Here's a review of Ben Stein's Expelled from the L.A. Daily News.

Stein Turns the Tables on Darwinists

But as I began to read and research, I realized that ID is nothing more than the creationists attempting to insert religion into our school class rooms by anecdotally highlighting those rare examples by which science has yet to discover an understandable reason.

It is indeed this in the hands of people with a political bent and bias. There is no question about that.

But it is not reducible to this as it is developed by leading proponents. Behe, for instance, simply insists that some structures are such that design is the best explanation. Who designed it? The theologians and philosophers can take up that question. When was it designed? Dunno. Leave that to cosmologists, etc.

The main argument against ID is that appeal to design is a "science stopper." I have several angles on that. Here are two.

* I don't want to beg any questions here. Let's assume that the atheists have it right. But now, let's imagine a possible world, call it Cosmos, in which (a) there is apparent evidence of design and (b) the true explanation for the apparent designedness is that the things in question were designed. If scientists (and philosophers) in Cosmos took the same approach that is advocated in this world, then they would effectively have assumed a position that, by definition, renders it impossible for a scientific approach to discover the true explanation for things. And surely this is an odd result? Thus, they would refuse to make the design inference, but continue to search for some purely naturalistic explanation for the phenomena in question.

Of course, those scientists, such as Richard Lewontin ("we cannot allow a divine foot in the door"), who begin with the axiomatic assumption that metaphysical naturalism is true, will be perfectly content with this. But, then, this is metaphysics determining scientific methodology--precisely what the old "creationists" were accused of.

* We make "design inferences" in many areas of life where anything less would be nonsense. Did you know that one variety of physicalism that was veryh influential in the last century is known as "eliminativism"? Eliminativists "eliminate" any appeal to consciousness or "mental contents" (such as beliefs, intentions, desires, "qualia," etc) because they seem to have no place within a scientific picture of the world. Indeed, the language of science is in the third person: "The subject's brain is in physico-chemical state alpha." What is inexpressible from that third-person perspective is the first-person perspective that is the essence of consciousness. I think there is a compelling argument to the effect that any in principle objection to a design inference works equally well against a "consciousness inference," so that the consistent critic of ID (on these grounds) is not entitled to believe that there is such a thing as consciousness.

but its not.

The fact is, Intelligent Design, regardless of its origin, is part and parcel, part of the creationist's creed. Its impossible to seperate the two.

The Nazi swatsika, was a design used by American Indian groups hundreds of years before Hitler. To proudly display that sign on your car or truck as a sign of one's American Indian Hertigage might not be the way to go. The same applies to the Confederate battle flag. As beautiful it is, what it represents historically, is over shadowed by association with the KKK and white supremists groups.

My point is, philosophically, you have an argument, but practically, well, its dead in the water. Intelligent design has become the adopted red headed step child of the religious fundamentalists and you can not seperate the two.

Again, and interesting debate and discussion, which probably bores 98% of the readers of this blog.

Next blog topic: Is God a Male, a Female or neither? If a male, then why does he need a penis? if neither, then why do we call him, him, why not her, or it. This falls in line with the logic of creationists, who believe that the world is a scant over the age of 6000 years, that Eve came from Adam's rib, and that the world was created in a literal period of six days.

Creationism springs forth from the fundamentalists belief in the inerrant word of God. A topic, I'll gladly debate on a more comfortable website.

This would be like observing that certain racist groups have appropriated Darwin's theory in support of their views.

I'm not sure what you have in mind in all of this.

As I see it, what matters most is not how the harebrained fundamentalist Christians hash it out with the harebrained fundamentalist Village Atheists. Rather, I'm concerned with the more interesting and significant question of which view gets things right.

And so the topics MUST be separated from the political and rabid religious context into which they have been sucked, and discussed on the basis of their inherent merits.

(And I wish that the religious kooks would just shut up. They make it all the easier for the secularists among us to rest comfortably with the conclusion that religious belief is simply a byproduct of an IQ equivalent to your average room temperature.)

There is a difference between the belief in a greater good found in what we believe is our creator, and religion. Religion is mans way of adorning themselves with that which "they" think --"God" thinks.

