Rush Limbaugh Interviews Ben Stein

[plumjam]

The movie was about freedom of Ideas and freedom of discussion. It never said Darwinism (or whatever you want to call it) was false and ID was true. It just wants the right to put it (ID)on the table.

Well said, DOC.

 

[joobz]

Well said, DOC.

Unfortunately, that's simply another way of saying ID is without merit.

 

[DOC]

It {teaching ID} would be equivilent to demanding that christian churches teach geography. It's completely unrelated.

Huh??

Of course not, because that theory doesn't exist in science. Perhaps you'd like to explain the mechanism of the "Goo to the Zoo to You". I did a search on compendex, pubmed, web of science and couldn't find it anywhere.

I could find many papers on evolution and natural selection, but not that theory you described. Curious.

Obviously the term "Goo to the Zoo to You" is a tongue in cheek expression of current scientific abiogenesis theories. You were being serious when you used your term "energy neutral".

 

[DOC]

The movie was about freedom of Ideas and freedom of discussion. It never said Darwinism (or whatever you want to call it) was false and ID was true. It just wants the right to put it (ID)on the table.

Well said, DOC.

Unfortunately, that's simply another way of saying ID is without merit.

That might apply to your "opinion" of me, but what about all the brilliant PhD's who believe in ID.

 

[JoeEllison]

That might apply to your "opinion" of me, but what about all the brilliant PhD's who believe in ID.

"Brilliant"? Not according to their peers.

 

[joobz]

That might apply to your "opinion" of me, but what about all the brilliant PhD's who believe in ID.

Which brilliant PhD? Ben Stein? A man whose degree is in economics?

BTW, scince you love to use appeals to authority, I thought it best to inform you that I am a PhD in Chemical Engineering with postdoctoral experience in pharmacology and biomedical engineering. I am quite aware of evolutionary theory and it's implications in science. As such, my background is much more of an authority than Ben Steins.

 

[JoeEllison]

Which brilliant PhD? Ben Stein? A man whose degree is in economics?

BTW, scince you love to use appeals to authority, I thought it best to inform you that I am a PhD in Chemical Engineering with postdoctoral experience in pharmacology and biomedical engineering. I am quite aware of evolutionary theory and it's implications in science. As such, my background is much more of an authority than Ben Steins.

It is interesting how DOC uses appeals to authority, even though 99.999% of the authorities disagree with him.

 

[grayman]

I gave P.Z. Meyers my personal copy of The Limbaugh Letter from where I found the interview. Just thought you'd like to know.

 

[plumjam]

There are plenty of bright people who favour ID over Neo-Darwinism. Some of them I would describe as brilliant.
Phillip E. Johnson is one of the latter.
Here is a fascinating interview with him.
http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/le_berkeleysradical.htm

The scientific key is, "No natural processes create genetic information." As soon as we get that out, there’s only one way the debate can go because Darwinists aren’t going to come up with a mechanism. They’ll start out talking about the peppered moth, and when that self-destructs, then they’ll say, "Oh, self-organizing systems, or the fourth law of thermodynamics," and other nonsense, which is just covering up ignorance.

 

[JoeEllison]

There are plenty of bright people who favour ID over Neo-Darwinism. Some of them I would describe as brilliant.
Phillip E. Johnson is one of the latter.

"Brilliant" because he is wrong in a way you agree with? That's pretty pathetic.

 

[joobz]

There are plenty of bright people who favour ID over Neo-Darwinism. Some of them I would describe as brilliant.
Phillip E. Johnson is one of the latter.
Here is a fascinating interview with him.
http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/le_berkeleysradical.htm

There are those who favor coke over pepsi, what does that prove?

ID provides no testbale hypothesis. It provides no additional information. Can you show me a testable hypothesis from ID?



BTW, what's neo-darwinism? Is that evolution by mutation and natural selection? Or is it some other theory?

 

[plumjam]

There are those who favor coke over pepsi, what does that prove?

