It seems that the producers are really only in any trouble because they insist on drawing further attention to the relation of Darwinism and WWII. I have some papers ( I showed some on EvC before) that were ciruclated to produce a department in New York to carry out what happened (sterlization)in Calif. and Virigina. Gould knew well enough that this keeps coming up (bad eugenics). The back lash however has been an extripation of biological determinism rather than this kind of rehashing of what is no longer desired nor pursued as far as I know.
What does seem to have been significant is that the directors were able to get Dawkins to admit that ID may be possible to 1%. This is no more than I attempted to diagram here.
Dobson had suggested that perhaps Dakwins did not know where Stein was coming from but even this does not seem to be an out of context 'quote'.
It all depends on if Stein was being truthful. Richard could say so.
Stein said he first asked Dr. Dawkins if ID "exists"
(I don't recall the exact wording,("is possible")maybe)at 0% and that Richard Dawkins said, without leading, something like "No, 1%".
Stein then went for the context,... asking if not, what about 5% and Richard agreed (It is very hard for me to determine "context" between = "no" comma and a percentage=. There certainly is in Kant's notion of justice, the possibility of a negative influence mathematically which is not the logicians notion but gives the same sense of apodictic certainty Russell claims he sought in the history of logic but Wittgenstein seemed to make an appearence as.
I can not speak for Stein here, but if the context changes between this “no” and 1%, then in the Richard’s own short sound bite the error seems all on Richard, unless he was lead wrongly into the question. I don’t see how Richard D. could not expect such a question from Stein?
I guess the “zero” threw him off but then again, this may only be because recent Islamic politics. I don’t know.)
Stein then said well if 5% why not 51% and at this number Richard backed off.
I don’t see why he just didn’t say 0%, yes... for any percent probability is enough to get the discussion going if one is only coming from a further external position than one’s “opponent”.
quote:Stein asks Richard to put a number on how certain he is that there is no god. Richard says 99%. Stein asks "Why not 97? Or why not 47?" Richard replies "Well you asked me to put a number on it, so I did".
quote:Stein then asked Dawkins to put a number on how sure he is that ID didn't happen. After saying he didn't think it was appropriate to put a number on such a thing, he said 99%. Then conversation following went as such: "99, huh? Why not 97?" "Uh, well, you asked me to put a number on it…" "Why not 47, then?" "Well, I think it's definitely in the higher range…" Dawkins looked more confused than anything in this part, and understandably so.
Because that would go against his previous public statements and presumably what believes. He doesn't say God 100% does not exist.
quote:Not only is the god hypothesis unnecessary. It is spectacularly unparsimonious. Not only do we need no God to explain the universe and life. God stands out in the universe as the most glaring of all superfluous sore thumbs. We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can't disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But, like those other fantasies that we can't disprove, we can say that God is very very improbable.
I've not seen it, but from what I hear, God and 'The Designer' or 'God did it' and 'ID' are used interchangeably. The amusing thing is of course that ID has been trying to prove it is a secular science, and Expelled blows that out of the water. From what I remember, Dembski once argued that it doesn't have to be God, the Designer - it could be aliens the Designers. Naturally, Dembski was taken very seriously by IDers at the time. When Dawkins states the hypothesis as being more probable than the God hypothesis...mocking ensues?
I agree, I think you've identified the key point. When Ben Stein asks, "Why not God?" he's actually declaring, "ID is religion." Perhaps much less to fear here than I originally thought.
But of course, then there's the Florida legislature considering a law that provides job protection for those taking a position against evolution. This is the kind of traction I'm worried about, because the law has little use beyond protecting teachers who present unscientific ideas in the science classroom.
The amusing thing is of course that ID has been trying to prove it is a secular science, and Expelled blows that out of the water.
I have to comment on this.
There are 2 sides to the ID movement. On one side, they are trying to convince the legal parts of our society that ID is secular. These battlegrounds are mainly in the courtrooms.
On the other side, they are trying to convince the nonlegal parts of our society that ID is religion and that the designer is the christian god. Why? Because they know that conning people into backing them up will give them a better chance at getting it accepted.
You have to know which "evidence" of ID goes where. In this particular case, this documentary is appealing to the unwashed masses. I highly doubt that anyone would bring this documentary up in the courtroom.
It's like homosexuality. On the one hand, they yell out all kinds of hate speech against homosexuals and do everything they possibly can to take away people's rights on that front. But on the other hand, they claim that "all sins are equal", never mind that evangelical leaders have been conning people out of millions of dollars for years. It's the same damn hypocritical mindset.
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
There are 2 sides to the ID movement. On one side, they are trying to convince the legal parts of our society that ID is secular. These battlegrounds are mainly in the courtrooms...
In this particular case, this documentary is appealing to the unwashed masses. I highly doubt that anyone would bring this documentary up in the courtroom.
The unwashed masses find their way on to school boards (and I believe some school boards have specifically been invited to watch the film). If you remember Kitzmiller, you'll remember one unwashed member named Bill "I didn't say creationism" Buckingham. Not that I expect to see much in the way of ID court cases now, but the secular façade is difficult to maintain when it comes to the unwashed. Slips like Buckingham's are quite easy to make over a long enough time period, if they were 'converted' to the cause by Expelled it'll just be that much more difficult.
I can't help but think Behe's and Dembski's appearance on ID's side won't be doing them any long term favours in their battle to insist that ID is secular science.
