Pat Robertson interviews Ben Stein about EXPELLED
| March 18, 2008 | Posted by William Dembski under Darwinism, Expelled, Intelligent Design |
32 Responses to Pat Robertson interviews Ben Stein about EXPELLED
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Dear ericB,
I’m sorry, but I’m getting very lost here. I will try to answer the direct questions you pose in (30).
1. Do I really imagine that each scientist’s motivations are to be written into science itself?
Yes, I think that is inescapable. I believe that each scientist’s motivations, assumptions, goals, interests, etc, are written into every non-trivial paper every scientist ever writes. In many cases — even when I don’t understand or don’t care about the details of a paper — I can still tell which scientist (or at least what kind of scientist) wrote the paper.
But I can see we’re in trouble already, because the word “science” in the above question makes me think of the collected knowledge of actual scientists — pieces of their brains, as it were — while I suspect you see “science” as something apart from the individuals who produce it.
2. Do I acknowledge that belief is personal and there is no communal belief? Yes. Am I disappointed that the ID movement has not made the kind of statement of communal religious belief that I want? No. I’m disappointed that the individual members of the Intelligent Design movement present themselves as more objective than they really are — in fact, as more objective than it is possible to be.
I’m not interested in men as machines; I’m interested in men as men. Michael Behe is in search of the “edge of evolution”. Fine. My question is, Why? Why does he want to know? And why do I want to know? Because it will be easier for me to understand his technical points if I have that philosophical piece of data in hand before I start reading. After all, it’s not what Michael Behe discovers that’s important — it’s Michael Behe himself that matters. I don’t want to know what Michael Behe knows; I want to know him (which, of course, includes what he knows).
In my view, any pursuit that requires a man to be less than a man — in thought, word, or deed — is a bad thing. I suspect you disagree.
3. Which direction am I trying to go? I think I’ve made that clear. In my view, we either start at the top, with Theology — the Study of God and His Works — and make all of our specialties subordinate and in service to that pursuit, or we don’t. And I can’t list all of the alternatives that are included in that “don’t” because the number of wrong answers to any question is infinite. Either we’re trying — with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength — to know our God better, or we’re simply wrong.
4. Equivocation and “interchanging defintions of a term within the course of an argument” are two completely different things. The first is a moral fault; the second is a mere mistake.
I’m a man. I speak like a man. I’m not a calculator that can only process simple terms defined in unambiguous ways — and neither are you. Stop insisting that we speak as if we were two computers communicating via some trivial protocol. When I say, “I don’t think he’s got the balls to drop those bowling balls on that other guy’s balls” you know exactly what I mean — in spite of the fact that I used the term “balls” in three different ways in one sentence. And I didn’t equivocate — or make a mistake — when I did.
To Gerry Rzeppa, Your post at 31 was helpful. BTW, I’m not aiming to discourage you personally. Rather, I do believe the value of what you have to say can become hidden by how you convey it.
Preface: I have been and will be using “science” univocally in the sense used normally by ID proponents, their materialist critics, and at least sometimes by you of “equations and test tubes” science, i.e. the physical/natural sciences, complete with their acknowledged limitations.
1. Gerry Rzeppa: “Do I really imagine that each scientist’s motivations are to be written into science itself? Yes, I think that is inescapable. … But I can see we’re in trouble already, because the word “science” in the above question makes me think of the collected knowledge of actual scientists …”
However, “the collected knowledge of actual scientists” includes much more than science could possibly hold, as you also have acknowledged. It is necessarily so, even from your own statements…
Gerry Rzeppa: “I agree that “you can only go so far [with] a scientific proposition,” and, like you, “I am not bothered by the fact that science cannot take us as far as we should consider going.” I never expected to find God in an equation or a test tube.”
Consequently, if we should not expect to find God within the limits of “equation and test tube” science, and if we should find God within our motivations, it follows necessarily that we should not expect to find the proper motivations for doing science within science itself.
This should not be surprising. Motivations are tied to personal beliefs that are outside of science itself. And since they are personal beliefs, that also tells us not to expect to find them inside the shared axioms of science itself. (See my comments in post 30 on motivations vs. the axioms of science itself.)
Thus, by your own statements, it would be unreasonable to expect to find a scientist’s motivations for doing science within science itself. Science itself is too limited to hold them, as you have acknowledged.
2. Gerry Rzeppa: “Am I disappointed that the ID movement has not made the kind of statement of communal religious belief that I want? No.”
I am glad to hear it. Earlier I had the impression (apparently false) that you found some fault with regard to the absence of religious/theological content in the general description of ID (in contrast to scientific materialism) at the top of uncommondescent.com. I guess I misunderstood.
However that may be, you seem to imply that “the individual members of the Intelligent Design movement” have never expressed their own personal ideological positions or are pretending they have none or that they pretend to be “more objective than it is possible to be.” I pointed out earlier that this was incorrect and linked to documentation. Since I don’t recall seeing you respond to that (or the post following it), perhaps you did not see the post.
The links I provided were to Principled (not Rhetorical) Reasons Why ID Doesn’t Identify the Designer. Please see (Part 1) and especially (Part 2).
3. I don’t think the core of what you are saying is unreasonable, if I understand it correctly now. But it becomes clouded and obscured by two problems. Though perhaps unintentionally, your posts sometimes convey disdain, as though these ID advocates don’t realize what they are doing or why. Yet at the same time, I haven’t noticed you acknowledging or showing understanding of the principled reasons why ID advocates make the distinctions they do between science and personal ideology or motivation. Together these give the impression, true or not, that you have just not bothered to first understand what you criticize and disdain.
Matters are further confused when you use shift interchangeably between different meanings of “science”. This adds to the impressions just mentioned. It would be far more effective for you to translate your points into a consistent use of the language and terminology used by your audience. Consider 1 Cor. 14:7-11. Consider also that the New Testament was written in the common Greek.
4. “Equivocation is classified as both a formal and informal fallacy. It is the misleading use of a word with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).”
-Wikipedia
WRT equivocation, your analogy concerning “balls” does not work. In context, it is clear that each use of “balls” is meant to be a different term with a different meaning. No one would suggest that any of those “balls” are referring to the same thing. They are different definitions for clearly separate uses. Furthermore, if someone were talking about one of uses, no one would think of suggesting “your notion of “balls” is significantly thinner than mine” just because they were not talking about some other distinct meaning.
On the other hand, when you say “I think your notion of “science” is significantly thinner than mine…” or when you respond to statements ID proponents have made about science using one definition with a response that actually supposes a different definition that is not as limited, those are cases of the error of equivocation, whether intentional or not.
Equi+vocal (many voices, i.e. voicing/applying multiple meanings to the same term) vs. Uni+vocal (voicing/applying a single, consistent meaning to a term).
Rather than slide between the various meanings of science, it would be better for communication if your response uses terms in a manner consistent with how your audience uses and understands them. Other meanings can be expressed in clearly distinct terms without loss of content. Please see previous point concerning translation.
Blessings to you.