There is a common outlook from JREF forumites that those who find ID more convincing than Darwinism are idiots, liars, twisters of the truth, biblical literalists and the like.
In fact, anyone who even questions Darwinism is seen and treated as though, for merely asking questions, they belong to the above categories.
The facts are, however, that some obvious non-idiots do question Darwinism. They find it unconvincing, and they have a right to express this, hopefully in an atmosphere that fosters open debate.
People like Michael Denton, and David Berlinski, are not idiots.. they are highly qualified, erudite, and interesting academics. They were also respected (until committing the Materialist Sin of questioning Darwinism, of course)

Your analogy to preference for types of soft-drinks is wholly inappropriate seeing as the subject matter at hand concerns how man sees himself, the universe, and his place in it.

ID provides no testbale hypothesis. It provides no additional information. Can you show me a testable hypothesis from ID?

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1156
Darwinism has its own 'saving' retreats. Whenever a difficult question or point comes up Darwinism retreats into the irrefutability of "Time+Luck didit". Where the central hypothesis is rendered untouchable and untestable.

BTW, what's neo-darwinism? Is that evolution by mutation and natural selection? Or is it some other theory?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Darwinism

 

[JoeEllison]

In fact, anyone who even questions Darwinism is seen and treated as though, for merely asking questions, they belong to the above categories.

That's not a fact, it is a lie... sort of sucks to be you, doesn't it?

 

[joobz]

There is a common outlook from JREF forumites that those who find ID more convincing than Darwinism are idiots, liars, twisters of the truth, biblical literalists and the like.
In fact, anyone who even questions Darwinism is seen and treated as though, for merely asking questions, they belong to the above categories.
The facts are, however, that some obvious non-idiots do question Darwinism. They find it unconvincing, and they have a right to express this, hopefully in an atmosphere that fosters open debate.
People like Michael Denton, and David Berlinski, are not idiots.. they are highly qualified, erudite, and interesting academics. They were also respected (until committing the Materialist Sin of questioning Darwinism, of course)

But, see. This is a bit dishonest on your part. There are also a preponderance of researchers who do find evolution convincing. And many of these people are deeply devote religious individuals. However, that fact alone isn't enough for me to accept evolutionary theory.

I've heard and read all of the ID arguments, and they are extremely poor. I'm not making this claim becuase of my "bias". I say it because I have read and understood the science. I have read and understood the critique. Evolution has the facts. ID doesn't. It's really that simple.

Your analogy to preference for types of soft-drinks is wholly inappropriate seeing as the subject matter at hand concerns how man sees himself, the universe, and his place in it.

You hit the nail on the head. People reject evolution because it doesn't fit thier prejudices.

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1156[/URL]
Darwinism has its own 'saving' retreats. Whenever a difficult question or point comes up Darwinism retreats into the irrefutability of "Time+Luck didit". Where the central hypothesis is rendered untouchable.

It's funny you reference irreducible complexity. There has been no structure found that fits the argument.

My biggest critique with ID is it's completely a dead end in terms of scientific understanding. IT doesn't hypothesize a mechanism. it doesn't seek to learn more of life and how it came to be. It assumes the answer and goes no further. That's not science no matter how hard people wish otherwise.

BTW, Time+luck is a rather dishonest simplification of the theory. Every chemical reaction in the universe is a result of "time+luck", yet I do not hear of anyone doubting chemical theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Darwinism

is it really an honest term to use? one that was first created in 1895, well before genetics was found which confirmed the exact moelcular mechanism by which diversity through mutation and natural selection is possible.

 

[plumjam]

There are also a preponderance of researchers who do find evolution convincing. And many of these people are deeply devote religious individuals. However, that fact alone isn't enough for me to accept evolutionary theory.

I agree.
The general outlook here, though, is that if someone finds ID more convincing than Darwinism then they must be.. what I wrote earlier.
Witness the treatment of Ben Stein for having the audacity to question Darwinism in a documentary. DOC's point about freedom of speech is a very important one, which is why I joined in.

I've heard and read all of the ID arguments, and they are extremely poor. I'm not making this claim becuase of my "bias". I say it because I have read and understood the science. I have read and understood the critique. Evolution has the facts. ID doesn't. It's really that simple.