Thanks for that other info on "god or not" rather than "ID or not".
There is obviously a little bit of numbering going on. The radio had 1 and 5%, a subtraction I guess.
Off topic on Dawkins - I knew he had not said never ever ever no God but still he could have said no ID-100%! I am tempted to say this sometimes, while I think, while not giving anything but 100% to God.
The thought is this: A New Ecological Economics
Can work be done in evolution to evolve creatures able to sort low entropy better and thus expand the life span of Homo industrialus? Cannot artificial selection instruct natural selection in the wild counter to Darwin’s vision (due to his limited knowledge of heritability) such that genetic information gains material constructs designed by converting kinetic energy into potential energy through a fundamental manifestation of the second law not available to non-living systems? Does not the phenomenological hierarchical thermodynamic thermostat provide the construct on which to build a periodic crystal potential energy niche via water recycling in the ecological world of Darwin’s “variability”? Can not the actualization of this procedure supply indications contrary to Malthus that the “food” supply may not be arithmetically limited but may be subject to progressive neo-Darwinian alterations in gene frequencies as creatures mutate and migrate into little populated regions of these thermostats?
Should not the tone of eco-justice be modified, provided a hierarchy of prima facie biotic rights are granted to the objects of these increases in biomass production, and the actions to simply “green” the economy be translated into shapes of low entropy sorters of food sources able to convert the motion of water into better effiency of sunlight genetically?
Why do we simply not propose that mankind can even direct this artifical selection in microevolution to FUTURE uses for life off of Earth? Our food thus may come from creatures not now able to procreate on mountain tops, desert areas, or the ends of the globe but enabled by human design of natural selection Darwin confused with separate creation.
Darwin wrote, “Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the pas and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the firs bed of the Silurian system was deposited, they seem to me to become enobled.”(p116)
Because Darwin had imagined that intricate adaptations might arise via these secondary causes and on considering that there was an reproductive continuum linking all creatures rather than some special creation for each Darwin misplaced in the reciprocity of cause and effect the purely lineal relation of man to God. He mistook the opinion of his day for the lack of information on how the “secondary causes “ of birth and death, in addition to everything he imagined, circulate the putting together and taking apart of genomes. This is why symbiogensis and creationism often sound sometimes to have a similar complaint about neo-Darwinism despite the causal differences. This was his error when he tried to imagine the continuum in space and time what he had developed in soma only. Infinity of the latter requires some kind of ordertypes in the former where he denoted separate creation but without the necessary numerology of continuous motion (back to the Silurian)in the discrete space of the genes of birth and death of the component species lineages the Boltzmann corrected materiality of entropy under this energy of connections can develop macrothermodynamically what Darwin took as an impression. He further made mistakes by using what is only but a Hamiltonian bifurcation adequetly circumscribed by the difference of homozygote and heterozygotes while he sought to apply Malthus to the place of the change generally.
Stephan Jay Gould is of the opinion that these secondary causes of birth and death are to be generalized to any “evolutionary individual” thus expanding a horizon of evolutionary logic but he expects this without the direct imposition of force or the impression that Darwin ostensibly waived off from God. Gould attempts to relate his disinclination towards direct impression by his reading of Lamarck, dissection of the history of biology into formal and functional categories, and lack of enthusiasim for Kaufmann’s “order for free” while giving a rather parochial reading to the mathematical meaning and direction possible in Darcy Thompson’s use of “co-ordinate transformations”
This confused synthesis of analysis of biology results from failure to recognize that there is a limit in the form but not in the matter under consideration. Thus rather than expecting to see a new Keplerian notion in biology Gould rightly stresses the dynamical nature of the birth and deaths. There is, given the thermostat, however a different reading in the history of biology than Gould and Provines’, where kinematical structures ply the formal/functional divide and algebra kings the red square of any insect such, that physical forces give the intuition under which the forms changes (form-making) and Gould’s organon is seen for what it is nothing other than a gap in the place of the data made by writing style (formality/grammar) rather than the rules that determines the place of the atoms themselves. By continuing to frame extensions of the evolutionary synthesis as if against notions of value etc Gould has continued a tradition where/while the particulate nature of substances is not put in at the beginning but only in the statistical division represented well by the used ideas of “phenotype” and “genotype”. The volume boxing however does better if the horizon is recognized supramolecularly with changes made to Boltzmann relation of probability and entropy instead.
This enables a new division of the relation of the source and flow of changes in low to high entropy within the place niche construction which once related to changes in potential and kinetic energy under reproduction of the evolutionary synthesis provides a the natural law on which juridicial decisions of eco-justice can be made de jure. So many of these pathways are obscured by the thermal constants involved in the reaction (H+ + OH- = H2O)
For me the whole thing is that there is a possible acutal infinity in the matter(biological changes can not be understood to alter quark positions fundamentally) but a limit in the form while all we can know by current methods is a seeming infinite boundary of shapes formally and finite matter naturally. Thus Irreducible Complexity is just a mask for this relation which I thought otherwise above. I just don’t get Dakwins’ point against Gould if he doesn’t want to commit against the “science” of ID even if he still wants not to write God off absolutely.
I knew he had not said never ever ever no God but still he could have said no ID-100%
I'm not sure that would have been a particularly strong or coherent argument. After all, most people's conception of God is a specific kind of Creator/Designer/Architect. It would also undermine his position on the tentativity of knowledge.