Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Peter T Chattaway

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Recommended Posts

Nezpop, I didn't find the documentary even "a little mean spirited" or "driven by paranoia." I didn't even find it slightly lending itself toward propaganda, like every single Michael Moore "documentary." I wonder how much of the spirit of a film like this is driven by the spirit (or expectations) of the viewer.

When you are nearing the end and have footage of the host pointing at science and basically saying "this is the path to genocide" and pointing to religion and saying "this is the path to life"? That is an unnecessary dividing line to make. And it looks pretty paranoid. And hardly a balanced discussion.

I also note that when you suggest Michael Moore makes propaganda films, it is pretty common for his fans to find that preposterous. I suspect, as you note, how these films come across has a lot to do with how the viewer feels about the topic. But one is being more than a little generous to pretend Expelled had no spirit brought but what the viewer brought... This was not an attempt to ask folks to look at the ID issue and discuss, it declares that anyone who feels it ought not be included in Science class is part of a liberal elite that is trying to suppress knowledge.

I certainly cannot help how Moore fans percieve his films but I do try to become as objective as possible when viewing documentaries and I think a great case can be made that Moore's "docs" fall on the extreme end of the propaganda spectrum. And I say this as a fan of Moore's early work.

I guess I could have been more clear on the idea of "what the viewer brings." I am not, in any way, suggesting that a documentary remains neutral or without spirit until a viewer watches it and creates meaning (or forms the spirit). I was speaking to how a viewer may amplify certain qualities of a documentary based on what they bring to it. Therefore, I am not "pretending" in any way shape or form. I readily admit(ed) that I was much more taken in by the subtext (intended or not) that was really discussing the creation of knowledge (as stated previously). This coud easily take the focus off of, and soften, any mean-spiritedness of the doc. If I were to be able to be called out on anything it would be that (my focus) and not "being generous" or "pretending."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I come down somewhere in between Thom and Nez.

It should be uncontroversially acknowledged on all sides that Expelled and Michael Moore films are works of propaganda—which doesn't make them bad, or wrong, or unconvincing; it simply means that they are works of open advocacy, which is all that propaganda denotatively means.

I happen to think that in both cases there are some valid points to be made and some unconvincing manipulation of facts, presentation of half truths, manipulative techniques, etc.

This is sais so well. Thanks, SDG.

It always does me well to consider that propaganda is a form of advocacy and is probably a less loaded way to talk about things of this nature. However, I do think that the term "propaganda" is no longer the neutral term it once was and has its place in such conversation. I think of advocay as making a statement of why one supports something and propaganda as a form of presenting selective facts with the intent to influence the audience; a form of persuasion (kind of like marketing). Propaganda now has a negative and manipulative conntation. Whereas, the term "advocacy" seems to carry the original meaning of propaganda. An important distinction when talking about these two documentaries and a Moore's work in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Propaganda now has a negative and manipulative conntation. Whereas, the term "advocacy" seems to carry the original meaning of propaganda. An important distinction when talking about these two documentaries and a Moore's work in general.

Are you really suggesting the film does not present certain information in a carefully manipulative way to show it's subject in the best possible light while presenting critics in an equally edited fashion to make them look less positive? Yeah, I have not seen the film as recently as you have...but this is not a "Here are all the facts, make your own decision." This is every bit a "Here are the facts we want you to know about this topic, here is the conclusion you should be coming to."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I totally dropped the ball following-up on this one.

Are you really suggesting the film does not present certain information in a carefully manipulative way to show it's subject in the best possible light while presenting critics in an equally edited fashion to make them look less positive? Yeah, I have not seen the film as recently as you have...but this is not a "Here are all the facts, make your own decision." This is every bit a "Here are the facts we want you to know about this topic, here is the conclusion you should be coming to."

I actually haven't seen this film since 2009. All of my comments about this film are from my film journal and write-up I did back in 2009. Consequently, the main point that I am discussing (creation of knowledge) represents what I focused on regarding the documentary at that time. I was not intrigued by the subject matter or the presentation to the degree that I was regarding the creation of what we call "legitimate knowledge," something I find important and interesting.

