At Big Science Academy we take our motto seriously: “No Intelligence Allowed.”
And this year, we are proud to report that in every subject but Science, students and faculty are free to challenge ideas, and seek truth wherever it may lead.But Science is different. In Science, there is no room for dissent, for dissent is dangerous. That is why we at Big Science simply refuse to allow it. Like dancing, “dissent” can lead to other things.
As Class President Richard Dawkins put it so well: “Shut up!”
As you know…last year we had the misfortune of “presupposition of design” rearing its ugly head, with several students challenging Neo-Darwinian materialism, and arguing incessantly for the right to examine Intelligent Design.
They were all Expelled, of course – but still: it just goes to show where academic freedom can lead, if not shut down immediately!
Sincerely,
Charles Darwin
Principal, President, Admissions and Diversity Affairs Officer,
Big Science Academy “No Intelligence Allowed”
The movie is scheduled to be released next Friday, April 18.
Filed under: French Bible
In “Big Science Class”, all that we ask is that you do science based on testable, repeatable, observable, falsifiable evidence.
There are other classes available where you can explore metaphysics, psychology, and religion.
Here in Big Science Class we use the scientific method to understand the workings of our natural world using natural explanations. This has worked out pretty well for us so far. We have working NATURAL theories for phenomena such as gravity, atomics, electromagnetism, nuclear energy, evolution, plate tectonics, quantum mechanics, cells, etc, and none of these theories require or allow for an untestable, unfalsifiable, unobservable fiddler of the nobs.
Why do you feel we need this fiddler in Evolutionary Biology?
Dear Darron,
Thanks for your comment. It is thoughtfully written
Let me make it plain. I am no scientist, therefore will not speak as one in response to your question. At any rate, here’s what I think:
I believe that the Intelligent Design theory deserves an equal place in our public schools science curriculum as Darwin’s evolutionary theory does. The problem arises when we embrace wholly one theory that we say explain the formation of the universe and the beginning of all things that exist, on the other hand, we discrimate against other possible alternative (s) such as the Intelligent Design Theory. In fact, we call the latter “unscientifically plausbile,” “science fiction,” and “unintelligently conceivable.”
Intelligent design theorists and their method should be equally measured, evaluated, and studied and taught to our students in our public schools and universities. If we wish to develop critical thinkers in this country to the benefit of all people, this is where we should begin. All we are asking is an equal hearing in the public sphere!
Thanks Darron for stopping by. Come again.
Many blessings to you,
Lou
Hey Lou, hope you’re having a good day!
I fully agree that critical thinking is tantamount to our success in all aspects of life. Let me clear up something first: Evolutionary Theory does not speak to the formation of the universe or even the beginning of life. This is a common misconception by most people (even my mom!). In a nutshell, Evolutionary Theory explains how species change over time. It doesn’t make any claims for how life started or how the universe started. It simply explains how species evolve into other species over periods of time based on environmental pressures.
The beginning of life from non-life is referred to as abiogenesis, and science fully admits that we do not have a working scientific theory explaining this process yet.
The theory explaining the begining of the universe is the familiar Big Bang Theory, and we have much physical evidence for this ancient cosmic explosion. You can actually see the dim afterglow from the explosion by turning your TV or radio to a station with no signal and watching or listening to the static. Some of that static that you see or hear is radition from the big bang explosion that happened 13.73 billion years ago! Amazing stuff huh?
Now, to your point about Intelligent design theorists being equally measured, evaluated, and studied, I couldn’t agree more. All that scientists ask is that you provide emphirical evidence that other scientists can look at and test. Peer review is one of the most important parts of the scientific method! Unfortunately, proponents of ID have not come forward with physical evidence to support their claims. Trust me, if they did provide evidence science would jump on it like crazy because it would be the discovery of a lifetime and the people who presented the evidence would win the Nobel prize!
Please don’t take my next statement as being condescending, but the major proponents of ID are taking advantage of the fact that most people, like you, do not have a deep understanding of science. If you don’t understand what is being presented it is easy for movies like Expelled to make their case based on appeals to people’s emotions rather than fact. A case in point would be how the movie tries to link Evolution to Nazism. It may or may not be the case that the Nazis killed people because of the influence of the the idea of Evolution via Natural Selection. However, that doesn’t speak to the factuality of the Theory of Evolution. It just plays on your emotions and makes you want to equate evolution with some heinous act.
The same thing could be said for atomic theory. You can easily equate the use of nuclear theory with the bombing of Japan with nuclear weapons. It doesn’t make the scientific theory that was used to make the bombs incorrect though. It just makes the actions performed with our knowledge bad.
Please have a quick view of this video by Evolutionary Biologist (and Christian) Ken Miller talking about ID and let me know what you think!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO5us0qHcwc
Cheers!
