Science equals murder

That comment of Stein can be easily explained.

Thanks to Richard Dawkins' misuse of language, people have started to use the word "science" when they really mean "atheistic worldview". The debate between atheists and theists is not a debate between science and religion, as Dawkins would have us believe, but a debate between two worldviews, both of which appeal to science, and both of which count scientists among their adherents.

Stein should have known better, but I think by "science" he really meant "atheistic worldview". So he is saying that the atheistic worldview leads to killing. This is not completely implausible after a century which witnessed the mass murders of communism.

Stein should have known better, but I think by “science” he really meant “atheistic worldview”. So he is saying that the atheistic worldview leads to killing. This is not completely implausible after a century which witnessed the mass murders of communism.

While the big about Jeremiah Wright is a bit of red herring (as he would indeed greatly elevate the conversation in his call to justice and treating the poor and disenfranchised equally and with kindness), this is indeed an astonishing quote. I particularly liked the illumination that "the last time my relatives heard a scientist telling them what to do". Evidently Stein's understanding of science is not individual, but rather a familial trait going back generations. It helps us understand the man better, and how he came to be this way- the only experience his entire family has had with science (or at least, the only experience they remember) is the Holocaust. There has been, evidently, no other time in the lives of any of his family where a scientist has told them to do something, and no time when that has been positive. (I leave aside that the scientist are more making suggestions than giving orders usually.) To take Stein at his word, his family must therefore be true troglodytes, and worthy of scientific investigation. How else could multiple members of a family spend their entire lives with only the one (negative) experience with science and scientists?

Of course, it is entirely appropriate to paint with one brush all scientists with the actions of the very small minority of scientists who acted atrotiously in the Holocaust. We find it often true that a bad minority of a group reveals the thoughts and actions of the entire group.

I wonder where Stein learned to do that?

Richard,

Stein is nothing if not articulate. If he had meant to say "atheistic worldview" he would have said "atheistic worldview." He did not. Your explanation doesn't hold water.

Richard Kilgore said: That comment of Stein can be easily explained. Thanks to Richard Dawkins' misuse of language, people have started to use the word "science" when they really mean "atheistic worldview".

Whhere is the piece I posted here which explained Ben Stein's comment?

No, Mr. Kilgore, semantic manipulations can't change the simple fact: Stein said unequivocally that science leads to murder. Moreover, he has the gall to assert that it were scentists who sent Jews to the ovens of Aushwitz. This is a despicable mendacious slander of scientists and a shameful disrespect of the memory of the Holocaust's victims, among whom were many scientists.

Regarding your statement that atheism causes murder, what about murders committed in the name of religious faith?
Since I have a first hand experience of the Soviet system, I think I am better qualified to pronounce a judgement on the murders at the hand of communists. They killed for religious reasons: their Gods were Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. Marx, Lenin, and Stalin were officially proclaimed faultlessly benevolent and perfectly correct in every respect, thus possessing super-human perfection only gods may have.

Murders in the name of science have never occurred anywhere on this planet, mass murders in the name of religion, either Christian, Mohammeddan, or Communist, have been quite common.

Dean,

Stein is an actor, and celebrity. He is not a scientist or philosopher, and so attributing to him a verbal confusion of this kind seems eminently plausible to me.

Stein Trinity Broadcasting Network: Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [i.e. biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you. Crouch: That’s right. Stein: …Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people. Crouch: Good word, good word.

Joseph Goebbels Nazi Propaganda Minister: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

Richard Head said: That comment of Stein can be easily explained. Thanks to Richard Dawkins' misuse of language, people have started to use the word "science" when they really mean "atheistic worldview". The debate between atheists and theists is not a debate between science and religion, as Dawkins would have us believe, but a debate between two worldviews, both of which appeal to science, and both of which count scientists among their adherents. Stein should have known better, but I think by "science" he really meant "atheistic worldview". So he is saying that the atheistic worldview leads to killing. This is not completely implausible after a century which witnessed the mass murders of communism.

Mr.KIlgore, your comment is right there where it was posted - at the top of the comment section. No comments have been deleted in this thread.

Kilgore the lying troll: Stein is an actor, and celebrity.

Richard,

You are so right. Here's another guy who was completely misunderstood:

And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord.