In an honest recollection, I think the film attempted to frame something larger than the debate between science and religion or creationism and evolution. I am not talking about the presentation of information as much as I am attempting to discuss how knowledge gets stamped as "legitimate."

Edited by Thom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So.  I saw this again from a different perspective, having read several of the books authored by those who were interviewed in the film, amongst others.  I am now in complete agreement with the film's main thesis.  Both about evolution and the suppression of those who disagree with it and other similar aspects.  There has also been more discoveries and literature that has come out, that would argue along these lines, since the film.  It could be possible that the film was partially responsible for a bit of a general shift in this area.  Not, of course, that there is absolutely nothing valid to some points about the film's flaws.

 

These guys are getting stamped with "fundamentalist" "creationists", but these terms don't align with what they are saying.  Indeed several of those interviewed were agnostics and of the Jewish faith, and none of them were arguing a literal view of the Bible, or a seven day creation (creationist.)  In fact the Jewish fellow takes great pains to illustrate that some ancient Jewish theologians didn't agree with seven day creation views, and this long before the concept of evolution was on the scene.  He argues that their beliefs came straight from studying the Genesis text.

 

 

SDG said:  

 

:On the other hand, I think the film has a valid point to make regarding the relationship of evolutionary naturalism, eugenics, and the Nazi holocaust. Science is not the path to genocide, but it is hard to argue that evolutionary naturalism as a worldview does not tend to erode the necessity of recognizing the sacredness of life, respect for the individual and the equal dignity of all persons. Not to say that individual evolutionary naturalists can't still choose to affirm all those things, but from the standpoint of evolutionary naturalism it is hard to refute other evolutionary naturalists who choose to go a different route. 

 

 

Agreed.

 

 

Peter T Chattaway said:

 

 

: In the case of Expelled, I don't think Stein's big "gotcha" of Dawkins was any kind of "gotcha" at all; I didn't think Dawkins said anything crazy or anything that should be jumped on in that way.

 

 

I kind of agree with this.  It wasn't a huge gotcha.  But what I think it WAS, was a huge, "you have shown that you don't have the backing of scientific evidence to justify your being as absolutely sure of your beliefs as you are,  and this when you are attributing your beliefs to being reasonable (and in fact have a stand of "reason" saying that people of faith are in lack of it) because of science."

 

 

 

Edited by Attica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As well, apparently the controvery over the Nazi's and Darwinian theory is just getting started  (note the video on the side of the page.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Previous to, and just after watching this film again, I've been poking around to find out some various viewpoints.  It really does seem that there is a shift happening, which seems to fit with this recent podcast from the Discovery Institute touching on those who are questioning Darwinian Evolution who have no religious sensibilities.

 

"It is the case that we are seeing more of these scientists coming out in recent years, scientists are becoming more and more fed up with New-Darwinian evolution as an explaination for how life diversified.... the number of technical papers we've seen making those arguments in the last few years have exploded...... the peer reviewed technical literature is challenging Darwinian evolution left and right.  Some scientists are even saying now that we are in a "post Darwinian world.".... there are a lot of theories out there competing to replace Darwinian Evolution because it's clear that, that theory doesn't work anymore."

 

 

Yes.  I know that there will be some that say that this podcast is connected with the Discovery Institute, so therefore it is just a pack of lies.  But I've been aware of some of the works from several of the people that it mentions for awhile and have read at least one of their books.  

 

There really is an increased conversation happening.  Which had me wondering if this documentary had anything to do with being part of the cusp of the shift.  So, then I found this.

 

Expelled documents the plight of scientists and scholars who dare to question the claims of Darwinian evolution. This past year Expelled helped to inspire state legislators to advance academic freedom in six states. As a result, in June, Louisiana sucessfully passed the Louisiana Science Education Act to protect scientists, teachers and students who voice their skepticism of Darwinism. Please encourage your friends and family to see this important film, and to sign the academic freedom petition like you did.  Follow Ben Stein’s lead and sign the Academic Freedom Petition at www.academicfreedompetition.com

 

 

The website still seems to be going strong with petitions to defend new scientists.  It also has a link to this website.