Darron,
I am going to link Miller’s explaination of the scientific process video here. I will respond to your comment shortly.
I’ll talk to you soon.
Regards,
Lou
Heylighen explains the “evolutionary theory,” in the following terms, “We see evolution as based on the trial-and-error process of variation and natural selection of systems at all levels of complexity. The name of ‘natural selection’ comes from the Darwinian theory of biological evolution, which distinguishes “natural” selection from “artificial” selection, where specific features are retained or eliminated depending on a goal or intention (e.g. the objective of a cattle breeder who would like to have cows that produce more milk). The “implicit goal” of natural selection is maintenance or reproduction of a configuration at some level of abstraction. The selection is natural in the sense that there is no actor or purposive system making the selection. The selection we are discussing is purely automatic or spontaneous, without plan or design involved.” (Francis Heylighen is a research professor at the Free University of Brussels (VUB), and director of the transdisciplinary research group on “Evolution, Complexity and Cognition).
According to Darwin’s teaching (macroevolution), all life forms (including human beings) are “related through descent from some unknown prototype that lived in the remote past.” In respect to humans, we have the same ancestor as apes.
Evolutionary theory includes various branches of science such as biology. Evolutionary biologists such as Jean Baptiste Lamarck, and Charles Darwin( and a host of others) held that life , as many modern scientists would say, evolves.
Am I making any sense here? Again I am no scientist but would love to be informed and enlightened. But I have two basic questions to ask you:
1. Are you familiar with the works of Jonathan Wells, Robin Collins, Guillermo Gonzales, Stephen C. Meyer, Kurt P. Wise?
2. Wouldn’t you agree that the theory of evolution has more than a scientific agenda behind it?
I look forward to reading what you have to say .
Blessings,
Lou
Hey Lou,
I agree with Heylighen’s definition of Evolutionary Theory. Though I would add to this statement:
“The selection we are discussing is purely automatic or spontaneous, without plan or design involved.”
I would add that selection is BASED ON environmental pressures. For example, a climate change to colder weather might trigger a mass die-off of certain types of short-haired mammals (cats/dogs/etc) which are ill-suited to a cooler climate. Those of the species that remain would have long-hair and fill the environmental niche left by their short-haired cousins. The species would evolve to better survive in their new environment.
The above was just a simplified example for illustrating the idea.
To answer your two questions:
1. I’m familiar with a couple of the names in your list. Robin Collins jumps out at me as I recall reading about his stance on the fine-tuning of the fundamental laws of nature in a cosmology book called “The Whole Shebang” by Tim Ferris. His position stated that the main variables responsible for our universe were so fine tuned and so precise that any deviation from those initial values in any way and you would have a universe where we couldn’t exist. If you made gravity just a tad bit stronger the whole universe would have collapsed back in on itself right after the big bang. If you made gravity just a smidgen weaker the whole universe would have spread out into a thin haze of particles. Galaxies, stars, planets, and people would have never formed. The problem with this stance is that it’s anthropomorphic. That is, it assumes WE exist and hence the universe must exist. When, if fact, the opposite is true: The universe exists, so therefore we exist. If gravity were stronger or weaker at the creation of the universe, we wouldn’t be here having this conversation. We are children of the universe, not the other way around!
And I also recognize Guillermo Gonzales from that list. I read about him recently related to the movie expelled. I’m not sure on the details of his claims, but it seems interesting to me that he would be have anything to do with the current “Expelled” drama as he’s an Astronomer, dealing in an area of science that has nothing to do with Evolutionary Biology. Honestly though, I don’t know enough about him or his story to comment.
I’ve heard the other names, but don’t know any specifics off the top of my head.
To your second question I would say quite honestly that Evolutionary Theory definitely does NOT have anything more than science behind it. And I can actually prove it to you! If you’re VERY bored you can read a good summary of the theory right here on this wiki page. You can search the entire theory and you won’t find any references to god or any kind of political agenda either. It’s all about evidence that supports the theory of evolution via a process of natural selection. It talks about heredity, mutation, sex and recombination, and genetics. It talks about tests that have been done and the evidence that has been gathered. It shows how genes are passed down from generation to generation and how genetic drift occurs. It’s the summary of 150 years of hard work by scientists!
Now, to address what you really meant by your question, I will be as plain and honest as possible:
Yes, I agree that an good percentage of the people who “understand” evolution also dismiss religion. Religion is all about answering those unanswered questions: Where do we come from? What causes lightning? Why are we here? What happens when we die? For thousands of years religion has been the only voice able to answer. Now, in this day of amazing technological advancement, science is able to chime in and offer up some different answers. And that is causing conflict with established belief systems that have been embedded in humanity for millenia.
Well, I’m off to bed! I look forward to your reply! Let me know if you have any question or if I haven’t been clear on something! Cheers!