Typical and Traditional Religion compared to most people's spiritual beliefs is like comparing the ediface called the Vatican, to me lying out under the stars at night, gazing into the heavens with my young children resting against my shoulder, . . .as the most beautiful shooting star blazes from one horizon to the other. Maybe thats not a good comparison at all. Because in 1994, on my front lawn, at about 1 a.m. my son and daughter and I, were sprawled out on a blanket watching the stars. And I would dare say that one experience could never compare to that lump of brick and mortar where the guy with the white pointed hat lives. No comparison at all. Because I saw God that night, in the moment, in the experience I'll never forget, while sharing it with my own creations, given to my by God.

When man attempts to relate to creation and the creator, we do so with no skills and no tools other than which we have within our own souls. And when one man does make that tenious search alone, without the shackles of tradition, orthodoxy, religious mores, and a childhood raised with obvious biases, then I believe we often find more of what our God is really about. Certainly more than what the Pope, Jeremiah Wright, Oral Roberts, or our local pastor, rabbi, or mullah is able to communicate.

Intelligent Design is religion in practice, hidden behind scientific theories and axioms. Is there a creator, scientifically provable? No. Is it necessary that we quantify and qualify the God of our choosing? No.

So lets leave science to science, and religious fundamentalists to their own devices, and not mix the two.

Oh, did you read where in a school in Minnesota, a State funded school is operating which exclusively caters to the religious traditions of the muslims. Allowing children numerous chances to pray everyday. Having extra periods of recess to allow them to do their religious washings, etc.

When we cross the line of religion and the state, we create other problems that we could never have imagined.

I believe that the universe and all that it contains is the creation of an infinite and personal Being. And, in saying this, I mean to say, "I take the proposition, 'The universe and all that it contains is the creation of an infinite and personal Being' to be true." And, further, in saying this, I mean to be saying that any proposition that contradicts that proposition is false.

It is common these days for people naively to assume that "I believe in God" has the same sort of significance as "Daisies are my favorite flower." In this sense, religious beliefs are taken to be personal and subjective, thus having no entailments whatsoever about the actual nature of ultimate reality.

This is a manifestly absurd view of things, and its popularity may be given a plausible social science explanation.

Something is true about ultimate origins. Bertrand russell took it to be true in the good, old-fashioned sense of the word, that 'Man is a product of causes that had no prevision of the end they were achieving.' This was his way of putting the Blind Watchmaker thesis. Russell's view most certainly compedtes with mine, and it matters which view is correct. It matters because the entailments of the competing views regarding the place of humans in the Cosmos is radically different on the two views.

Why suppose that if God exists there should be no reason whatsoever to believe it? I see that assertion as little more than a byproduct of our contemporary skeptical mindset. To talk of a "proof" is to talk about a grand thing indeed. To "provge" the existence of God, or anything else for that matter, one would have to begin with premises that are clearly known to be true, and then demolnstratre with impeccable logic that these premises logically entail the conclusion, "God exists." Very few topics admit of that sort of demonstration.

But we might, instead, consider the question of whether theism, taken as a kind of hypothesis, has greater explanatory power than its competitors. Between any two rival hypotheses, A and B, if there is some observed phenomenon O, and O is more probable on A than on B, then, all other things being equal, A is rationally preferable to B.

I think a compelling cumulative case argument can be offered in support of theism in just this way.

Because I understand what you are saying. Reminds me of my wonderful days in school back in the early 80's. Debating, researching, and studying the wonders of creation and our own existence.

I do believe you are correct, that theism is arguably more compelling than atheism, but beyond that, I think the chasm grows much wider. Humanity is mired in the "interpretations" that our existence and "being" places upon that proof. Is God, Jesus, Confucius, Buddha, Mohammad, all part of the theism that you speak? I doubt it.

We qualify God as our Father, and we believe that he made us in his own image. I mean this seems logical. How else could we fathom the wonders of creation if didn't assume that our God looked exactly like us. My God is a fat, old, white, near-sighted, fart of a man. Who else could I relate too? Certainly not a small, thin, young chinese woman, with only one leg.

But in making your argument, are you not also demeaning the reason for making it? If you are comfortable in the compelling evidence of God, then why insist on an argument for Intelligent Design when it has been hijacked by the fundamentalists? They've stolen it away from you philosophers, in an attempt to thwart our Constititions protections against mixing our Government (schools) and religion.

I have no qualms with scientists who weigh the effects of E=MC2, while professing no belief in God. It bothers me not. And since, I believe that Theism is a compelling argument, I know that our little ones, indoctrinated at our schools with science, math, reading and history, will acquire their own personal opinions about our creation, without the need of ID.