 

 

So.  I suppose that one could make of this what they will, but it is at the very least obvious that a growing amount of people are feeling that scientists are being bullied and suppressed, as the film suggested.  

Edited by Attica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stephen Myers was one of the main "talking heads" in the documentary.  His latest book, Darwins Doubt touches on Chen, whose is mentioned below.
 
 
 
 
 
In the West, the evolution of animal life was a cumulative process, the eventual building up of major changes by innumerable, small steps over hundreds of millions of years. Westerners picture an ever-widening tree of life, growing from a single trunk at the beginning and achieving maximum diversity today at the top.
 
In China, however, the real work of evolution looks more like a one-time event, the greatest evolutionary changes occurring right at the start of the Cambrian period. Chinese paleontologists interpret their fossil cache as a record of a “macroevolutionary” event that took place 543 to 535 million years ago.  Within that unique window of opportunity, something special happened, something involving a coordinated influx of incredibly complex genetic information — something that demands “harmony”, as Chinese paleontologists put it, rather than chance and competition.
 
Chinese evolutionary theory rarely is discussed in English-language academic journals, even though China is the place Western scientists must go to learn about the origins of animal life on Earth.  China contains the only fossils in the world that are dated near the start of the Cambrian period, when complex animal groups first exploded onto the scene. 
 
.....
 
Moreover, by finding sponges and their microscopically tiny embryos in the Precambrian, they inadvertently rebutted Westerner wisdom. Charles Darwin himself had said that in order for his theory to work, the ancestors of the Cambrian animals must have been evolving for long ages prior to their Cambrian appearance. The reason scientists still haven’t found them, according to Westerners, is that the ancestors must have been too small or too soft, or the conditions for fossilization too poor.  But Chen and Li’s discovery had actually demonstrated that small and soft animals were preserved in Chinese Precambrian strata.
 
“The 580-million-year-old phosphorous rock has good potential to preserve animals, if they exist,” Chen reported to the conferees. “I think this is a major mystery in paleontology, because we didn’t find hard evidence to show that this large number of Cambrian phyla was existing earlier. For me, natural selection is not enough to explain the number of evolution novelties.” More recent evidence for a possible bilaterian animal near the Cambrian/Pre-Cambrian boundary doesn’t solve the problem. Li was also direct: “Evolution should be built on gradual change: mutation plus mutation creating the species, and then the genera and then the family—so how can these animals appear suddenly?”
 
Western scientists would have none of it. “It doesn’t matter if you find it or not!” declared German biologist Dieter Walossek, rallying his Western colleagues around him. “It’s there! It’s by law! All of the major taxa should have been there in the Precambrian, whether proved or not!” 
 
Valuing theory over data is giving Western science a bad name in the East. During the same week that Westerners read reports in Science and Nature that stressed the Darwinian lessons to be learned from Chen’s discovery of the earliest chordate, the Communist Party’s Guang Ming Daily gave the Chinese people a different story. “Evolution is facing an extremely harsh challenge,” wrote Chinese reporters in an article, “Darwinism — Science or Religion?” Using adjectives such as “dogmatic” and “authoritative” to describe America’s neo-Darwinism, the paper suggested that the theory had taken a wrong turn somewhere in the West.  : “In the beginning, evolution was advanced as a scientific hypothesis; one that should be under serious scrutiny from all angles.” The article concluded that, because of the need to contend with creationists, scientists became hypersensitive to any dissent from their “immature science,” and “evolution eventually changed into a religion.”
 
-....
 
At the conference, Chinese scientists encouraged the investigation of a variety of new hypotheses to explain the Cambrian explosion: hydrothermal eruptions, sudden seafloor changes, even intelligent design. This last was too much for one American paleontologist, who stood up and shouted, “This is not a scientific conference!”
 
