I haven't written much about it, aside from a post when the movie was first announced. It didn't really say much about the film other than apparently it existed and producers lied about their intentions.
But since it comes up high on the search for Expelled I figured I should put in some real info. So I've gone back and written up a summary of everything that's been released about the film and its methodology. I'm not going to bother reposting it here, but if you're interested, check it out.
Meanwhile, in pulling together all the information from that post, I found a quote from Ben Stein that absolutely astounded me:
Assuming it all did happen by Random Mutation and Natural Selection, where did the laws of gravity come from? Where did the laws of thermodynamics come from? Where did the laws of motion and, of heat come from? Where, I guess that's the same as thermodynamics. Where did all these laws, that make it possible for the universe to function, where did they all come from?Seriously? Evolution doesn't explain gravity?!
And just when I thought creationists couldn't get any dumber...
> Seriously? Evolution doesn't explain gravity?!
ReplyDeleteThis isn't as stupid as it sounds; they're not failing to debate properly, they're just debating a different topic.
They are not really attacking evolution, not ever. They are attacking materialism (physicalism, scientism, you know, realism). They only attack evolution, because without a non-theistic explanation for the species that we see around us, practically everyone will accept the existence of a supernatural agent.
Darwin kicked the strongest leg out from under their stool. Sure the stars might have been around forever (we are not talking about scientists, here). And the lumps of rock blindly following their orbits, could have always "just been". But life, in all of its dynamic forms and behaviors? Nope.
"Assuming it all did happen by Random Mutation and Natural Selection, where did the laws of gravity come from? " This is not even tangentially an attack on evolution. It says, "Hey, even if evolution is 100% true, you still can't have materialism." And if you can't have materialism, then there must be a god, and if there's a god, then maybe he did plant the fossils, and create the world last Tuesday.
indifferent: I'm in a fair amount of agreement with you on this one. You're quite right; This isn't just an attack on evolution. It's an attack on the entire foundation of science, namely methodological naturalism.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I would say that this is characteristic of them failing to debate properly because, instead of being honest about this, they lie, and try to sneak it around the back door under the cloak of a critical review of evolution and the trojan horse for outright biblical creationism.
Sounds a little like Ben Stein is dabbling a little bit into presuppositionalism, which is the desperate apologetic attempt to confiscate science at a philosoophical level. It's a dastardly apologetic.
ReplyDeleteThe way they do it is to accuse the scientist of appealing to materialism as a philosophical position, which they then claim has no philosophical consistency. ...as if we're not allowed to think unless we know the origin of every natural process. And thus, it's an absurd argument from the start.
In a way, it's like accusing people of using their brains to solve problems. If you fall into their trap by saying that you don't know why you presume materialism, then they consider it a free ticket to club your feet with every argument you make. ...even if what you're saying makes perfect sense.
Of course, the beauty of this argument is that it also works against Ben Stein, because if he wants to stick strictly to intelligent design (as opposed to creationism), then he can't claim to have an objective base for his assumptions either.
If he wants to appeal to ignorance, which is exactly what he's doing, then he's basically justifying belief in ANY arbitrarily conceived deity, including Zues, Odin, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Sounds a little like Ben Stein is dabbling a little bit into presuppositionalism, which is the desperate apologetic attempt to confiscate science at a philosoophical level. It's a dastardly apologetic.
ReplyDeleteThe way they do it is to accuse the scientist of appealing to materialism as a philosophical position, which they then claim has no philosophical consistency. ...as if we're not allowed to think unless we know the origin of every natural process. And thus, it's an absurd argument from the start.
In a way, it's like accusing people of using their brains to solve problems. If you fall into their trap by saying that you don't know why you presume materialism, then they consider it a free ticket to club your feet with every argument you make. ...even if what you're saying makes perfect sense.
Of course, the beauty of this argument is that it also works against Ben Stein, because if he wants to stick strictly to intelligent design (as opposed to creationism), then he can't claim to have an objective base for his assumptions either.
If he wants to appeal to ignorance, which is exactly what he's doing, then he's basically justifying belief in ANY arbitrarily conceived deity, including Zues, Odin, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.