With the nearing of the release of the movie, "Expelled", the web riots against it increase every day. Now the opponents are leaning more toward ridicule, comparing Ben Stein's movie to the "stork brings babies" fairy tale, and other nonsense analogies.
Now I am no fan of Intelligent Design as science. It fails all the tests of being empirically feasible. To say that design is shown by certain characteristics of biological development is an unsupportable inference. And logically speaking, no extra-natural or non-material being or existence should ever be expected to be found in a purely material environment. So ID fails the test of being science worthy.
However, the use of ridicule is ineffective to make this point. Ridicule is the tool of bullies and fools. And that is part of the point that Stein is trying to make: the anti-ID crowd seems to feel it necessary to bully its points into the doctrine of biological science. This makes it appear that biological science actually has no rational strength on a factual basis to support it. So it must bully those who disagree that it is "fact". The ridicule actually makes Stein's point for him.
And it is easy to show that materialism as a tool of empiricism is also part and parcel of the worldview of many, probably most, of the opponents of ID. That makes for a poor case against it, too. Most Americans are spiritual creatures, as polls show time and again. To be hammered by atheists who want their personal worldview to dominate, is seen as threat - because that's what it is. Bullying and ridicule will backfire on the materialists, who are appearing to be fools, regardless of the correctness of their position.
7 comments:
Samuel Skinner
Well, that is too bad for "most Americans". They happen to be wrong. Materialism happens to be correct.
The reason people are ridiculing the movie is because it makes unbelievably stupid claims- evolution lead to the Holocaust, the scientific community seeks to repress "the truth"- you can find more information on review of the movie. I got that just from the synopsis.
It is like... offering intelligent criticism of "Plan 9 from outer space". You can do that, but it is so ridiculously bad that it is sort of pointless. Only an idiot would think it is a good film. The same goes for Expelled.
Beelz say,
Oddly I just checked out P9FOS from the library and have it upstairs. "Ed Wood" was a good movie though.
Haven't seen "Expelled," but can say that ridicule is what happens after intelligent discourse breaks down. It's like that annoying tone your phone emits telling you that it's off the hook. From what I've heard, Expelled needs to hang the phone back up before redialing. If it included valid points (as you do, Stan) it would be an interesting challenge.
The issue of the historical connection between Darwin and the holocaust is made clear in the following books, written by historians of repute:
1. The Origins of Nazi Genocide; H. Friedlander (historian, CUNY)
2. The mismeasure of Man; S.J. Gould (Evolutionary biologist, Harvard)
3. From Darwin to Hitler; R. Weikart(Cal State U).
4. In the Name of Euginics; D.J. Kevles (Yale).
Denying the connection is a position of ignorance of the historical facts, and cannot be substantiated. Denial is from a worldview, not from facts.
Philosophical Materialism is self-refuting. It is a philosophy on a collision course with itself. Here's why. Philosophy is not a material entity. It is a concept, without length, width, height, weight. It is composed of no mass, no energy.
So the Philosphy of Materialism is, itself, not material.
Since Philosophical Materialism denies that non-material entities exist, it therefore denies the existence of philosophy, including itself.
Denial of the existence of self is a paradox. It is non-rational and illogical.
Philosophical Materialism is not a viable philosophy.
On the other hand, FUNCTIONAL Materialism is not only viable, it is required for empiricism. It is a voluntary restriction that empiricism places on its own functions, and has no opinion on metaphysical existences, other than that they cannot be tested materially, because they are not material.
Functional materialism should never be confused with Philosophical Materialism. Just using the word "materialism" is insufficient to make a point; it must be qualified to show which sense is meant.
Transplante de Cabelo,
Thanks for encouraging comments, I will, indeed visit your blog,
and hugs to you, too!
Beelz
"Philosophy is not a material entity."
I don't think I agree here. It's quite possible that philosophy is merely in our minds (neurons) and in our books, and nowhere else.
A book is a dead tree with symbols. The symbols are material; the meaning of the symbols is not material.
If meaning were material, then translations of ancient hieroglyphs would not be necessary. Meaning could be transferred without the need for symbols to convey it. Material meaning could be handed out to students, as my teachers used to say, in pill form.
But meaning is not material, and neither is philosophy, which is pure meaning. There is no such thing as a bucket full of philosophy... or a jar full of meaning (as someone said not long ago).
The fight to redifine everything as material is a fight against the obvious.
Post a Comment