Such a tactic, say critics, is the West’s ultimate tool for keeping Chinese scientists at bay: Define all dissent from neo-Darwinism as outside the realm of science.  
 
Ironically, Communist China is famed as a repressive society; the West is supposed to promote the free dissemination of information. Indeed, the American president of the National Academy of Sciences, Bruce Alberts, recently compared science to democracy, in that both accommodate, and are strengthened by, dissent.
 
For now, however, data contrary to classical neo-Darwinian ideas are as closely guarded as nuclear secrets. Just how powerful is Chen’s “mystery of life”? And why would anyone want to keep neo-Darwinism’s shortcomings a secret? Westerners attending paleontology conferences in the East prefer to steer the discussion away from such questions.
 
 
 
 
 
Edited by Attica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This video touches on Chen and his collegues at the 4:25 mark.  Also of note, the 5:40 mark.

 

I do not believe that animals developed gradually from the bottom up.  I think the animals suddenly appeared.

 

 

 

 

 

Modern understandings of the fossil record, and this from the site that gives the strongest understanding of the Cambrian explosion, just simply don't align with "Darwinian theory", and especially the "Darwinian tree."  And that's not even getting into other areas of the sciences.

Edited by Attica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all fascinating stuff. Thanks, Attica!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yer welcome.   :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nature Admits Scientists Suppress Criticisms of Neo-Darwinism to Avoid Lending Support to Intelligent Design

 

 

"We've seen these sorts of admissions before (see here for a short discussion). Should we be encouraged by these scientists' words? Or disgusted?

 

On the one hand, it's pretty disturbing to hear that biologists would self-censor their views simply because they don't like the perceived alternative -- which they label as being "hostile to science." This shows that the field of evolutionary biology is in an incredibly unhealthy state. Dogmatism on evolution is hindering scientific advancement. If evolutionary biologists censor themselves, imagine what they do to other scientists who step out of line and refuse to join the "united front"? The answer is before your very eyes in this article: They marginalize dissenters by calling them "hostile to science."

On the other hand, it's encouraging to hear an admission that many biologists recognize the neo-Darwinian synthesis has failed to explain the data. While many of these biologists still seek alternative materialistic conceptions of evolution, and reject intelligent design, many of the criticisms they are making are similar to those made by ID proponents."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have time for a prolonged debate, but I'll just add a few comments to Chris' link above:

- I didn't know there was a website called evolutionarynews.org that exists solely to undermine evolution and promote intelligent design (ID).  Does that strike anyone else as shifty and deceptive?  No doubt, there are good Christian folks behind it, who can rationalize for hours this name choice.

- Sadly, I doubt many readers at evolutionarynews.org will actually go to the Nature articles cited.  If they did, they would find that there is absolutely nothing in there to support the notion of ID.  If fact, promoters of Extended Evolutionary Synthesis are merely looking at additional natural (not supernatural) factors that move the process of evolution along.  The writers of evolutionarynews.org may have a future at FoxNews, given their shallow talents at spin and news manipulation.

- By the way, such tactics are classic for creationists of all flavors.  I've noticed it for 30+ years:  take an area of dispute within evolutionary biology (wherein no biologists are actually disputing that evolution is central to biology), take a juicy quote or two out of context, and voila! here's compelling evidence that creationism is the Truth.  In this selective approach, these pseudoscientists fail to realize that healthy (and frankly, sometimes nasty and acrimonious) debate is the way that science slowly and haltingly moves forward in its pursuit to more fully comprehend natural reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um... Really?   huh.png

 

Some responses in turn.

 

1)  The evolutionary news is part of their general endeavors.  It is simply to keep people up to date on what is going on.   I appreciate it BECAUSE of things like what is being described in the above article.  It is clear that evolution isn't as "strong" or "defensible" of a theory as some of these scientists say in the public sphere, and that they admit so in private.  This has been known by some for years.

 

That seems to me to be shifty and deceptive, and this article has exposed some of it.  I WANT something like evolutionary news to give me the information that it does.  It doesn't make things up and in fact links to the quotes and articles in question as was done in this example.

