That theory won’t hold water…

Here’s one of the more creative, over-reaching attempts at framing (aka spinning):

“Stein employs the common dodge of enumerating all the admittedly unanswered questions in evolutionary theory and using this to refute the whole idea. But all scientific knowledge is built this way. A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can’t therefore argue that the net doesn’t exist. Just ask the fish” (Jeffrey Kluger, “Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin“, TIME magazine, Thursday, Apr. 10, 2008).

Kluger doesn’t say very much in this very brief dismissal of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, but does say just enough to embarrass himself.

Speaking of embarrassing themselves, the National Center for Science Education is doing it’s part, putting up an anti-Expelled site called Expelled Exposed. They’re obviously afraid, of this movie which, as they say, “is not a documentary at all, but anti-science propaganda aimed at creating the appearance of controversy where there is none.” There is no spoon. Apparently the NCSE is now resorting to postmodernism to make their case. The current mantras for scientism appears to be “we aren’t trying to hold water, we’re just catching fish” and “there is no controversy.” Now, sit in the lotus position and chant… What is ironic is that their website only lends credibility to the claims of Expelled, which is focused on the suppression of free thought with regard to Darwinism and Intelligent Design. One reviewer’s impression coming away from the movie was that the science community was “scared to death of God.” Of course, this doesn’t apply to all of science, but I think this is correct with respect to scientism (the worldview that only that which is known through science is valid or real).

Remember, the movie isn’t even out yet. The real fireworks will start Friday… which reminds me, I should probably get my ticket now. I’ll write my own fair and balanced review after I’ve seen it.

4 thoughts on “That theory won’t hold water…”

  1. They are not afraid of what is in the movie, but they are worried that people such as yourself will continue to be hoodwinked that the producers are voicing a valid complaint.

    No one is afraid of Ben Stein, no one is afraid of David Berlinski. They are worried that people will continue to think that science turns religious people atheist and so we have to equate it with a worldview that leads simultaneously to communism and nazism. They are worried that people will continue to devalue science because it interferes with their perception that religion is valid as an objective method of figuring out the natural world.

    The whole Expelled enterprise is pretending to be facing schoolyard bullies when it is in fact they who want to change science to fit a supernaturalistic worldview. What the NSCE wrote has nothing to do with postmodernism. Postmodernism is the vacuouos notion that anything can be called science or philosophy if we want it to be.

    The review you refer to in “American Thinker” is wallowing in self-pity that science is exclusive of supernatural entity and makes the stupid false claim that by not allowing the ID’ers to pretend that what they do is science. You actaully Liked that review?

    And you accuse me of preconceptions. You are again providing only 1 of the three things listed in your banner.

  2. I wasn’t referring to the fishnet, but to another statement he makes to counter the premise that a living cell was too complex to have arisen without help: The answer is it couldn’t–and it didn’t. Organic chemicals needed eons of stirring and slow cooking before they could produce compounds that could begin to lead to a living thing. Not that Time is the most scientifically sophisticated magazine around, but seriously…

    The best review I’ve seen so far of Expelled is from the American Thinker (yes, it’s a conservative site, but it seemed a pretty thoughtful review).

  3. “Kluger doesn’t say very much in this very brief dismissal of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, but does say just enough to embarrass himself.”

    Please explain why you think Kluger’s “fish net” argument is an embarrassment to him. Is it just a bad analogy or are you taking issue with his underlying assumption?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *