“That’s all nonsense, for babies… Only fit for babies, do you hear?” “Who has been telling you all this nonsense?”“Who has been telling you this pack of lies?”
“And never let me catch you talking—or thinking either—about all those silly stories again… do you hear?”
Prince Caspian has been telling his uncle, Miraz the usurper, about Aslan and the Old Days of Narnia when animals could talk. Miraz’ response sounds like the reaction of many to those who believe God, or some Intelligence, had something to do with life as we know it today. Agnostic academics, such as Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers, clearly want God left out of science. Miraz expels Caspian’s Nurse from the Kingdom, and if the movie Expelled can at all be believed, biologists who even mention the fairy tale of “Design” are being expelled from the Academic Kingdom.
Of course, detractors of the film claim that the “expelled” were not removed from their jobs because they questioned whether unaided and unguided evolution was enough to give us the complexity of life (and in lifeforms) that we have today. But the “expelled” in the film at least perceive that this was the reason. It does seem evident to me, just from reaction to the balanced coverage Greg Wright has been doing on the movie, that opposition to the concept of Design is fierce. So it is not hard to deduce that there must be something to this.
But what of Intelligent Design? Is the concept credible? Or is it just Creationist Fable? The movie, as well as I.D. opponents, seem to lump Creationists and I.D.-ers into one basket. Stein, et al., are a bit inconsistent, at one point trying to show their differences, but, ultimately, failing to differentiate the two at all. The film, especially the closer we get to the end, seems to be about contrasting the agnostic approach with any approach that includes God. Theistic Evolutionists included.
Is it really so incredible to include God in science? Or do we need to push Him as far out of the debate as possible to avoid the conflict of Church and State? Or is pushing Him out of the debate an affront to our freedoms, as Stein asserts? There certainly seem to be political agendas on both sides.
I like what our Webmaster, David Bruce had to say about all this:
Nearly everyone believes there is something more behind creation of the universe than just mere chance. Is it any surprise that most evolutionists believe in God? The big question is not evolution, but rather what are we doing to connect with both the creation and the creator?
April 19th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
>>>Is it really so incredible to include God in science?
Scientists who attempt to use science to study God are trying to bite off more than they can chew, in my opinion. In fact, even Intelligent Design advocates claim that they do not attempt to study the purported Designer, but only the presence of Design in nature. It seems that a lot of the arguments that I’ve heard for science “proving” the existence of God rely on a god-of-the-gaps line of reasoning. For example, they will point to the gaps in our knowledge about the origins of life and the cosmos in order to argue that God was responsible.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think there has been any suppression of including aspects of religion in scientific inquiry - but mind you, these fall within the bounds of what science is able to test. For example, there have been studies of the so-called “God Pod” in the brain. There have also been studies of whether prayer works in helping people heal. Of course, none of these studies can actually prove or disprove the existence of God.
>>>Or do we need to push Him as far out of the debate as possible to avoid the conflict of Church and State? Or is pushing Him out of the debate an affront to our freedoms, as Stein asserts? There certainly seem to be political agendas on both sides.
I think the way the film portrays the issue is that there is a elite clique of scientists that is actively trying to suppress any line of inquiry to do with God because it would clash with their own worldviews. However, the real issue has to do with what constitutes good science, and putting God into the equation often isn’t, simply because of science’s own limitations. The issue here is not one about freedom. Even if it, it largely ignores the freedom of universities and institutions to uphold their own standards and to channel resources into areas they deem to be the most productive.
April 19th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
NP,
I certainly agree with you about the limits of science. I am not saying that science can or should be used to prove God’s existence. But the very examples you give about the “God Pod” and prayer would not be included in scientific inquiry if God were dismissed “out of hand” like some obviously want to do. I think it is a good thing that some scientists are open to this kind of study. Just my opinion.
April 21st, 2008 at 12:28 am
Mark, I think the examples I provided aren’t exactly a case of affirming God as opposed to dismissing Him. I think it would be more accurate to say that these studies affirm the existence of religious thinking and behaviour, without explicitly taking into account something outside the realm of scientific inquiry i.e. God.
April 24th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
“Of course, detractors of the film claim that the “expelled” were not removed from their jobs because they questioned whether…”
They weren’t removed from their jobs at all. That’s one of the Big Lies that the movie is selling.
“It does seem evident to me, just from reaction to the balanced coverage Greg Wright has been doing on the movie,…”
Greg is avoiding evidence like the plague. He’s only interested in hearsay. How can evidence-free coverage be “balanced,” exactly?
“… that opposition to the concept of Design is fierce.”
You’ve bought into their lies, Mark. The opposition is to portraying religious apologetics as science.
“So it is not hard to deduce that there must be something to this.”
If ID is science, point me to a single datum produced by a single ID proponent from testing a prediction of an ID hypothesis.
“But what of Intelligent Design? Is the concept credible? Or is it just Creationist Fable?”
It’s not science unless there are predictions and tests of those predictions.
“The movie, as well as I.D. opponents, seem to lump Creationists and I.D.-ers into one basket.”
They all fall deep into the pseudoscientific basket of people who lack the faith to test their own hypotheses.
“Theistic Evolutionists included.”
No, actually, one of the most dishonest aspects of the movie was its exclusion of theistic scientists.
Why do you use the preposterous term “Evolutionists,” Mark?
“Is it really so incredible to include God in science?”
They are excluding science altogether.
“I like what our Webmaster, David Bruce had to say about all this: Nearly everyone believes there is something more behind creation of the universe than just mere chance.”
Your Webmaster is parroting one of the favorite lies of the ID movement–that a mechanism that includes natural selection is “just mere chance.” What exactly does the word “selection” mean to you then?
Where’s the evidence?
April 25th, 2008 at 5:30 am
Thank you for continuing to prove that my analysis is correct.