 

2)  Um????  It seems to me that you didn't read the actual article I linked to?  It clearly says that the Nature article cited didn't support ID, and in fact quotes from the Nature article where they say that ID is hostile to science.  It then goes on to say some opinions about this.  Some of which I had quoted.  That was the whole point of the article, being summed up in its headline,  Nature Admits Scientists Suppress Criticisms of Neo-Darwinism to Avoid Lending Support to Intelligent Design

 

The idea that they aren't supporting ID is there, front and center.

 

Can you see?  You just did more of a spin on the evolutionarynews article, then they did on the Nature article (in fact they didn't spin it.)  Of course, I don't see this as intentional.  Just wanted to point it out.  I see it as coming from perceiving this organization as something that they are not and then reading the article through this lense.  Not that I don't necessarily think there has ever been any sort of "trickery" from the "creationist camp." 

 

3)  They didn't take a juicy quote or two out of context.  You read their article out of context.  As well.  Evolutionary news points to LOTS of evidence that show scientists who are disillusioned with, or even skeptical of, evolutionary theory.  It has also given us articles about how ID proponents hypothesis have been proven to be correct, amongst other things.

 

-

 

The fact that those folks are looking for additional natural factors to move the process of evolution along argues that Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, or more specifically random mutation and natural selection, isn't sufficient of a mechanism to give us the complexity of life.  

 

Even if it can be observed within species to a degree (microevolution), it is being proven to not be sufficient to account for completely different body plans and phylum (macroevolution.)  There is no evidence that macroevolution has occurred and in fact prominent paleontologists are saying that this didn't happen during the Cambrian explosion (some of which is mentioned above), at least as is currently being explained.  These paleontologists are not people of faith (at least to my knowledge) and are not directly connected to ID theory.

 

But anyhow.  This kind of leads me to the idea of rejecting "supernatural" factors as part of the process of giving us life, which really gets to the heart of the debate.  It is true that they are looking for natural factors seeing as a growing number of scientists are saying that Neo-Darwinism isn't sufficient to explain things.

 

But here's the thing.  Where's the evidence that supernatural factors (a divine intelligence) can't be part of the explanation?  

 

You see, much of the current scientific method is built on the philosophy of materialism, or maybe better, naturalism.  This has become a dogma of science, when there is absolutely no proof that it is the only way to understand the scientific method and indeed a growing amount of evidence that argues against it.  It is a "philosophy of science" that could be tested as an "hypothesis" of science, but instead has become a dogma.  I would argue that there has never been enough evidence for it to be a scientific hypothesis to begin with (where is the evidence that naturalism is the only way to understand the world - when there has always been stuff pointing to the contrary?), and that there certainly isn't evidence proving this hypothesis, so then, can it stand as a foundational

"philosophy of science?"  Yet it continues as enough of a scientific dogma that anything outside of it is considered taboo in some scientific circles.  Even so, I do think it has had some advantage as it has moved our understanding ahead to some degree having moved us out of some faulty folk reasoning, but has also been proven to be erroneous and insufficient.

 

Which is one of the problems ID is facing.  It has touched on a taboo.  It has given us certain scientific hypothesis, which have proven to be true.  It's understanding of "irreducible complexity" found in a component of the cell, which basically disproves Neo-Darwinism (and this according to what even Darwin said would disprove it) has not been seriously refuted, and this after many years of attempts.

 

Yet it is being falsely maligned because it has touched on a scientific taboo that is built on a philosophy of science that would be unproven when considered as a hypothesis.

 

Where's the empirical scientific evidence that philosophical naturalism (or materialism) is the only way to understand our universe through the scientific method?  There is none.  It's a self refuting hypothesis.  

 

-

 

In fact there are a growing number of scientists and philosophers who are pushing against this.

 

 

I believe I've mentioned Rupert Sheldrakes book Science Set Free which argues against philsophical materialism in the sciences by presenting scientific evidence contrary to the hypothesis.  Of course there have been arguments against the book.  Yet there are prominent scientists who are defending it, including Thomas Campbell who was a scientists at NASA.