You are entitled to your belief in this regard. For having the belief you do I do not dismiss you as a fool, a liar, a propagandist or any of the other epithets that have been applied to Ben Stein (and often also to DOC).

You hit the nail on the head. People reject evolution because it doesn't fit thier prejudices.

Some people reject ID out of hand because it doesn't fit with their philosophical naturalism prejudices. This "some people" includes the vast majority of the academic community, who have been fed philosophical naturalism since their infancy.

It's funny you reference irreducible complexity. There has been no structure found that fits the argument.

Clearly a matter of opinion.

My biggest critique with ID is it's completely a dead end in terms of scientific understanding.

For how many years, by how many people, and with what funding has it been explored?
Compared to Darwinism, hardly at all.

IT doesn't hypothesize a mechanism.

If mechanism A is clearly an inadequate explanation it is not necessary to replace it with mechanism B in order for it be honestly acknowledged that mechanism A is inadequate.
The honest path would be to admit that we really don't know what the mechanism is.

it doesn't seek to learn more of life and how it came to be.

how do you figure that one?

It assumes the answer and goes no further.

Darwinism assumes the answer, and supports itself via circular reasoning and retreating into irrefutability.

That's not science no matter how hard people wish otherwise.

Science is science. The overarching explanatory theories bolted onto the data are definitely NOT science. They are philosophy. The theory of Darwinian evolution is philosophy, as is ID. It's just a matter of which philosophy seems to fit better to the data.
Yer pays yer money yer takes yer choice.

BTW, Time+luck is a rather dishonest simplification of the theory. Every chemical reaction in the universe is a result of "time+luck", yet I do not hear of anyone doubting chemical theory.

Well there are three parts.
1.Time
2.Luck
3.Inexplicable ordering due to the completely mysterious existence of physical laws.

I rather kindly left the third one out, because it's not at all good for your case.

is it really an honest term to use? one that was first created in 1895, well before genetics was found which confirmed the exact moelcular mechanism by which diversity through mutation and natural selection is possible.

As I understand it it's a term used to distinguish it from earlier incarnations of Darwinism, and is common usage.
I'll drop the Neo if you like.

 

[shadron]

There are plenty of bright people who favour ID over Neo-Darwinism. Some of them I would describe as brilliant.
Phillip E. Johnson is one of the latter.
Here is a fascinating interview with him.
http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/le_berkeleysradical.htm

Oh, yeah, Plumjam. Philip Johnson is possibly a brilliant man (don't really know; law is not my field, but just possibly you have to be brilliant to teach it; you know what they say about teachers), but when someone looks at America and decides he needs to use his whatever brilliance he has to throw down science, regardless of its benefits to mankind, and return the US to a totally god-fearing society regardless of what it will do to the country and it's people, I call that megalomaniacal. Philip Johnson has the typical lawyer's respect for playing by the rules; any way that his desire can be done is correct and everyone else's be damned. Would you call the philosophy behind the Wedge Document brilliant? I hope it's not his best work, though it is likely to be what he will forever be known for.

He doesn't think anything of ID, except that at the time of he interview it was his best reed for getting what he wanted - the downfall of modern scientific philosophy as a whole. What he wants is evangelical law; Pat Robertson's aim personified. In biological terms that's creationism, but by no means does he have any desire to stop there. It doesn't surprise me that you find that brilliant, but you are in a minority - certainly on the forum, probably in the US, most definitely in he world.

 

[joobz]

I agree.
The general outlook here, though, is that if someone finds ID more convincing than Darwinism then they must be.. what I wrote earlier.
Witness the treatment of Ben Stein for having the audacity to question Darwinism in a documentary. DOC's point about freedom of speech is a very important one, which is why I joined in.

I've been in academia (life sciences related) for 10 years now (including grad work, post doc, professorship). I have never seen ID suppressed and excluded from debate. I have seen it discussed and never was it prevented from being discussed. So the notion that people DOC only wants to promote freedom of speech is like someone only wanting to promote a drinking age of 21. Why promote something that already exists? It's done to give the false impression that the freedom of speech doesn't exist. This isn't true.