I'm sure he didn't mean kill anyone, that's such an exaggeration!

Mark Perakh said: Mr.KIlgore, your comment is right there where it was posted - at the top of the comment section. No comments have been deleted in this thread.

Mark Perakh said: Mr.KIlgore, your comment is right there where it was posted - at the top of the comment section. No comments have been deleted in this thread.

raven said:

Kilgore the lying troll: Stein is an actor, and celebrity.

. Stein also has a law degree from Yale. He was first in his law school class. He is not that stupid. That you presume to know what is going on in Stein's head is wrong. You are just lying and making excuses for an evil, little man. Stein knew what he meant, knows it is false, and doesn't care. Goebbels' strategy never goes out of fashion. Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Richard Kilgore use it on automatic pilot. It's a fundie creo thing.

phantomreader42 said: So, Dick Head, your defense of Stein is that he's too fucking STUPID to know what words mean? He's so completely brain-dead he doesn't even know what science is? The best thing you could come up with to defend this nutcase is that he's too stupid to understand the words he's using, and he's actually falsely accusing a DIFFERENT group of mass murder, so it's okay? Is that your final answer?

Richard Head said: That comment of Stein can be easily explained. Thanks to Richard Dawkins' misuse of language, people have started to use the word "science" when they really mean "atheistic worldview". The debate between atheists and theists is not a debate between science and religion, as Dawkins would have us believe, but a debate between two worldviews, both of which appeal to science, and both of which count scientists among their adherents. Stein should have known better, but I think by "science" he really meant "atheistic worldview". So he is saying that the atheistic worldview leads to killing. This is not completely implausible after a century which witnessed the mass murders of communism.

Richard Kilgore said: Thank you Mr. Perakh. For some reason I do not always see the comments when I come to this or other threads (but if I keep trying they come up). That is why I asked my question. I appreciate that none of my comments have been deleted, despite the fact that they will be seen as provocative by many people here. My intention is not to provoke anyone, but to state things as I see them.

Richard Head said: I know he has a law degree from Yale. But that was a long time ago, and recently he has been doing things like hosting "Win Ben Stein's Money": not exactly intellectual, is it? He is, as of now and as far as I am aware, an actor and a celebrity. I do not deny that he is smart, but even smart people fall victim to conceptual confusions: just look at the history of Western philosophy for some examples. This is what I honestly suspect happened here (and no, I do not claim to be able to read his mind). I have noticed for a long time that people tend to use the word "science" when they really mean "atheistic worldview". It is a result of atheist propaganda.

raven said:

Kilgore the lying troll: Stein is an actor, and celebrity.

. Stein also has a law degree from Yale. He was first in his law school class. He is not that stupid. That you presume to know what is going on in Stein's head is wrong. You are just lying and making excuses for an evil, little man. Stein knew what he meant, knows it is false, and doesn't care. Goebbels' strategy never goes out of fashion. Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Richard Kilgore use it on automatic pilot. It's a fundie creo thing.

I have noticed for a long time that people tend to use the word “science” when they really mean “atheistic worldview”. It is a result of atheist propaganda.

— Richard Kilgore

I'm dealing with a this elsewhere.

Quoting the person who posted this in the Evolution of a smear job post:

Looks like once again, the Expelled-haters are cherry-picking statements out of context. The video is heavily edited to the point of worthlessness. I've viewed the full version of the interview on tbn.org. In context, it's obvious that he's means that if you treat science as the end-all and be-all of everything - that is, if you have no objective moral source apart from it - it will lead to killing people.

Kind of like religion? You people do not have an "objective moral source", as this other argument here shows. (You're defending killing babies, when your god commands it, I'm against it).

An "objective standard" for morality would not need a person who practices it to switch their views so drastically like you and your fellow religionists have. It's wrong to kill babies --> it's ok to kill babies if god orders it.

Besides, what kind of strictures against letting science become the "end-all and be-all" of everything would Stein advocate? Would he advocate putting those same strictures in place against religion?

After all, how many people have been killed in the name of religion throughout history, based on the commands of their various holy books? "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", etc?

That's talked a little about here.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/05/science-equals.html#comment-153362

Nigel D said: Hmm, it appears that you posted two comments while I was composing.

