Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Ben Stein’s Dangerous Idea

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Robert Meyer provides thought provoking insight into the major issues surrounding Expelled.
————————————-
Ben Stein’s Dangerous Idea
Robert Meyer, May 6, 2008, New Media Alliance – Robert E. Meyer

Ben Stein has a dangerous idea. His idea is that professors and teachers who express skepticism about Darwinism are likely to find themselves not granted tenure, castigated and ridiculed, and disqualified from the opportunity to have research papers published.
. . .
Having reviewed the movie myself, it appeared that Stein was trying to make the case for academic freedom, not attempted to convert anyone to a particular ideological position.

Stein, in fact, never makes it known what particular beliefs he holds personally, he merely makes it known that he is disgusted by the idea that someone could lose their job over honest doubts about Darwinism.

Critics will respond to all of this by saying that “Intelligent Design” is not science. Of course not, for to say so would be a semantic or categorical confusion. ID is “science” in the same way that a snowball is “weather.” The snow ball is a result of weather, but not weather itself. Intelligent Design is not science, but a conclusion inferred by applying the scientific method. Asking whether or not a particular object of study is too complex to have evolved by chance is a question germane to scientific examination. Such questions can be quantified by mathematical probabilities.

Any form of “science” that claims it is possible disprove Intelligent Design is no longer applied science, but philosophical speculation. That is really what is so egregious.

The customary way of attacking “crackpots” who have doubts about Darwinism, is usually with appeals to expertise. We will be told that 99.9% of credible scientists believe in Darwinism. The problem is the word “credible.” Since one must believe in Darwinism to be considered credible in the first place, the only question is why the number isn’t 100%. We basically have a meaningless tautology of circular reasoning on our hands.

What I always tell these people is that I don’t care to hear about an appeal to expertise, I want a methodology. Even those who are not scientifically astute should want to philosophically cross examine the cogency Darwinist assertions for themselves.

The are three false assumptions here. First, an implication that expertise equals perfect objectivity. No agenda or orthodox dogma is seen as responsible for the virtually unanimous compliance. Secondly, that all scientists who are cited began with no preconceived biases, and came to their conclusions by following the evidence wherever it led them. Finally, coercion and intimidation have no influence or effects in maintaining the monolithic consensus.

One quickly realizes that both Darwinists and Intelligent Design theorists, use the same scientific methodology in their investigations. What differentiates them is the interpretation of the evidence, the ultimate conclusions, and the presuppositions each group have going into their endeavors.

A belief in either Darwinism or ID is a metaphysical (philosophical or religious) preference, not a scientifically demonstrable fact. As far back as 1874, John Tyndall, in his famous Belfast Address, stated…

“The strength of the doctrine of Evolution consists, not in an experimental demonstration (for the subject is hardly accessible to this mode of proof), but in its general harmony with scientific thought.”

In the 20th century, Aldous Huxley commented about the implications of accepting Darwinism in his treatise Ends and Means…

“For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.”
In Nancy Pearcey’s essay from a few years back, “You Guys Lost, Is Design a Closed Issue?” she states…

“If it can be shown that historically the primary motivation for advancing Darwin’s cause was not so much scientific as philosophical, then the theory loses much of its persuasive force. For scientists have authority to tell us how the natural world functions, but they have no comparable authority to tell us what philosophy we ought to hold. If the motivation for accepting Darwinism was primarily philosophical, then we in the twentieth century are justified in calling for a resurrection of the old debate.”
. . .
So the important question is not whether ID is science, but whether Darwinism is really philosophy with a scientific patina. One seems to be the opposite side of the coin from the other, but one idea is taught in public education, the other is taboo.

That circles us back to Ben Stein. Stein’s motivation may have been merely to blow the whistle against threats to academic freedom. Maybe the genie that Stein is trying to let out of the bottle is even bigger than he thought.

