When he writes, in a bit about ‘Expelled’-
It is a reality of PC liberalism: There is only one credible side to an issue, and any dissent is not only rejected, it is scorned. Global warming. Gay “rights.” Abortion “rights.” On these and so many other issues there is enlightenment, and then there is the Idiotic Other Side. PC liberalism’s power centers are the news media, the entertainment industry and academia, and all are in the clutches of an unmistakable hypocrisy: Theirs is an ideology that preaches the freedom of thought and expression at every opportunity, yet practices absolute intolerance toward dissension.
No matter how you slice it, that’s just a fact, Jack.
He continues
Evolution is another one of those one-sided debates. We know the concept of Intelligent Design is stifled in academic circles. An entire documentary to state the obvious? You can see my reluctance to view it. I went into the screening bored. I came out of it stunned. Ben Stein’s extraordinary presentation documents how the worlds of science and academia not only crush debate on the origins of life, but also crush the careers of professors who dare to question the Darwinian hypothesis of evolution and natural selection.
I’ve not seen the movie. I don’t care to. It’s not a topic that interests me, and as I’ve said before, I think “Intelligent Design” is cowardice. If you believe God created the heavens and the earth just say so. Don’t hide behind the slick cover of attempting to appear ’scientific’ in a dialogue that doesn’t make sense. What interests me here is the simple, observable, and therefore ’scientific’ fact that all the banter on the biblioblogs these days damning Stein all take the same tack, don’t they? Tolerance and dissension are only offered to those with whom so many find themselves in agreement. Disagree, and lo and behold, prepare to be mocked and derided. It’s inevitable.
So much, then, for the vaunted and frequently claimed ’scientific openness’. It doesn’t exist. Science is as closed a system as 15th century Catholic Dogmatism ever was- with as little interest in dissent or contrary viepoints.
UPDATE: Drew has understood my point better than any other here.
UPDATE II: There’s another review on the side of ‘Expelled’ here. I’m posting such so that those really interested can hear both sides instead of just one. You know, in the spirit of the authentic ’scientific’ search for truth.
No, Jim he doesn’t have a point. Not unless you concede it is also “one-sided” not to talk about the tooth-fairy in theology.
By: Doug Chaplin on April 19, 2008
at 5:34 pm
“There is only one credible side to an issue, and any dissent is not only rejected, it is scorned.”
Of course it’s scorned; this is politics, where everyone scorns everyone else. I’ve seen the things conservatives say about liberals.
As for kicking creationists out of biology posts in university, what else would you do? One can hardly have alchemists teaching chemistry, or astrologers teaching astronomy.
And it’s hard not to scorn opponents who are so dishonest. Quote from the article: “Another [evolutionist] declares that life was brought to Earth by aliens.”
Nobody declared anything of the sort, of course. Dawkins was asked, hypothetically, what it might mean for Intelligent Design to be true, and that was his reply. But this becomes “Dawkins believes aliens created life on Earth!” Dishonesty, such dishonesty. I scorn it. How intolerant of me.
By: George Ortega on April 19, 2008
at 5:54 pm
Like I said, I don’t really care about the issue- but it is fascinating that as soon as objections are raised to the tyranny of science there’s a huge and outlandish reaction.
By: Jim on April 19, 2008
at 6:10 pm
Dissent is welcomed. You just need credible evidence. You are right with the assertion that Christianity is rooted in faith, not empirical validation. For those who do not think that scientific openness exists, I would recommend the work of Kuhn or of Popper. More folks should interact with Polkinghorne, Torrance and Ken Miller as well. They make very clear arguments in the context of the openness of the scientific process and in the distinction of science and faith among the latter authors I reference.
“We know the concept of Intelligent Design is stifled in academic circles.”
Not in all academic circles. The problem is that proponents are trying to wedge it into science curricula. It simply does not meet the demands of the method. You cannot test the hypothesis (it’s no way a scientific theory as much as Doug’s reference to the tooth fairy could be) and that why it is not scientific. However, I think it makes a great deal of sense to discuss the idea in philosophical and religious courses – and it should be if for nothing else than to teach students what science is and what philosophy is and why they are not the same thing anymore.
I also appreciate the work of Luke Timothy Johnson in this regard as he makes a firm distinction between the Jesus we can know through history and the Jesus we come to know through faith in a living Lord. ID collapses that distinction and makes a mess out of the scientific process and the process of coming to know Jesus in faith.
By: Drew on April 19, 2008
at 10:30 pm
[...] Jim West and Claude Mariottini link to the same review of Expelled. Both seem persuaded by the fundamental [...]
By: Your enemy’s enemy is not your friend » MetaCatholic on April 20, 2008
at 7:51 am
[...] think he is striking the same chord that Jim West plucks as well regarding the debates over intelligent design. There the assertions of ID are not the [...]
By: The Pope on Scripture and Tradition · Notes From Off-Center on April 20, 2008
at 8:02 am
Does science have to be open to superstition in order to remain “scientific?” There is not a single shred of evidence to support the concept of intelligent design. It is a fall back position for those who cannot grasp evolutionary processes or, worse, those whose predisposition to religion prevents them from seeing any other possibility.
Creationists and their fellow travellers in the ID movement have created a dichotomy wherein they think that all they have to do is poke holes in “evolution” and that will somehow be sufficient to “prove” creationism. No. Evolution is a fact. There are museums full of evidence for it. What is at issue are the mechanisms of evolution and if, (mind you “if”) evolutionary mechanics are totally wrong all that means is that we do not understand how it happened. It does not mean that creationism becomes “true” by default.
American schools and students are in enough trouble without forcing teachers to spend part of their limited instructional time by referencing early Iron Age fables masquerading as “science.”
By: Bob Schillaci on April 20, 2008
at 1:28 pm
Um…Dr. Jim…might you edit that to remove the magical smilie that appeared?
By: Bob Schillaci on April 20, 2008
at 1:29 pm
Nah, I think it adds to it… everyone can use a smile.
By: Jim on April 20, 2008
at 1:31 pm