I have noticed for a long time that people tend to use the word “science” when they really mean “atheistic worldview”. It is a result of atheist propaganda.

— Richard Kilgore

Since this is the crux of your argument, you will need to back it up with citations. If Dawkins frequently conflates science with his athestic world view (something, incidentally, that I am not at all sure he has ever done), you will need to demonstrate that this is so. Since this conflation is, according to you, atheistic propaganda, you will need to back up this assertion with factual references. If you cannot do this, then the crux of your argument is mere speculation, and thus your whole line of reasoning collapses. If you choose not to do this, then you are being intellectually dishonest, just like Ben Stein (the Expelled trailer on his website demonstrates that [a] he is "ignorant" of the science of evolution, and [b] that he is "ignorant" of the claims of the Discovery Institute).

So, Richard... all the Christians, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists et al, who are scientists... are atheists?

So... everyone is adopting the Official Richard Dawkins Dictionary, are they?

Scientists are people who do science. You know the, actual work of discovering how things work. Not number-juggling, Aristotlean mind-wanking, and just plain lying like your heroes.

Some people who do the work are religious, some aren't. Get a clue, please.

Kilgore,

Quite of few of those monsters in uniform who herded the oppressed into gas chambers were flaming red believers and churchgoers - you remember the inscription on the standard issue belt buckle right?

fnxtr said: So, Richard... all the Christians, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists et al, who are scientists... are atheists? So... everyone is adopting the Official Richard Dawkins Dictionary, are they? Scientists are people who do science. You know the, actual work of discovering how things work. Not number-juggling, Aristotlean mind-wanking, and just plain lying like your heroes. Some people who do the work are religious, some aren't. Get a clue, please.

phantomreader42 said: So, here's Dick Head's updated defense of Stein: 1. He doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. 2. Starring in a game show makes you stupid, and absolves you of any obligation to tell the truth or even make sense. 3. He was actually falsely accusing ATHEISTS of mass murder, there's nothing wrong with THAT, it's not like there's a rule against bearing false witness or anything. 4. This is all part of a vast atheist conspiracy to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids!111one11!!!11eleven!!! 5. It's all Dawkins' fault! Stop picking on god's new prophet Ben Stein!

Richard Head said: I know he has a law degree from Yale. But that was a long time ago, and recently he has been doing things like hosting "Win Ben Stein's Money": not exactly intellectual, is it? He is, as of now and as far as I am aware, an actor and a celebrity. I do not deny that he is smart, but even smart people fall victim to conceptual confusions: just look at the history of Western philosophy for some examples. This is what I honestly suspect happened here (and no, I do not claim to be able to read his mind). I have noticed for a long time that people tend to use the word "science" when they really mean "atheistic worldview". It is a result of atheist propaganda.

raven said:

Kilgore the lying troll: Stein is an actor, and celebrity.

. Stein also has a law degree from Yale. He was first in his law school class. He is not that stupid. That you presume to know what is going on in Stein's head is wrong. You are just lying and making excuses for an evil, little man. Stein knew what he meant, knows it is false, and doesn't care. Goebbels' strategy never goes out of fashion. Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Richard Kilgore use it on automatic pilot. It's a fundie creo thing.

Richard Head said: LOL! You are a funny guy, phantomreader42. I think you should be working for Comedy Central, right alongside Ben Stein.

phantomreader42 said: So, here's Dick Head's updated defense of Stein: 1. He doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. 2. Starring in a game show makes you stupid, and absolves you of any obligation to tell the truth or even make sense. 3. He was actually falsely accusing ATHEISTS of mass murder, there's nothing wrong with THAT, it's not like there's a rule against bearing false witness or anything. 4. This is all part of a vast atheist conspiracy to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids!111one11!!!11eleven!!! 5. It's all Dawkins' fault! Stop picking on god's new prophet Ben Stein!

Richard Head said: I know he has a law degree from Yale. But that was a long time ago, and recently he has been doing things like hosting "Win Ben Stein's Money": not exactly intellectual, is it? He is, as of now and as far as I am aware, an actor and a celebrity. I do not deny that he is smart, but even smart people fall victim to conceptual confusions: just look at the history of Western philosophy for some examples. This is what I honestly suspect happened here (and no, I do not claim to be able to read his mind). I have noticed for a long time that people tend to use the word "science" when they really mean "atheistic worldview". It is a result of atheist propaganda.

raven said:

Kilgore the lying troll: Stein is an actor, and celebrity.