You are entitled to your belief in this regard. For having the belief you do I do not dismiss you as a fool, a liar, a propagandist or any of the other epithets that have been applied to Ben Stein (and often also to DOC).

Well, I do not demand people BELIEVE only science. Everyone is free to have thier own religion. I do take offense when people try to dictate science on belief terms. I (and other scientists) use evidence to justify our conclusions.

Some people reject ID out of hand because it doesn't fit with their philosophical naturalism prejudices. This "some people" includes the vast majority of the academic community, who have been fed philosophical naturalism since their infancy.

I'm not really certain what the point is here.

Clearly a matter of opinion.

No, it's a matter of evidence.

For how many years, by how many people, and with what funding has it been explored?
Compared to Darwinism, hardly at all.

People can generate data, write a grant and get money to do the research. We don't write grants to the national darwin society. We get money from, DOD, DOE, NSF, NIH, and many many others. Good research will get funded.

If mechanism A is clearly an inadequate explanation it is not necessary to replace it with mechanism B in order for it be honestly acknowledged that mechanism A is inadequate.
The honest path would be to admit that we really don't know what the mechanism is.

I perhaps don't know what you mean here. Allow me to make myself a little clearer.

Evolution describes how diversity exists by the slow adaption of life through the process of natural selection. It's extremely mechanistic and we learn more of the mechanisms and how to control them every day.

Contrast that to ID, "A creator did it." It really doesn't bother with HOW the creator did it.

how do you figure that one?

Show me what new insights and developments have been made by ID.

Darwinism assumes the answer, and supports itself via circular reasoning and retreating into irrefutability.

This is patently untrue. I do not know if you have read anything more about evolution since our last discussion. If you have, please present your evidence to support this claim.

Well there are three parts.
1.Time
2.Luck
3.Inexplicable ordering due to the completely mysterious existence of physical laws.

Again, have you read into evolutionary theory, becuase that it a complete misscharacterization.

I rather kindly left the third one out, because it's not at all good for your case.

You should have left it out, because it's a poor description.

As I understand it it's a term used to distinguish it from earlier incarnations of Darwinism, and is common usage.
I'll drop the Neo if you like.

No, you can continue to use it. It's just obvious that it's being used as an insulting term. AFterall, I never hear physics refered to as Neutonists or chemists referred to as Bohrists, or thermodynamicists referred to as Gibbons. (sorry, that last one makes me chuckle).


The evidence points to evolution. If new evidence comes along which refutes it, biologists will be excited not scared. We want to know the truth, the reality, the measurable features of it all.

 

[plumjam]

Oh, yeah, Plumjam. Philip Johnson is possibly a brilliant man (don't really know; law is not my field, but just possibly you have to be brilliant to teach it; you know what they say about teachers), but when someone looks at America and decides he needs to use his whatever brilliance he has to throw down science, regardless of its benefits to mankind, and return the US to a totally god-fearing society regardless of what it will do to the country and it's people, I call that megalomaniacal. Philip Johnson has the typical lawyer's respect for playing by the rules; any way that his desire can be done is correct and everyone else's be damned. Would you call the philosophy behind the Wedge Document brilliant? I hope it's not his best work, though it is likely to be what he will forever be known for.

He doesn't think anything of ID, except that at the time of he interview it was his best reed for getting what he wanted - the downfall of modern scientific philosophy as a whole. What he wants is evangelical law; Pat Robertson's aim personified. In biological terms that's creationism, but by no means does he have any desire to stop there. It doesn't surprise me that you find that brilliant, but you are in a minority - certainly on the forum, probably in the US, most definitely in he world.

wow
see my avatar

 

[shadron]

I agree.
The general outlook here, though, is that if someone finds ID more convincing than Darwinism then they must be.. what I wrote earlier.
Witness the treatment of Ben Stein for having the audacity to question Darwinism in a documentary. DOC's point about freedom of speech is a very important one, which is why I joined in.

