1. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #152826 by Skeptigirl on March 31, 2008 at 3:44 pm

562. Comment #152806 by alan baylis on March 31, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Scientific consensus seems to have converged on global warming being real and the effects being potentially catastrophic. Therefore any sensible hypothesis should be put foreword. There may be a lot more at stake than personal self-esteem. Should not a university physicist be clever enough to couch his ideas in ways that does not cause hostility from the establishment? They would only be ideas after all. Would not this come under "informed speculation"?
Apologies, if this is just naive BS on my part.
However, the oppressive picture of American academic attitudes painted by Dr. Benway is rather disheartening. I hope things are better than this in Britain.
Alan.

Trouble is you are making the wrong assumption here that the Ben Stein propaganda movie is actually factual and it isn't. It is a big lie.

It plays off a common stereotype that the scientific community is made up of stodgy old bastards in some stuffy old men's club exerting peer pressure on the brilliant rebellious young thinker who comes along and shows them they were wrong. That's a tired movie plot and while you might need a lot of evidence to change a previous scientific consensus, it is the evidence that convinces scientists. Present decent evidence and you will not be censored and ridiculed as this movie falsely claims.

The last couple ideas that took a while to convince the scientific community that I can think of were plate tectonics back in the early 20th century and a more recent example was the discovery that H-pylori bacteria caused ulcers, not excess stomach acid. Both of those were slow to catch on. But if the evidence is there, old stodgy science guys can't and don't stifle the progress of science. That is a pure propaganda falsehood.

What this movie does is quote people who could not provide convincing evidence claiming that it was their ideas that were not accepted. No, it was their evidence that was not convincing and they are the ones failing to accept that fact.

2. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #151505 by Skeptigirl on March 28, 2008 at 10:04 pm

448. Comment #151052 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 4:40 am
I just read some of the posts by craigyk.
Maybe I am not reading carefully enough but I really don't find him to be that unreasonable. His main points seem to be that 1)it is possible that there is "truth" inaccessible to the scientific method and logic and that 2) in practice science is influenced by human factors (peer reviewed may not be fool proof).
I think both are obvious.

#2 is obvious. #1 is nothing more than speculation based on beliefs in imaginary gods. It is just as possible there are invisible pink unicorns in my backyard. Do you seriously waste time considering the fact you can't prove there are no invisible pink unicorns?



[Bonzai] To say that there may be things inaccessible to science and logic is not the same as saying there are other reliable means to access them, so that is not an endorsement of theology, --or philosophy for that matter. ... word games by philosophers are hardly definitive proofs for or against anything when they don't even know what their words mean even though they think they do. That I call faith, faith in the human language)
To suggest the possibility that there are unknowable things is not the same as making any commitment to "believe" in any such thing. I don't detect there is such commitment in criagk's posts.

This is all true, but there is a reason not to waste time applying it to god beliefs. That is, there is no reason to think gods exist and if you follow the evidence of god beliefs it overwhelmingly supports the conclusion god beliefs are fabrications of the human mind.

There is a well known principle in science that you cannot prove the negative. I have no objection to that principle. It is when that principle is evoked as if the principle is evidence gods might exist. And as you say, it is not that.

Very few people have an equal mental idea in mind when they say, "one cannot prove there are no gods", as they have in mind when they say, "you cannot prove there are no invisible pink unicorns". There is a qualitative difference in the mindset with each of those statements. If one is merely stating a scientific principle, "you cannot prove the negative", then do so without using it as some statement that therefore we must either be theists or agnostics.

The evidence says god beliefs are human constructs. If I'm not going to entertain the idea one cannot prove Zeus and Pele do not exist, and I am not going to entertain the idea invisible pink unicorns do not exist, why should I entertain the idea there is some undetectable god outside of the Universe because I cannot prove the negative? I am an atheist. The evidence supports the conclusion no god beliefs are based on real gods. I do not need to add the caveat to that conclusion, "but one cannot prove that fact", anymore than I need to add the same caveat to the conclusion there are no invisible pink unicorns in my backyard. Unless of course I just want to be pedantic about the semantics of the scientific process.



[Bonzai] There is often a knee jerk reaction from some atheists here whenever they hear anyone suggesting there may be "mysteries" that science will never be able to answer. That doesn't have to be an assertion of belief, let alone the belief of some God, it may be just a suggestion of a possibility. On the other hand, the confident assertions I often hear here that science eventually will be able to answer x y z even though we don't have a clue right now are statements of faith.

Again, this is just a semantic/philosophical argument about the scientific process. It's fine to have a philosophical discussion about whether given infinite time science could solve all mysteries or not. But to use this thought as some caveat that we can never come to a place where we can say all magical god beliefs are myths, I do not accept. All magical god beliefs are myths, that is what the evidence supports, and it is time to stop using the semantics of the uncertainly language of science to keep the possibility of god beliefs alive. Faith is just another word for no evidence. And if 'no evidence' is sufficient to dismiss Zeus, Pele and invisible pink unicorns, it is sufficient to dismiss the rest of god beliefs as well.

3. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #151500 by Skeptigirl on March 28, 2008 at 9:29 pm

442. Comment #151005 by Peacebeuponme on March 28, 2008 at 2:18 am
MPhil
...You know that won't wash with a christian. Even if you say "The God of The Bible", I think they would just claim mystery, the god is outside of physics or somesuch.

Of course it won't wash with a Christian. If forced to confront the fact overwhelming evidence refutes the existence of the things the Christian god is supposed to do (answer prayers for example) or has done (inspired the Bible for example), that Christian will move the goal posts out of the boundaries of play. "You cannot prove there is no god", is the mantra of a near rational Christian. If you cannot fit the evidence to the god belief, then fit the god definition to the evidence.

Just don't put the obvious sequitur in your mind at the same time, such a god would have not made its presence known, nor would a god that does not interact with the Universe be relevant. And any god which does interact with the Universe or make its presence known would be detectable.

4. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #150998 by Skeptigirl on March 28, 2008 at 1:14 am

377. Comment #150454 by craigyk on March 27, 2008 at 12:08 am Re Comment #150351 by Skeptigirl: It is not valid to claim science deals with the how and religion deals with the why.

[craigyk]You can't declare this as "not valid"; it is an interpretation; one that if widespread might allow significant reconciliation between what you think of as incompatible belief systems. I think that if this subtle distinction were universal it would give both sides what they -really- wanted.

I can declare it not valid, and I did so. You are not obligated to agree. I find no reason for reconciliation, nor do I find leaving a blind spot in one's critical thinking to allow a nonsensical belief in magical beings is a worthwhile endeavor.

I have come to the conclusion after careful consideration that this is yet one of many rationalizations for god beliefs. There are several more. Another is the fabrication there are "faith based beliefs". In reality those are simply non-evidence based beliefs. Another claim in this category is that morals come from god beliefs as if they are somehow created by magic rather than evolutionary biology.

And then there is the ever shrinking god definition. As the evidence refutes one god belief after another, theists just move the goalpost back until it is entirely outside the Universe. Agnostics and scientists accept without thinking that you cannot prove there is no god. But the only way to make that statement true is to have a god that doesn't interact with the Universe. Such a god can only exist outside of the Universe or have merely started things rolling with the Big Bang and science cannot disprove that.

But taking that concept to its natural conclusion, how did this god makes its presence known? And is such a god the least bit relevant? And what about the scientific principle of following the evidence to its conclusion rather than fitting the evidence to an existing conclusion? If you do that then the evidence overwhelmingly supports that god beliefs are made up by people, while there is no evidence people actually encountered any gods.

The claim that god deals with the why and science deals with the how is just one more rationalization that there is actually a purpose to have both science and god beliefs in one's life. I do not see how that is a supportable conclusion.

5. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #150993 by Skeptigirl on March 28, 2008 at 12:33 am

388. Comment #150755 by Richard Dawkins on March 27, 2008 at 11:43 am
May I just add one more thing to the indictment of hypocrisy against Mark Mathis, [snip]
Well, it is obvious to any objective observer that Mark Mathis is a serial liar, frantically trying to spin his way out of the hole he has dug for himself. But I have not seen this particular contradiction spelled out before, in quite these stark terms.
Am I right?
Richard

One only needs to see the deceit in the movie's trailer to show evidence there is going to be deceit throughout the film.

Which scientists are ridiculed and banned for not treating evolution theory as dogma? That is a bold faced lie on its own merits. Science is concerned with the evidence, not dogma and anyone claiming otherwise is either blinded by their ignorance or taking care with techniques of propaganda.

As I looked at the other works on the Rampant Films webpage, I was unclear whether Mathis was simply ignorant or purposefully deceitful in his personal view of the material in Expelled. There isn't clear evidence on the company website that Mathis is motivated by religious convictions though there may be a wealth of evidence to this effect I did not find.

On the other hand, given the deceit in interviewing the opposition with the obvious intent to cherry pick from those interviews, statements which without context would add to the film's propaganda, there is no doubt Mathis made a conscious choice to be deceitful. One remaining question is, did he do so with the motive of lying for Jesus or just lying for profit?

One scenario not being considered here is the idea that kicking Myers out of the preview was purely for news media attention getting. If so, that has been quite a success in the Internet realm at least.

6. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #150357 by Skeptigirl on March 26, 2008 at 7:02 pm

Well Cataphract, by that logic we can blame the Christian religion for the atrocities committed during the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, burning Bruno at the stake, all the atrocities committed in the Bible (that are true since all the Bible is not) under 'God's' direction to the believers, and all the many more atrocities committed in the name of religious beliefs.

7. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #150351 by Skeptigirl on March 26, 2008 at 6:51 pm

354. Comment #150173 by craigyk on March 26, 2008 at 2:20 pm
...We (scientists) have all realized at some point that the concept of a theory amongst the general public is woefully imprecise.....

I am reminded of Rick Piltz's testimony in Congressman Waxman's oversight hearing on ALLEGATIONS OF POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH THE WORK OF GOVERNMENT CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENTISTS.
[url]http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/hearings/110h/34913.txt[/url]
"What happens is people with political agendas come in, who have a predatory relationship to that uncertainty language and they use it for reason in a way that is different from the way the scientific community uses it."

It isn't just that the public is unclear about what terms like 'theory' mean in science, but also that those wishing to exert political influence (including religiously motivated political influence) over scientific research and conclusions take advantage of the public's ignorance in a purposeful way. The scientific community then wonders why the public never seems to understand the uncertainty concept. That scientific community isn't necessarily aware of just how much the uncertainty is being actively promoted.

354. Comment #150173 by craigyk...I am reminded of a common misconception that all we need to do to "fix" the situation is to present all the facts in a digestible form and the truth will be obvious. I think it's pretty clear that this won't happen....

It is useful to recognize that a knowledge deficit is not always at the root of the problem. When providing knowledge fails to change misconceptions, the scientific community needs to pay more attention to reanalyzing the problem and developing different approaches to misconceptions.

354. Comment #150173 by craigyk...For me atheism stems from the admission that one cannot prove or disprove wether God exists, and is therefore pushed to ask the question: should he exist?. I quipped that if all religions were like The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) then atheism might not even be the movement it is now....

As an atheist, while I am concerned about the negative results of religious beliefs, I think it is also important to address the suspension of critical thinking one needs to maintain beliefs in god myths.

It would be nice to not confront theists and just say we should all respect each other's beliefs. But how do you teach a child about the evidence based world and conspicuously leave the part out that Biblical god beliefs are no more supportable than beliefs in Zeus or Pele? How do you teach a child the principles of anthropology and pretend that ancient Greek god beliefs are based on myths but modern god beliefs are based on real gods? How do you teach meteorology and sidestep the child's belief, 'God' sent a hurricane to destroy sinful behavior in New Orleans?

My point is, if we teach critical thinking skills, we better be prepared to deal with the elephant in the room that critical thinking is suspended when it comes to religious beliefs. There is no such thing as "faith based beliefs" that differs from non-evidence based beliefs. It is not valid to claim science deals with the how and religion deals with the why. These are all means of avoiding confrontation between two incompatible belief systems.

Avoiding the problem leaves a gap in critical thinking skills that all of society pays for, not just when Christians attack gays or waste school district money trying to 'wedge' Creationism into science classes. Society pays because so many in the public cannot distinguish evidence supported conclusions from magical thinking. The public is susceptible to being manipulated by politicians and advertisers who are very good at manipulating beliefs.

The scientific community is the worst at using the one science that the anti-science crowd is actually good at using. That is the science of manipulating belief through communication. "Expelled" is a perfect example. How is it that such a propaganda piece might look convincing to the lay public? Because the public isn't aware of the straw man technique being used in the film. While we struggle to provide knowledge about evolution theory, "Expelled" isn't addressing evolution theory or even Intelligent Design. "Expelled" is tricking the lay public with the false claim that science ignores evidence. The film claims scientists are censored and ridiculed for their beliefs.

Take a look at the trailer for Expelled if you haven't seen it.
[url]http://rampantfilms.com/rampantfilms.swf[/url]

The scientific community knows it is the lack of supporting evidence that is behind rejection of alternative to evolution theories. From that trailer, it sure doesn't look that way. The Discovery Institute knows exactly what they are doing. They can't win the scientific argument, so they are changing the debate to one they can't lose, free speech and freedom of ideas.

This is the avenue we need to be addressing. The evidence can be included. But as long as the scientific community fails to recognize the principles of propaganda being used here and addresses that issue first, the evidence for evolution theory will be lost on the lay public distracted by the communication technique of attacking a straw man.

8. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #150349 by Skeptigirl on March 26, 2008 at 6:47 pm

I wasn't trying to say the mutations themselves were non-random. But it would be the organism with the evolved mechanism that was affecting the random mutations, not some external 'designer' so I'm not sure what your concern is. After all, humans can 'direct' evolution and are getting better at it all the time.

Now that you mention it, however, gene transfer between organisms isn't a random means of evolving either. For example, antibiotic resistance genes are transfered from one organism to another including from one species to another. It isn't that random genetic material is transferred and sometimes the recipient gets lucky. We don't know yet (at least I don't know) how specific genes are 'directed' to other organisms. But it can be observed occurring and is pretty common.

9. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #150309 by Skeptigirl on March 26, 2008 at 5:22 pm

355. Comment #150232 by Jon_Sociologist on March 26, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Mutation is by luck; natural selection is not random.

Just an FYI, turns out some organisms actually have some non-random input into mutations as well. Mechanisms that repair mutations can be turned off in some organisms when under stress from natural selection pressures, allowing more mutations to occur than would otherwise.

10. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #150306 by Skeptigirl on March 26, 2008 at 5:18 pm

325. Comment #149618 by AdrianB on March 26, 2008 at 2:19 am re: 320. Comment #149508 by Skeptigirl on March 25, 2008 at 7:20 pm
I just want to say thanks for posting that. It was a nice summary.

Thank you for the feedback. It's much appreciated.

11. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149508 by Skeptigirl on March 25, 2008 at 7:20 pm

RE: 43. Comment #148713 by clearthinker on March 23, 2008
Dr Dawkins,
Could you please tell us what Mark Mathis has to do with Jesus? How do you know his motivation for lying was 'for Jesus'? Is this not just another cheap shot in a rather silly 'culture' war?

I do believe the whole Intelligent Design 'wedge strategy' was developed by the Discovery Institute which developed it specifically to get a Creationist's foot in the door of science classrooms across the US. And the Discovery Institute is indeed engaged in lying for Jesus. You can look into both the D.I. and the "wedge strategy" to confirm that.

You might also look at the US Court Case, Kitzmiller v Dover, to see a very thorough discussion in the ruling by Judge John E Jones III on the matter in its entirety. Jones wrote an excellent decision detailing an extensive court case where Intelligent Design promoters presented as much scientific supporting evidence as money could buy. Despite that, despite calling in expert witnesses like the infamous Dr. Michael Behe, and despite the fact Judge Jones was a Bush appointee from good Christian stock, ID promoters were unable to make their case that Intelligent Design was being 'expelled' from any science classroom in a public school in the USA.

Rather, what Judge Jones ruled was that Intelligent Design was Creationism with a science facade. Jones didn't just rule that Intelligent Design failed the scientific test. Jones specifically ruled the defendants, in this case the Dover School Board which had been infiltrated by ID promoters, was trying to deceive the court. Jones ruled they were lying that Intelligent Design was not Creationism in disguise. In fact, the ID defendants were caught lying red handed by a typo in the textbook they wanted used in the Dover schools, "Of Pandas and People", which was previously a book promoting Creationism as a scientific theory. The defendants testified that 'Of Pandas and People' was not previously about Creationism, but a typo in the book actually reads, "cdesign proponentsists". Jones noted that error in his ruling along with the fact the book matched almost word for word the book about Creationism except the term, ID, was substituted for Creationism.

The idea behind the Discovery Institute's 'wedge strategy' was to couch the Biblical version of Creation in scientific terms and have it accepted as science rather than religion. To do that they took the scientific hypothesis that some components of living organisms are irreducibly complex and therefore did not evolve and claimed this hypothesis, if true, supported a competing theory to evolution, that of Intelligent Design.

But like all invalid hypotheses go, irreducible complexity failed the test. To this point, no lies were yet told. But what do you do when you cannot fit the evidence to your existing Biblical beliefs? For some people, they simply ignore reality. But for others, well aware the scientific community was not convinced that irreducible complexity was a supportable hypothesis, they simply took their arguments to non-scientists. If you can't convince informed people, you can still try to convince uninformed people.

And that is where the lie for Jesus comes in. You cannot say that scientists were not convinced because the evidence was not convincing. You have to make up a lie that scientists were not convinced because they exclude religious beliefs from science.

But that is not true. If the evidence supported the Biblical version of Creation, then the evidence supports the Biblical version. There is no valid evidence science dismisses simply because someone wrote something about it in a religious text beforehand.

Intelligent Design fails on scientific merits. So rather than debate ID on scientific merits, the Discovery Institute has been trying to change the debate to "fairness in the classroom". And this film is just more of that same lie. The lie being told here is that free speech is being hindered, that the scientific community is afraid of evidence which refutes evolution theory, that the scientific community cares more about a pet theory than about the evidence.

That lie feeds into the public stereotype that science is steeped in tradition and dogma. The opposite is true. Science is all about the evidence. Sometimes new paradigms require sufficient evidence to convince some scientists. But in the end, the evidence is what prevails. Dogma simply cannot win in science if the evidence says otherwise.

To claim evolution theory is dogma and legitimate evidence is being ignored is a lie and in this case, maybe Ben Stein is lying for his Biblical God and not for Jesus, (I wouldn't know), but the majority of the ID promoters are indeed lying about the scientific community for Jesus. There is no reason to think Mathis is lying for anything else.