. Stein also has a law degree from Yale. He was first in his law school class. He is not that stupid. That you presume to know what is going on in Stein's head is wrong. You are just lying and making excuses for an evil, little man. Stein knew what he meant, knows it is false, and doesn't care. Goebbels' strategy never goes out of fashion. Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Richard Kilgore use it on automatic pilot. It's a fundie creo thing.

I have noticed enough people doing the asme thing - mistaking atheism and science- to believe that part of the comment is true. But going further to suggest that this makes it OK to libel atheists, or that it makes anything Stein has said true, is total nonsense. Yes, Stalin was atheist; the Inquisition was not. It doesn't matter what form of religion the perpetrators of evil practice, they are evil because they are evil by their OWN nature, not the nature of their beliefs. Trying to give Stein a passing grade because you want to redifine one of the words he uses doesn't work.

Richard Kilgore said: LOL! You are a funny guy, phantomreader42. I think you should be working for Comedy Central, right alongside Ben Stein.

Reynold Hall said: I'm dealing with a this elsewhere. Quoting the person who posted this in the Evolution of a smear job post: Looks like once again, the Expelled-haters are cherry-picking statements out of context. The video is heavily edited to the point of worthlessness. I've viewed the full version of the interview on tbn.org. In context, it's obvious that he's means that if you treat science as the end-all and be-all of everything - that is, if you have no objective moral source apart from it - it will lead to killing people. Kind of like religion? You people do not have an "objective moral source", as this other argument here shows. (You're defending killing babies, when your god commands it, I'm against it). An "objective standard" for morality would not need a person who practices it to switch their views so drastically like you and your fellow religionists have. It's wrong to kill babies --> it's ok to kill babies if god orders it. Besides, what kind of strictures against letting science become the "end-all and be-all" of everything would Stein advocate? Would he advocate putting those same strictures in place against religion? After all, how many people have been killed in the name of religion throughout history, based on the commands of their various holy books? "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", etc? That's talked a little about here. http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/05/science-equals.html#comment-153362

Okay Richard, all who said what arguments aside: do you think that an atheistic worldview leads to people being killed?

AND does an atheistic world view lead to more people being killed than a religious worldview?

Please answer 'cause some people are dying to know.

Oh, he makes me want to hurl all right.
At him might make it less unpleasant though...

Richard Kilgore -

I honestly think that your hypocrisy is the worst that I have seen from any creationist.

I'm neither Jewish nor a self-defined atheist. Nevertheless, I want to echo Mark Perach in expressing how deeply offensive and despicable Stein's comments about the holocaust were. By extension, your flippant defense of them is at least equally despicable.

As Perach pointed out, many victims of the holocaust were scientists. Not only that, but many, many scientists fled Nazi Germany. I am not specifically claiming that scientists were disproportionately less likely to adopt Nazi ideology. There is some evidence that they were, despite many examples of enthusiastic Nazi scientists, but that is not even relevant. To blame the holocaust on science or scientists is truly offensive and bizarre.

The false claim that "atheism" leads to killing is also offensive, but, for all your childish foot-stamping, nothing you have said changes the fact that Stein spoke of "science", not "atheism".

The significant characteristics of the people who were responsible for the holocaust were that they were authoritarians who did not respect individual human rights. In this way, they were quite similar to most US creationists.

ellazimm said: Okay Richard, all who said what arguments aside: do you think that an atheistic worldview leads to people being killed? AND does an atheistic world view lead to more people being killed than a religious worldview? Please answer 'cause some people are dying to know.

harold said: Richard Kilgore - I honestly think that your hypocrisy is the worst that I have seen from any creationist. I'm neither Jewish nor a self-defined atheist. Nevertheless, I want to echo Mark Perach in expressing how deeply offensive and despicable Stein's comments about the holocaust were. By extension, your flippant defense of them is at least equally despicable. As Perach pointed out, many victims of the holocaust were scientists. Not only that, but many, many scientists fled Nazi Germany. I am not specifically claiming that scientists were disproportionately less likely to adopt Nazi ideology. There is some evidence that they were, despite many examples of enthusiastic Nazi scientists, but that is not even relevant. To blame the holocaust on science or scientists is truly offensive and bizarre. The false claim that "atheism" leads to killing is also offensive, but, for all your childish foot-stamping, nothing you have said changes the fact that Stein spoke of "science", not "atheism". The significant characteristics of the people who were responsible for the holocaust were that they were authoritarians who did not respect individual human rights. In this way, they were quite similar to most US creationists.