Ben Stein doesn't question Darwinism in his Magnum Opus - it takes a knowledge of what evolution (to call it by it's proper name) is in order to question it. Rather he propagandizes that scientists do exactly what you say their doing above, with just about the same amount of evidence - little to none. Likewise he makes no plug for ID, and hardly mentions it. No one attempted to shut his tirade down (except for legal reasons unrelated to the actual thrust of the movie); he had, used and abused free speech rights at every turn. In the end the box office results says it all - not even Christians seemed to be moved by it.

You are entitled to your belief in this regard. For having the belief you do I do not dismiss you as a fool, a liar, a propagandist or any of the other epithets that have been applied to Ben Stein (and often also to DOC).

No, you're right. On this forum you "do not dismiss [us] as a fool, a liar, a propagandist or any of the other epithets that have been applied to Ben Stein (and often also to DOC)". That's because you are on our turf here, and we demand the respect you do not care to give. Over on the myriad god-fearing fora the effect is quite the opposite - they do not simply demand respect there, but rather contrarians (like you are here) are simply banned and their postings erased. A Phil Johnson sort of world.

Some people reject ID out of hand because it doesn't fit with their philosophical naturalism prejudices. This "some people" includes the vast majority of the academic community, who have been fed philosophical naturalism since their infancy.

That may be true, but it is also true that most here reject ID out of hand because there is simply no evidence to back it up (regardless of how much you wish that Behe was right), and many more reject it because of it's proponents desire to thrust it upon us in law or politics regardless of what it is. You know that it would be wholeheartedly accepted by some here if there was the slightest thought that it would make a valid counter-theory to Evolution, but the bald truth is, it does not. Outside of a religious context it has nothing to offer.

For how many years, by how many people, and with what funding has it been explored?
Compared to Darwinism, hardly at all.

Come on, Plumjam. It has had enough funding to have an institute established and endowed in it's name; an elegant website (the best money can buy), an impressive list of staff members and, by all appearances, science-doing, credentialed scientist fellows, and all the money they could want to do research if that would attain their goal. After all, it's aims are backed by just as many citizens as back evolution, possibly more. What has it accomplished, or has viable plans to accomplish, in scientific terms, the only ones that mean anything in science? Did Darwin use a government grant to do research the 25 years after returning from the Beagle? Did Wallace? Did either have an Institute, staff, scientists a their beck and call, or an elegant website?

If mechanism A is clearly an inadequate explanation it is not necessary to replace it with mechanism B in order for it be honestly acknowledged that mechanism A is inadequate.
The honest path would be to admit that we really don't know what the mechanism is.

Yeah, but you did say "if". When first published, Darwin was somewhat speculating, as he had no "mechanism". And yet, he could still make predictions, one of the most profound being that the mechanism would, in time, be fully explained. And so it has, starting with Mendel (who's experiments were unknown to Darwin) right down through the fulfilling of the Human Genome, and continuing on. In your neat little statement above, the flaw is in "If mechanism A is clearly inadequate". It is not, so you have no leg to stand on, in my opinion. If you think I'm wrong, then tell us where it is inadequate, but don't expect "unknown" to fill in for you.

Darwinism assumes the answer, and supports itself via circular reasoning and retreating into irrefutability.

Prove it. Put up or shut up. Deal with it logically or admit you're talking through your hat.

Science is science. The overarching explanatory theories bolted onto the data are definitely NOT science. They are philosophy. The theory of Darwinian evolution is philosophy, as is ID. It's just a matter of which philosophy seems to fit better to the data.

What a load of ... junk. First is a tautology, incapable of use as a proof for anything. Second is your jaundiced opinion, and it is wrong. Theory has a definite, crowning place in science; it is what gives science its power to affect the world, it's usefulness to us. And it is most definitely not a philosophy, by any stretch of the imagination. The rest is illogical histrionics.

Yer pays yer money yer takes yer choice.

Bad Popeye imitations won't help much either. For 150 years science and the world have been paying their money and getting back progress as a return on their investment. Along comes ID and says in effect, "You're wrong and I'm right and the Bible tells me so.", and demands to be let into the line on that account. No respect due for that, I'm afraid.

 

[shadron]

wow
see my avatar

I guess it goes with your statements.