"Darwin said nothing about how life originated."
Who wants to have some fun today? The above quote is from Ben Stein during his appearance on the Glenn Beck show back in 2007. Stein, famous for his classroom-cameo monotones (and speeches for Nixon), released a film in February called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The "documentary" argues for the inclusion of "Intelligent Design" discussions in the public realm, particularly in the classroom.
Although I’ve yet to see the film, Stein’s primary objective seems to be questioning Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Stein suggests that since it hasn’t yet explained the origins of existence, Intelligent Design should be entertained as an alternate hypothesis.
Nothing seems to illicit as much bitter back-and-forth as Creationism vs. Evolution, but no one ever talks about how fundamentally STUPID and INEFFECTIVE the entire dispute is. In fact, actual debate between these two worlds is simply impossible. Supposition and science are totally different things.
Now, I’m not an expert. But from my understanding, a theory is an argument that can be falsified through processes of experimentation. In some cases, a theory becomes law, such as the Law of Gravity. Intelligent Design is a claim stating supernatural power(s) deliberately created all Life. It is not a theory, since it can neither be proved or disproved. It’s merely somebody’s assertion.
Of course, some in the scientific community posit that Existence is the result of a Big Bang, Cosmic Egg, or Electrical Bolt to the Mud Puddle, but these are only guesses. Frankly, this is all anyone can do. Yet there are key differences between empiricism and assumption. Intelligent Design is a conjectural activity with a supernatural worship agenda. Evolution is a theory regarding an ongoing process of adaptation and survival. Evolution utilizes a different critical framework than Creationism, rendering debate between the two futile.
Stein is troubled that Darwin didn’t answer how life began or how cells came to be, and his counter-proposal is Intelligent Design. On a recent Bill O’Reilly segment, Stein claimed that supporters of ID are failing to be heard. Hey Stein, guess what? Since at least the days of Thales, every fucking thinker has been discussing and speculating about the supernatural or natural origins of life. The mythological arguments have been made and are certainly well known. They continue to be claims and guesses; that’s all they will ever be.
To be fair, Stein is mostly concerned with modern frames of discourse. Scientists and other professionals do run a risk of harassment if they voice religious beliefs. Freedom of speech still stands, but pointing out the possibility of God or Tiamut is frowned upon in the scientific community, mostly because it’s irrelevant to their work. The aim of experimentation and research is to achieve results, and simply saying the world may have been created is unnecessary.
I’ve said it before: if Intelligent Design wants a place in the classroom the teachers better be prepared to address every single Creation Story known on this planet, as they are all equally possible and impossible. You say Jehovah, I say Uranus.
O’Reilly asks: "Why can’t you just mention in Biology class, or whatever class you want, that there are theologians who believe a higher power was responsible for first life?"
Most children do, in fact, know there are theologians who believe in higher powers. Hell, even Secular Progressives are aware of the concept. If you are wondering why public schools don’t educate on supernatural primogenitors, it’s because we have churches for that. So if you want spoon-fed answers to the unanswerable, you’ve got a place to go, and plenty of flavors to choose from.
I’ve heard it suggested that Stein is only in this racket for the money. By rallying for controversial Creationism, Stein is guaranteed attention, publicity and a fatter wallet. Now that’s a decent theory.
Kuhn, sorry spelling sucks.
these are philosophy of science guys
Let’s be clear on what a scientific “theory” is though…
It’s not something that is dreamed up in the middle of the night, like, “hey, I’ve got this thoery about why it hurts when I pee…”
Scientific theories have been tested methodically multiple times and the leading specialists in the field are unable to disprove it.
So, while ID people claim that there’s is a theory, just the same as evolution, it’s not true. There’s is more of an idea, unable to be tested one way or the other.
It is pointless to debate these two positions because one is a scientific theory an one is a religious belief.
And, as a teacher, I’ll tell you, ID/Creationism has NO PLACE in a science classroom or any other class
for that matter (unless you’re at a religious school). For more on this, see the constitution (the whole church/state thing).
BTW, NOVA had an excellent show about this debate a few months back – really explored the issue well.
Here’s the NOVA thing
Mrs. Krabappel [shows list]: ”How do you expect us to teach with just these?…the only books we have are salvaged ones banned by other schools.”
The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin
The Satanic Verses (Junior Illustrated Edition), Salman Rushdie
40 Years of Playboy, Hugh Hefner
Steal This Book, Abbie Hoffman
Tek War, William Shatner
Hop On Pop, Dr. Seuss
Sexus, Henry Miller
Principal Skinner: ”Well, the kids have to learn about ’Tek War’ sooner or later.”
Ben, you’re right that science can change, as it’s actually a way of describing the universe through measurements and comparisons. At some point, General Relativity will be obsolete.
What won’t is the method of inquiry — that system of checks and counter-checks that Kimmet just mentioned.
Creationism, ID, or any supposition-based means of “explaining” the origin of “things” cannot stand up to serious scrutiny, because there is no method by which to do so.
Most of mysticism (and by extension religion, for what is religion besides dogmatized mysticism?) comes from “states of being” rife with extrasensory information seemingly out of reach in our normative state.
I believe this is called a “religious experience” or “tripping the fuck out.”
And we won’t know for sure what any of that “means” until we have a non-invasive way of examining the brain at a micron level under a multiplicity of scenarios.
Nanotechnology and/or ultra-definition imaging will probably let us do that within a decade or so. Whether or not the findings will validate or undermine transcendental mind states remains to be seen.
My guess is that the universe is expressible in a broad variety of ways, from pure emotion to light spectrum to vibration to ones and zeroes.
But that, too, is just a theory.
I really really really want to like Ben Stein but he makes it so difficult…
I am by no means an intelligent design proponent but. . .
1.some theories can be found internally inconsistent and therefore not so good without empirical verification.
On the same note some can be quite convincing without a single experiment.
2. saying that age old debates are pointless because people disagree or there can’t be a test-tube experiment seems like a way of not actually thinking about some of the fundamental issues of human existence. I guess they call it a cop out.
It’s what people who are too cool to think do.
3. scientific laws can be more accurately described as generalizations via induction. There is nothing necessary or factual about them. They cannot infallibly predict.
They also change a lot. Check out Cuhn and Popper.