When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [i.e. biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed ... that was horrifying beyond words, and that's where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that's where science leads you.

Jason has seen the interview it seems, and his defense of that "brave man" is just as stupid as what I've seen elsewhere.

Is it "brave" to go and lie and slander people in public like Ben Stein's doing? If so, then yes, he is brave.

From what I've seen, he's B.S. artist. To blame or even implicate evolutionary biological theory with the holocaust is pure bull. It ignores centuries of xian anti-semitism and puts a false relationship between evolution and anti-semitism.

Long story short, I deal with that claim more in detail here. I'm too lazy to copy and paste.

I like the blogger's response.

I never thought that all scientists were mere blind followers of Dawkins. Or that Dawkins had that much power over all science. Mr. Kilgore the only one conflating atheism with science is you and a very crude attempt at that. Do not pretend to speak for people you don't know or defend that what is plainly to all to see undefensible.

It is occasionally useful to remind folks of the distinction between religion and theism. There are non-theistic religions.

One of the most influential of these in the prior century was Marxism-Leninism and its various descendent cults and sects. It is a fully-fledged religion, in that it has a body of doctrine established by authority, a comprehensive explanatory worldview, and in the way it has been implemented in many locales, a complete set of rituals, festivals, regular meetings and stirring hymns. "Koba" Djugashvili learned a lot while he was an Orthodox seminarian.

The Soviet Union was not anti-religious. It was anti-other-religions. The social function of the Orthodox Church in the Tsar's regime was taken over by the CPSU.

In the same way, in the DPRK, The Juche Idea of The Great Leader, Marshal Kim Il Sung, provides a doctrinal core for the society (although few residents of the DPRK actually understand it).

Meanwhile, I note with regret that few countries nowadays are free from the terror of Atheist militias and death squads.

Richard Kilgore said: However, I do not think most atheists think seriously about the consequences of their atheism. Most atheists blindly follow a system of morality that is itself evolved out of Judaeo-Christian morality, and has many of the same values. Most atheists you meet are therefore just as moral as anyone else. But atheists who consistently draw out consequences from atheism, the way Communists did, are likely to be a murderous bunch of people.

Kilgore the liar: I have given what I think is a *plausible* explanation of Stein’s comment, based on the evidence. The point is, w just do not have a basis for the accusations people want to hurl at this brave man. If someone else has seen the whole interview, they may have a better explanation than mine.

Hm. I'm not quite sure how to feel about this debate.

On the one hand, I think the majority of comments have been rather ignorant. Kill-bore's central premise, that Stein 'really' meant 'atheistic world view' is almost certainly true. Clearly, in Stine's mind, science must be opposed to theisms, or how could he contrast them in such a way? He must have at the very least meant, science w/o god, or the two cannot be contrasted. What about theistic 'science', like intelligent design, does that lead to killing people? I am loath to call creationism a form of science, but unequivocally it is in Steins mind. So, yes, Stein would almost certainly agree that the statement "atheistic world view" better represents what he meant than science, and you are mistaken to ignore/mock Kill-Maim-and-Gore's assertion of this.

Now, I think this analysis reveals two interesting things: Stein thinks science leads to an atheistic world view, which, in my mind, means that Stein is really saying "Our universe has no rational/empirical evidence of a god", which, if true, ought to make Stein an atheists, or minimally an agnostic if he were honest.

Secondly, Stein is clearly making the argument that atheists have no moral guidance, and foisting of the Holocaust as some sort of evidence to this of this statement. The abomination that is this statement has been thoroughly discussed, and of course Stein should apologize for such ignorance.