 

Philsophical materialism has also been refuted by modern philosophers.  

 

This is just where the evidence is pointing.  In fact, even prominent atheist philsopher Thomas Nagel is writing about it, because he's not denying the evidence.  Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False.  

 

In the first chapter of his book Thomas actually has something interesting to say about ID proponents.

 

"the empirical arguments they offer against the likelihood that the origin of life and its evolutionary history can be fully explained by physics and chemistry are of great interest in themselves. Another skeptic, David Berlinski, has brought out these problems vividly without reference to the design inference. Even if one is not drawn to the alternative of an explanation by the actions of a designer, the problems that these iconoclasts pose for the orthodox scientific consensus should be taken seriously. 

They do not deserve the scorn with which they are commonly met. It is manifestly unfair."

 

 

-

 

Thomas' book is largely based on the nature of mind and consciousness as can be seen in part of the books description.

 

" This failure to account for something so integral to nature as mind, argues philosopher Thomas Nagel, is a major problem, threatening to unravel the entire naturalistic world picture, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology.

Since minds are features of biological systems that have developed through evolution, the standard materialist version of evolutionary biology is fundamentally incomplete. And the cosmological history that led to the origin of life and the coming into existence of the conditions for evolution cannot be a merely materialist history, either. An adequate conception of nature would have to explain the appearance in the universe of materially irreducible conscious minds, as such. "

 

 

I have yet to read Thomas' book, but I am currently reading another book about consciousness and the "mind/body problem" which abundantly shows that the materialist philosophy is lacking, and in fact that there is an abundance of evidence arguing against it.  At the back of the book there are links to scientific study with insurmountable evidence.  

 

 

Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century

 

"Current mainstream opinion in psychology, neuroscience, and philosophy of mind holds that all aspects of human mind and consciousness are generated by physical processes occurring in brains. Views of this sort have dominated recent scholarly publication. The present volume, however, demonstrates empirically that this reductive materialism is not only incomplete but false. The authors systematically marshal evidence for a variety of psychological phenomena that are extremely difficult, and in some cases clearly impossible, to account for in conventional physicalist terms."

 

 

 

Again.  So far as I know these are not people of faith.  Actually, everything I've quoted here have been from scientists and philosopher who are not arguing from a faith perspective.  There is much more that could be said from religious theology and spiritual experience. 

 

Of course, there has been much more written from a secular standpoint than I've mentioned.  I've only really shared a few examples.

 

 

-

 

-

 

 

But.  Anyhow.  To make a long story short.  The main reason that ID is being rejected is because philosophical materialism, which is dominant in the sciences, has found it to be taboo, even though it has made hypothesis that have been proven to be true.  Yet this very philosophical materialism has been proven to be untrue, both in the sciences and in the philosophies.  It is outdated and waning.

 

Thus.  The main hypothesis standing against ID has proven to be untrue even while ID hypothesis are proving to be true.  ID is showing itself to be viable as a scientific theory, and this at the same time that science is showing Neo-Darwinian theory to be incompatible with the evidence and insufficient to explain the complexity of life.

 

The Neo-Darwinian hypothesis of natural selection was built upon the observed fact of microevolution (within species) and from there applied to the idea of macroevolution.  This might arguably have been suffiicient evidence for it to be a valid scientific hypothesis, but it is most certainly not sufficient evidence for it to become the dogma that it has.  In fact this hypothesis has never been empircally proven and there is a growing amount of evidence arguing against it.

 

It is bad science to hold it to dogma.  I'll quote again from the article stated above, based on the findings of Chinese Paleontologists.  "Chinese reporters in an article, “Darwinism — Science or Religion?” Using adjectives such as “dogmatic” and “authoritative” to describe America’s neo-Darwinism, the paper suggested that the theory had taken a wrong turn somewhere in the West.  : “In the beginning, evolution was advanced as a scientific hypothesis; one that should be under serious scrutiny from all angles.” The article concluded that, because of the need to contend with creationists, scientists became hypersensitive to any dissent from their “immature science,” and “evolution eventually changed into a religion.”