See full article: Ben Stein’s Dangerous Idea

Comments
blackjack000 and Barb blackjack000: "It is not speculation to not believe in something that has not been observed. Science is an art of proof, not disproof." Common descent with modification has not been observed. Science is about repeatability. It is about going from initial conditions to final conditions, where the entire process is under tight control and under observation, though perhaps much is indirect. CDWM lacks experimental credentials. "However, is it relevant in science?" But the question is, what is science? Certainly, paleontology and cosmology don't qualify as science. "I believe the scientific community would accept ID as a relevant theory if it had a legitimate backing in the scientific method." If the scientific method consists of telling stories about the detritus of the past, then I suppose ID qualifies as well as paleontology. Barb: The point, I believe, was that scientists often don't make good philosophers. I couldn't resist Meyers' article, since I've been posting the same thing here for a few days before his article came out. My Xanga blog (soccerdadforlife) has an article that makes pretty much the same point. Were these independent? Don't know.thogan
May 8, 2008
May
05
May
8
08
2008
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT
blackjack000: "Scientists are fairly far removed from philosophers." Science and philosophy have been intertwined since the days of Aristotle.Barb
May 7, 2008
May
05
May
7
07
2008
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT
Ekstasis is certainly right about criticism. Also, who is "in the field?" Frankly, someone with mathematical or engineering capabilities has more to say about biological complexity than say, Dawkins or Scott. Not to mention various folks who are clearly "within the field," such as Bene and Minnich.Eric Anderson
May 7, 2008
May
05
May
7
07
2008
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
blackjack000 says "The fact is that the majority of biological experts do agree with evolutionary theory. The public would expect criticism and refutation to come from within a respective field, not outside. It would make no sense for someone who was not an expert to make claims." This statement seems to contain two flawed premises. One is that "biological experts" are the only experts that bring anything to bear on the prevailing theory of evolution. For NDE to be true, a wide array of conditions must necessarily be true that touch on a number of fields. We need a growing number of experts to weigh in on the matter. For example, when we get down to the cellular level we find all sorts of nanotechnology going on. Who better understands what it takes to develop such tiny wizardry -- a garden variety biologist or an engineer? We need mathematicians to evaluate probabilities, chemists to evaluate molecular processes, palaentologists for the fossil record, and neuroscientists to gaze into the brain and mental processes. And this is just to mention a few. The second is to expect criticism to come from within a field. Certainly this can happen, but don't hold your breath. Using this kind of logic, we should never have sent a team of diverse experts to study the war in Iraq. What the heck, if it was simply about who possesses the greatest knowledge, we would of simply sent a team of military tacticians to study the situation. And who needs outsider auditors to review the books when the corporate financial staff know the most? In a word, accountability. In an even better two words, outside accountability. Why? Human nature is what it is. Yes, even in science. No one and nothing is untouchable.Ekstasis
May 7, 2008
May
05
May
7
07
2008
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT
blackjack000 Start with the Definition of ID
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.
Read the full page and try again.DLH
May 7, 2008
May
05
May
7
07
2008
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT
So the important question is not whether ID is science, but whether Darwinism is really philosophy with a scientific patina.
No. The important question is whether design inferences -- based on the existence of complex specified information which is scientifically-demonstrated by biology, cosmology and physics -- make chance-plus-necessity obsolete as a scientific paradigm.jstanley01
May 7, 2008
May
05
May
7
07
2008
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
"Charles Darwin . . . came up with what is admittedly a very creative theory, or model, for how various life forms came about." Actually, he noted that various creatures may be killed off by the various vagaries of life, and then attached a label to it. He then suggested that this process, coupled with variations, might result in what we see today. But he certainly did not propose any workable theory about how the life forms would come about in the first place. Often, people who disagree with Darwin's larger point still give him some reverence for having put forth a brilliant theory that is incomplete, or having made an important scientific contribution that is not quite the whole story, or some similar homage. (I think this often occurs because the speaker's point can be made even assuming some portion of Darwin's ideas have currency, and also because it would not be worth the political capital to take a firmer stance.) I view Darwin much differently. A decent naturalist. A skilled rhetorician. But ever since I read the Origin I have had trouble identifying a single idea of his that is both correct and non-trivial. Is there anything we know about biology today that we would not know if it were not for Darwin? Is there any idea from the Origin that has proven correct and that is critical to our understanding of biology as we know it?Eric Anderson
May 7, 2008
May
05
May
7
07
2008
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT
A belief in either Darwinism or ID is a metaphysical (philosophical or religious) preference, not a scientifically demonstrable fact.
