More Correspondence From Bernie
My pal Bernie has written to me again. It's nice to be retired, but living in Florida ought to mean you spend more time outdoors in the sunshine, instead of in the sickly glow of your computer screen, or going to matinee shows of religious propaganda pieces.
Anyway, here's Bernie's latest:
Dear PF,
Now that Pesach is officially over, I can answer your thoughtful email. First of all, I have an advantage over you because I saw the movie and you didn’t. The statements you make here are based upon retorts by others in the scientific community who were challenged by this movie. The brutalized had every expectation that their contracts would be renewed. I saw and heard them say so and I believe them. They were shocked. You say that they have unscientific views but we don’t know that because there has been no discussion permitted. You are guilty of the logical fallacy of black and white thinking. Either Intelligent Design is wrong or Darwinism is right. There are gray areas as you well know. Darwinists cannot explain the origins of life. The movie makes that clear from the interviews of them. As for my subjectivism, it is logical for me to conclude that after my lifelong study of the complex processes of the human body, a creative force had to have been at work. Why is it that intelligent people who observe the revealing of complicated human life formulas don’t wonder who or what came up with those formulas to begin with? Lastly, having observed this movie intensely from beginning to end, I can assure you that no one was trying to deceive.
Bernie
I suspect Bernie's point of view is very common. To be sure, he is educated, but the self-congratulatory way in which he talks about his lifelong study of the body (Bernie was a salesman, not a scientist) shows that he is unaware of the limits of his own knowledge. He also falls into the trap of "evolution can't explain the origins of life." (I chose to ignore the silly "either ID is wrong or Darwinism is right" statement, the confusion of which I attribute to mere emotion.)
So what did I say to Bernie? Here it is:
Dear Bernie,
Rather than attempt a point-by-point treatment of your latest email, I thought I would forward some more of the additional material that the producers of “Expelled” are putting out. You need to be aware of the sort of fraud being perpetrated on you. Have you seen the “Leader’s Guide” from the “GetExpelled” web site? It’s at http://www.getexpelled.com/_downloads/expelled_leadersguide.pdf, along with a lot of other interesting stuff. Among other things, it contains:
The thesis of the movie is abundantly outlined in these materials, and they consist of:
ID is not science. It is not a theory. If it were, there would be data and hypotheses in support of it. There are none. Not one single peer-reviewed paper in support of any ID hypothesis has ever been published. A “theory” of intelligent design would be able to make testable scientific predictions; that’s what a theory does. Yet no such predictions exist. There is not a shred of science associated with ID. The “theory” itself is unfalsifiable, rendering it scientifically irrelevant. The people supposedly “expelled” for holding these silly and unscientific ideas have no scientific support for their views They are what I like to call “mere opinions,” essentially matters of taste without any basis in reason or evidence.
For those who claim the absence of ID science is a result of the scientific community “freezing out” these challengers to scientific orthodoxy, I can only say that they do not understand how science actually works—not that this should surprise anyone. Groundbreaking scientists have toiled in obscurity for many years, and the heroes of science are always the ones who challenge established thinking on a subject. But the only way to do it is through the collection of evidence that is then presented to the scientific community. Science goes where the evidence—not preconceived notions—leads. Individual scientists may remain trenchant on a particular matter, but if the evidence is there, the scientific method always wins out in the end. But this must be done according to strict procedures—not to keep from treading on orthodox toes, but to be certain that methodology and data are of the highest quality. The scientific community makes progress by talking and arguing with itself.
In contrast, the “Expelled” crowd have gone straight to the public with poorly constructed and entirely unscientific arguments, no actual data, and blatant untruths. They rely on the general public’s lack of sophistication (or outright ignorance) in science, and they justify the whole thing by telling themselves that they are rendering honor and glory to Jesus. In making their case to the public, they have bypassed any claim to scientific validity. This is exactly what frauds, con artists and snake-oil salesmen do: no need to substantiate their bogus claims so long as they can sway public opinion.
These people are evangelical Christians who are foisting an unscientific biblical literalism on the public and pretending it is science. Please note that science is the one area in which they have no argument. They talk about evidence from molecular biology and paleontology, all the while demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of all three fields. The debate on evolution vs. creationism is not a scientific one, but a religious one. If people want to have such a debate, that’s fine, but it does not belong in the science classroom. here is no scientific controversy involving creationism—only a social one.
- a ridiculous caricature of evolution (which they repeatedly insist on calling “Darwinism,” as though the science had not progressed since 1859).
- the pointless objection to evolution being ‘the only theory taught in schools” (germ theory is the only one taught in medical schools, yet no one objects to that!)
- the false description of ID as a theory, which it most definitely is not
- the flat-out lie that ID is not creationism (the insistence on this seems not merely false but childish)
- the vile slander that evolution caused the holocaust.
The thesis of the movie is abundantly outlined in these materials, and they consist of:
- argument from consequences
- straw men
- the fallacy of the excluded middle (the either/or, or what you called black and white thinking”)
- outright lies (for example, stating in one sentence that ID is not religion, then just a few pages later in a section called “Sermon Ideas” asking the rhetorical question, “Who is the designer?”)
ID is not science. It is not a theory. If it were, there would be data and hypotheses in support of it. There are none. Not one single peer-reviewed paper in support of any ID hypothesis has ever been published. A “theory” of intelligent design would be able to make testable scientific predictions; that’s what a theory does. Yet no such predictions exist. There is not a shred of science associated with ID. The “theory” itself is unfalsifiable, rendering it scientifically irrelevant. The people supposedly “expelled” for holding these silly and unscientific ideas have no scientific support for their views They are what I like to call “mere opinions,” essentially matters of taste without any basis in reason or evidence.
For those who claim the absence of ID science is a result of the scientific community “freezing out” these challengers to scientific orthodoxy, I can only say that they do not understand how science actually works—not that this should surprise anyone. Groundbreaking scientists have toiled in obscurity for many years, and the heroes of science are always the ones who challenge established thinking on a subject. But the only way to do it is through the collection of evidence that is then presented to the scientific community. Science goes where the evidence—not preconceived notions—leads. Individual scientists may remain trenchant on a particular matter, but if the evidence is there, the scientific method always wins out in the end. But this must be done according to strict procedures—not to keep from treading on orthodox toes, but to be certain that methodology and data are of the highest quality. The scientific community makes progress by talking and arguing with itself.
In contrast, the “Expelled” crowd have gone straight to the public with poorly constructed and entirely unscientific arguments, no actual data, and blatant untruths. They rely on the general public’s lack of sophistication (or outright ignorance) in science, and they justify the whole thing by telling themselves that they are rendering honor and glory to Jesus. In making their case to the public, they have bypassed any claim to scientific validity. This is exactly what frauds, con artists and snake-oil salesmen do: no need to substantiate their bogus claims so long as they can sway public opinion.
These people are evangelical Christians who are foisting an unscientific biblical literalism on the public and pretending it is science. Please note that science is the one area in which they have no argument. They talk about evidence from molecular biology and paleontology, all the while demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of all three fields. The debate on evolution vs. creationism is not a scientific one, but a religious one. If people want to have such a debate, that’s fine, but it does not belong in the science classroom. here is no scientific controversy involving creationism—only a social one.
Still Your Friend,
PF
Comments