 

 

-

 

It is in fact the Neo-Darwinian theorists who are doing the bad science, NOT the ID theorists.  It's like Thomas Nagel said:  the problems that these iconoclasts pose for the orthodox scientific consensus should be taken seriously. 


They do not deserve the scorn with which they are commonly met. It is manifestly unfair."

 

 

Which was the basic thesis of this documentary to begin with.

Edited by Attica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just made aware of a new website - http://www.opensciences.org/

 

 

"OpenSciences.org is a portal for open-minded scientific investigations that go beyond the dogmas dominating so much of science today. The main areas covered include consciousness studies, alternative energy sources, integrative medicine and healing, post-materialist approaches to science and new aspects of cosmology, physics, chemistry and biology."

 

 

Their Manifesto for a Post Materialist Science is worth reading.  

 

 

 

As well.  Related to this film and the Intelligent Design Debate.  Open Question - Is Nature Purposeless.

 

"One of the principle changes in thinking brought about by the scientific revolution of the 17th century was a rejection of the idea that nature has any intrinsic purposes. Nothing worked in accordance with goals or final causes and teleology was excluded from the realm of science. However, it is undeniable that humans have purposes, and most biological phenomena are goal-directed. How is this possible? And what about the evolutionary process as a whole? The conventional assumption of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory is that evolution takes place through a combination of chance and necessity, through blind mutations and the impersonal and unconscious forces of natural selection. This is a dogmatic assumption rather than an experimentally proven fact."

 

 

 

As well, connected to the fine tuning question of intelligent design.

 

"Surprisingly, many contemporary cosmologists take seriously the idea that our universe is one of a huge number of co-existing universes. There is no experimental evidence for such universes, but their possibility arises from several theories: The cosmic inflation theory, according to which new universes could be created during a rapid inflationary phase; superstring theory which is compatible with the existence of 10 to the 500  universes; and also the assumption that all the laws of nature in our universe were fixed at the moment of the Big Bang. In order to avoid the idea that these fixed laws were intelligently designed by a kind of creator god, some cosmologists prefer the multiverse to avoid this theological option. However they do not succeed in avoiding it because an infinite god could be the god of an infinite number of universes.

 

The debate about laws of nature has been lent a large significance through the cosmological anthropic principle, which raises the question of why the laws and constants of nature are just right for life to emerge on earth and for humans to exist, whereas if they had been even slightly different we would not be here to discuss these questions. But this whole discussion rests on the idea that the laws and constants of nature were fixed at the outset. If the laws of nature evolve, or if they are more like habits then there is no need to assume they were all fixed at the outset."

 

 

 

Related to multi-verse theory.

 

"Most theoretical physicists currently work on versions of superstring or M theory, which are complex mathematical structures based on the idea that there are 10 or 11 dimensions. These theories are currently untestable and critics argue that they have therefore ceased to be scientific. Many other aspects of temporary physics are also untestable, such as the multiverse theory, and conventional cosmology depends on the postulation that 96% of the universe is made up of dark matter and dark energy, whose nature is unknown. Some physicists are worried that physics has lost its way."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my continued reading surrounding these topics I recently became aware of an Intelligent Design Group in Brazil.  I took some time to glance through this English Translation  to count the number of PhD's in various branches of the sciences those in the groups scientific committee held, but ended up getting bored and quit.   This I'd add, is just in the committee.

 

 

From an article  :  

 

Brazilian Intelligent Design Society vice president Enézio E. De Almeida Filho, explains:

 

The Brazilian Intelligent Design Group was founded in August 1998 at UNIMEP (Methodist University) in Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil, by some graduate students after reading and discussing Behe's ideas in his book Darwin's Black Box. We were all excited by this knowledge, and in our innocence but true zeal for spreading ID in our country, we almost put everything in jeopardy. The wise words of Philip Johnson still rings in our ears: Be patient and wise, time will come when the truth will prevail! He was right!