Wait a minute. A "preference"? Isn't the whole argument between NDE and ID over the "whats" "whys" and "wherefores" of scientifically demonstrable facts? Othewise, You say potAto, I say potAHto. You say tomAto, I say tomAHto. PotAto? PotAHto? TomAto? TomAHto? Ah, let's call the whole thing off.jstanley01
May 7, 2008
May
05
May
7
07
2008
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT
I have some points in the Robert Meyer article I would like to bring up. Overall, I enjoy that he employs a relatively civil discussion against evolutionary theory. However, I believe he arrives at some conclusions that appear superficially logical, but do not actually represent scientific framework. It is true that ID is not science, as stated in the article. However, to attach any sort of weight to the argument of ID against evolutionary theory, ID would have to progress as an alternative theory by the scientific method. As it stands now, to lay claims against evolutionary theory is just as a critic that stands outside of the forum. Yes, the questions that ID do pose are valid. However, is it relevant in science? Without a basis in the scientific process, it is not. I would also have to disagree that "[a]ny form of 'science' that claims it is possible [to] disprove Intelligent Design is no longer applied science, but philosophical speculation." By the very framework of science, theories are based on observable evidence. It is false to infer that since ID cannot be disproven it is scientific speculation to claim ID is wrong. Many claims cannot be disproven, but that does not make them valid in science. It is not speculation to not believe in something that has not been observed. Science is an art of proof, not disproof. I believe the claim of circular reasoning and an appeal to expertise is also off center. Science is a broad and deep field. Within it are numerous specialties, each requiring devoted experts in order to advance the respective fields. One who is not engaged and knowledgeable in the field would not be expected to give relevant input and criticism. The fact is that the majority of biological experts do agree with evolutionary theory. The public would expect criticism and refutation to come from within a respective field, not outside. It would make no sense for someone who was not an expert to make claims. I believe the scientific community would accept ID as a relevant theory if it had a legitimate backing in the scientific method. As of yet, it does not, so scientists (by their occupational nature) are not able to accept it as anything other than a hypothesis. A belief in Darwinism (evolutionary theory) is not a "metaphysical preference". The conclusion that biological diversity has arisen by evolution was arrived at via the scientific method. A hypothesis was posed, evidence accumulated that supported the hypothesis, and an overwhelming scientific consensus was made. There is nothing philosophical about that. It is how we arrive at any scientific theory. The shift in the end of the article from science to philosophy also seems a bit skewed. Scientists are fairly far removed from philosophers. Science is an art of evidence, not pure reasoning. I find it hard to believe that a global scientific community has any goals of imposing a philosophy on the world. It seems to me that the scientifically-inclined are fairly removed from the social science arena. Other than these issues, I very much respect that Meyer based his argument on logic and critical thinking. I still disagree, but on a civil forum like this, at least we can disagree like grown-ups.blackjack000
May 7, 2008
May
05
May
7
07
2008
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT
"So the important question is not whether ID is science, but whether Darwinism is really philosophy with a scientific patina." Yes, great question. And the other great question is, how in the world did we get to this current state of affairs? Charles Darwin, in a world that strongly emphasized competition (Adam Smith and the Wealth of Nations, Malthus and the law of scarcity) and natural explanations for everything, came up with what is admittedly a very creative theory, or model, for how various life forms came about. His was also a world of simplicity, where everthing was viewed as mechanistic and linear. All this is not so surprising given the times. But the sheer success of the subsequent enterprise is breathtaking, is it not? I liken it to a group of soldiers that had a very strong desire to cross a river. They stepped out from the bank, and the water was calm and shallow, and the far shore appeared so very near. They merrily trudged forward, but the further they travelled, the deeper and more turbulent the water became. And for some reason the far shore appeared farther away the further they travelled. In the meantime a second group of soldiers sited a ford that was far easier to travel, and tailor made for crossing. They called and called to the first group, but to no avail. The first group knew better because they were smarter, had rank, and by golly, knew the river better than that other group of knuckleheads. And besides, as they trumpeted incessantly, they were making progress!! In fact, they even claimed they had reached the far shore, although impartial observers could plainly see that nothing was farther from the truth. Do you recognize this trite little fable? Exactly, it is Aesop's story of the sour grapes, but inverted. In Aesop's version the fox desires the grapes, cannot reach them, and then claims they are no good anyway, out of pride. Oh, but the Darwinists are far more clever than the fox, and just as prideful. They desperately desire NDE to be true, pursue it with reckless abandon, happily ignore all adverse findings, and even claim that they have reached the goal when they have not, wildly celebrating victory over their tremendous triumph. Much akin to the emporer with no clothes, they suck on non-existent grapes and boast about how very succulent they are. The rest of us just watch and shake our heads. Such incredible stagecraft and thespianism the world has never seen. Please pass the popcorn.Ekstasis
May 7, 2008
May
05
May
7
07
2008
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply