradigm and does not prefer to be shaken up. It does not do so readily.
It took the better part of a century to move from scoffing to accepting the idea that rocks could fall from the sky, contrary to Aristotles view of the perfection of the heavens. And that change did not require any change to our view of humanity or of life.
Dean Kenyon was an origin of life scientist who authored a well received text book defending the abiogenesis hypothesis. But the accumulating data eventually convinced him that that hypothesis was unsustainable and he became convinced that the evidence pointed toward intelligent design as the best explanation. What did he get for his this? He had to fight to even continue teaching classes in his own field.
“all scientists continuously question their understanding of the world. this is what science is. ”
Actually if that is true the discipline of science is unworkable and useless.
Salvador @ 15
Without breaking any confidences, would it be possible for you to go into any further detail on this very serious allegation?
I’ve some contacts in the profession that would be very interested to hear the specifics of this suppression of the exploration of RNA synthesis at the NIH and I’d be happy to pass the details onto them. I assure you it would be looked into by open minded people.
Thanks
double post – Sorry about that.
Jason @ 35
Out of interest, are you a working scientist and if so don’t you question the status quo? It seems to me that religion is fixed in place and should not (cannot) be questioned, whereas the whole point of science is that it’s provisional and should be continuously questioned. As science is not “unworkable and useless” as evidenced by the fact you are sitting in front of a computer, what’s the reason?
Daniel King @ 31
Exactly my thinking! My inital thought is this is potentially one of the most explosive things to come out of the whole expelled debate.
The professional journals would love an opportunity (not all are fans of the NIH) to shine the light of truth on such activities!
Salvador, any chance of any further details? As I said above, I have some contacts that would love an opportuity to make a name for themselves exposing such behaviour.
Step 1: go to http://www.google.com.
Step 2: type “find chuck norris” in the search box (do not press enter) .
Step 3: click “I’m feeling lucky” instead.
magnan said
I’d love to learn more about the countless examples, links please!
Dizzy in #39,
You stated; “I’d love to learn more about the countless examples (of rejection and perecution), links please!”.
One of the more well-known examples from history is the rejection of meteorites by mainstream scientists. An excellent summary of this may be found in “Rain of Iron and Ice” by John Lewis. Written accounts of meteors and meteorites date back thousands of years. What was it that kept some scientists from accepting them as genuine? Part of the answer may be found in the “It can’t be therefore it isn’t” mindset. This leads to an unwillingness to look at the actual data. It doesn’t stop the same scientists however from voicing a negative opinion on the subject. A more modern example was a recent debate on the alledged Roswell UFO crash. UFO debunker Phil Klass was asked how many of the witnesses associated with the event he had interviewed. Answer? **None**., You may or may not believe in UFOs, but to reject it without actually looking at and studying the data is not worthy of the calling of a scientist. Otherwise, one should remain neutral.
To DLH at 16, Thanks. I was hoping Keep the Reason or Alext would see it and respond. Even if one starts from purely materialist assumptions, it is still true even in that framework that it might be foolish and hopeless to require science to explain the biological life we see only in terms of undirected processes.
IOW, even if abiogenesis is possible in some fashion, that would not even then guarantee that the form of life we see (based on symbolic information processing) is necessarily explainable by undirected processes.
Such a priori requirements, whether to exclude design or to exclude rocks falling from the sky (which Aristotle explained couldn’t be possible), are always bad for science, since they can compel scientists to spout nonsense that fits the requirement, though it distorts our understanding of nature. So we end up explaining meteorites as the ejections of volcanoes or assert that chemicals behave in ways they do not.
Ergo, the issue raised by the intelligent design hypothesis is legitimately a worthwhile scientific issue, not a question that could be settled within a religion class, etc.
That is not a defense of abiogenesis, but I would hope that those who accept abiogenesis would at least follow their assumptions through and face up to the logical consequences.
gleaner63 (40): Excellent points on the plague of ideological prejudice. “I don’t have to look (in Galileo’s telescope, or at the supposed rocks from the sky, or whatever) because I already know …”
It is unfit for science just as prejudice is a blight in the court room.
The good news is that the inconsistency of being anti-design out of an anti-God prejudice is becoming too obvious to hide any longer, with thanks lately in part to Dawkins. It won’t work to deny the possibility of design, just because someone hates the idea of anything that might indicate that undirected natural processes are insufficient.