 


Later on in the 2000s, after promoting ID throughout Brazil, giving talks and lectures in some public and private schools and universities, our group perceived that it was better to fly under the radar range so as to avoid being expelled by the scientific establishment as some were in the United States.

After ten years of underground activities, Dr. Augustus Nicodemus Lopes, then Mackenzie Presbyterian University Chancellor, heard about our ID group, and helped some of us to come out of hiding and gave us a friendly platform to promote ID. From 2006-2012, the International Symposium on Darwinism Today was held at Mackenzie Presbyterian University, where [prominent ID advocates] Paul Nelson, Steve Meyer, Scott Minnich, Michael Behe, and Marcos Nogueira Eberlin (UNICAMP professor, member of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, a signer of the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism list) lectured and debated with Darwinist scientists.

In 2014 we decided that it was time for ID to fly over the radar in Brazil, and we are going to have our first conference and launch of the Brazilian ID Society.

 

 

 

This of course fits fine with some of the themes in this film. ..... "our group perceived that it was better to fly under the radar range so as to avoid being expelled by the scientific establishment as some were in the United States."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is going to have some people talking.

 

 

Prominent Atheist Professor of Law and Philosophy Thomas Nagel Calls Intelligent Design Scientific and Constitutional to "Mention" in Science Classes

 

 

Prof. Thomas Nagel has published an important essay entitled, "Public Education and Intelligent Design", in the Wiley InterScience Journal Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 36, issue 2, on-line athttp://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118493933/home. His paper is a significant because it encourages all intelligent, educated, informed individuals to consider that intelligent design may be a valid scientific approach to understanding how DNA and the complex chemical systems of life came to attain their present form.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
On a similar note.
 
Exposing the impotence of the Neo-Darwinian theory

 

 

 

Scientists who reject the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution are getting bolder about publicly proclaiming their skepticism of the explanation for the origins of life once universally accepted in the scientific community.

During a mid-November conference in Sao Paolo, Brazil, 350 mostly young research scientists and scholars from Brazil, the United States, Canada, Egypt, Uruguay, Argentina, and Peru gathered to discuss intelligent design (ID). The conference dealt “directly with ID evidence and proof, and how the present scientific paradigms fail to explain the origin and evolution of the universe and life on Earth,” said Enezio E. de Almeida Filho, director of the Sociedade Brasileira do Design Inteligente (Brazilian Center of Intelligent Design) in Campinas, Sao Paolo.

 

Attendance far surpassed the anticipated 150 and included scholars in astronomy, biology, chemistry, science, history, physics, and law. The professional interest in ID research made it clear the ID community runs wider and deeper than any of its members realized from reading published research papers or attending lectures. 

 

Neo-Darwinian evolution, or what evolutionary biologists refer to as the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (MES), is fraught with fundamental problems exposed by research in hard sciences like biochemistry, chemistry, and physics. Recent discoveries have revealed a weakness in random mutation and natural selection to do the heavy lifting necessary to be the driving mechanism of life.

“As a matter of fact, Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is a dead scientific theory since 1980,” Filho said.  Several cell structures discovered since then cast doubt on the previously held notion that the DNA-to-RNA-to-protein process alone determines the basic features of living cells. Such doubt led to what has become known as the Altenberg 16 conference in 2008, when 16 evolutionary biologists and science philosophers met in Altenberg, Austria, and called for an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) to modify and eventually replace MES.

 

The Altenbeg 16 meeting gave voice to the growing realization of the inadequacy of MES to explain evolution. Proponents of creation theory and ID theory point to conclusions from the meeting as evidence that MES, still taught in classrooms and accepted by most practicing biologists, is a framework beginning to topple. EES will be announced as a new general theory of evolution in 2020, but if the scientific literature on the subject is any indication, it won’t include the origin of genetic information. Filho predicts that without complex specified information, EES will be stillborn as a scientific theory.....

 

 

 

 

Edited by Attica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...