This debate reminds me about the one with Global Warming. When my naredowell liberal friends talk about Global Warming, they get somewhat emotional. I suggest that the evidence is at best, questionable, and at the worst, a blatant lie. But their retort is to suggest that nonetheless, we should do it because in stopping global warming, we will be stopping polution.

Mind you, I'm all for stopping polution, but I'm opposed to hiding behind a stupid theory, unproven by the scientific facts, as a means to clean up our planet. So also too am I a theist, but I'm not for hiding it behind some sort of pseudo-science, much akin to the Global warming fundamentalists. I see too much of a close comparison between the two.

ID belongs in the philosophy classes. It should be taught there, and not in our science classes paid for by tax dollars.

"Certainly not a small, thin, young chinese woman, with only one leg."

careful Richard. That sounds like my Godess, Shirley!

I believe that Muddle is correct on the separable point and also on the fact that the movie centers on scientific inquires that

1-darwinism-based macro-evolution (note the careful choice of terms) cannot explain . . .

(and even more disturbing for the believer in macro-evolution)

2-that make darwinism-based macro-evolution impossible.

I have to smile when someone on here demands an "unbaised" link or source to something.

The Truth is that there is no such thing. Every one of us brings certain axioms to the table is our discussions.

When observable science seems to contridict a theory, it's the responsibility of thinking people to question it.

I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.~Ronald Reagan
This is the way to blog!

Alvin Plantinga recently delivered the prestigious Gifford Lectures in Scotland. His topic: Religion and Science. I believe that a book is forthcoming as a result of the lectures, and I am very much looking forward to it.

In Googling "Plantinga religion science" I came up with this blog:

Plantinga Lecture Notes

I've no idea who the blogger is and did not investigate his/her site. But the blogger purports to be offering a fairly accurate set of notes on a recent lecture that Plantinga gave.

This fellow--now in his 70s--is one of the brilliant thinkers of our day. Whatever he has to say on this topic--any topic--is worth listening to. (I hear from reliable sources that he also likes beer. Good guy.)

Why do you think people have such trouble understanding these words?

I understand the words.

I just reject the "versus" part.

What possible reason might one offer for thinking that the two are opposed?

Sorry about the vs. Wasn't meaning to say they're anti - just different. Like it takes faith in your parachute to leap from a plane but it's a fact you're better off wearing one.

Please do post the link to the article about the "well-known Christian philosophers." (There is some likelihood that they are well-known by me).

I want to see the film first.

I do not think that evolution is incompatible with theism. How could that be the case? Surely, if there is an omnipotent being as described in the Bible and conceived by philosophers, then that being could use the process of evolution just as surely as any other process.

I would be surprised to learn that the position of the film is that evolution and theism are incompatible as Stein himself professes belief in Darwinism--at least, to some degree.

Naturalistic evolution is, of course, incompatible with Christianity, as it implies that there is no Creator whatsoever.

Undirected evolution is incompatible with Christianity, as it implies that, even if there is some sort of Creator, he has had nothing to do with the process that produced us.

The whole thing is, of course, incompatible with literal six day creation some 10,000 years ago. But having a brain is incompatible with that.

Francis Collins, head of the human genome project, is an evangelical Christian who thinks that evolution has occurred pretty much as Darwin has suggested that it did.

C.S. Lewis seems to have endorsed some variety of theistic evolution.

Note that theistic evolutionists are "Creationists" (of course) in that, as theists, they believe in a Creator.

And, despite propaganda to the contrary, genuine advocates of design are not reducible to the sort of biblical creationism that has emerged in the past. And I say this despite someone's utter stupidity, as documented in the PBS film, Judgment Day, in taking an old creationist text and attempting to morph it into a text advocating ID. The smoking gun was the phrase "cdesign advocateists"--an obvious attempt at changing the word "creationists" to "design advocates" but with less-than-perfect editing and proofreading. (Interestingly, "cdesign advocateists" is evidence of such a scheme only if we can effectively argue that this is best explained by appeal to the intervention of some intelligence in attempting the change. Thus, we have a design argument employed as a part of the case against design arguments. No one seems to have noticed or mentioned this before. Perhaps I should write it up.)

How do you know so much about being a Chrisitan? Are you a Christian?

I asked you that before you don't ever answer me. If you are explain to me what a Christian is?

_______________________________
We Will Stand