Finally, Mr. Toreador; While I am not a huge fan of Dawkins' technical or popular works, (OK OK, I am a fan of the extended phenotype, I am also a liar, and a much BIGGER fan of Gould.) I do not think it fair to accuse him of confusing the scientific world view with the atheistic world view. His central premises is that science leads us to atheism, since it leaves god with nothing to do. While you do not have to agree that this statement is true, there is certainly nothing wrong it logically, since I think any honest Christian ought to take issue with the premises of his statement, not the validity of the implication. Dawkins is clearly not making logical fallacy. Of course he is not logically infallible, but I think he is generally very clear and concise. If you disagree with him attack his premise, and do not accuse him of being responsible for Stein's ignorance.

Shebardigan said: The Soviet Union was not anti-religious. It was anti-other-religions.

Richard Kilgore said: Hi, Thank you for your questions. Briefly, my view is that if atheists think carefully about the ethical consequences of their atheism, and take those consequences seriously, then atheism will lead to much more killing than theism, other things being equal. However, I do not think most atheists think seriously about the consequences of their atheism. Most atheists blindly follow a system of morality that is itself evolved out of Judaeo-Christian morality, and has many of the same values. Most atheists you meet are therefore just as moral as anyone else. But atheists who consistently draw out consequences from atheism, the way Communists did, are likely to be a murderous bunch of people.

ellazimm said: Okay Richard, all who said what arguments aside: do you think that an atheistic worldview leads to people being killed? AND does an atheistic world view lead to more people being killed than a religious worldview? Please answer 'cause some people are dying to know.

Richard Kilgore said: Hi, Thank you for your questions. Briefly, my view is that if atheists think carefully about the ethical consequences of their atheism, and take those consequences seriously, then atheism will lead to much more killing than theism, other things being equal. However, I do not think most atheists think seriously about the consequences of their atheism. Most atheists blindly follow a system of morality that is itself evolved out of Judaeo-Christian morality, and has many of the same values. Most atheists you meet are therefore just as moral as anyone else. But atheists who consistently draw out consequences from atheism, the way Communists did, are likely to be a murderous bunch of people.

ellazimm said: Okay Richard, all who said what arguments aside: do you think that an atheistic worldview leads to people being killed? AND does an atheistic world view lead to more people being killed than a religious worldview? Please answer 'cause some people are dying to know.

You've got the cart so far before the horse that it can't even see your license plate. 1. "Atheist morality" did NOT "evolve out of judeo-christian morality. Morality is an interplay of culture and ethics, and ethics is a humanistic product, not a religious one. "Judeo-Christian morality", such that it is, as itself evolved so drastically in the last 2000 years that much of it would not even be recognizeable to its earlier practioners. The only portion of morality that remains constant, is the humanistic aspect of ethics, and the rest is driven not by religion, but by the general culture. Western moral-religious attitudes are reflections of the culture they exist withn, not ossified examples for the rest of philosophy to emulate. Religion is not the source of morality, as you claim, but merely another social filter of ethics. Atheism needs no religion to adopt morality from, human ethics are a much more fundamental and encompassing source. 2. You have an implicit assumption about what the "ethical consequences of atheism" consist of, and it is ignorant and wrong. Atheism does not reject ethics. Ethics derives from humanism. Atheists reject the concept of a supernatural power, they do not reject the concept of humanity. Again, your mistaken conflation of theism and morality puts you in waters too deep for you to wade, and you apparently can't swim. 3. As has already been pointed out to you, Communism in its Stalinist/Leninist mode is atheistic in name only. By elevating its leaders to objects of perceived perfection, it appeals to the religiousity inherent in too many weak-minded people. The murderous rampages of Stalin, which so closely parrallel those of Hitler (as well as those of many Christian-led "purges" throughout history) are examples of authority-following religious thinking. It's no mystery that atheists synonymize this title with "Free Thinker". Free thinkers blindly follow no leader, cult or symbol. Does Free Thinking lead to mass murder? Think about it.

Sure wish there was an "edit" option in this damn software!

Me too. I might just delete my whole first post out of puerile spite towards laugh-then-snore.

Richard Kilgore said: Briefly, my view is that if atheists think carefully about the ethical consequences of their atheism, and take those consequences seriously, then atheism will lead to much more killing than theism, other things being equal.

However, I do not think most atheists think seriously about the consequences of their atheism.

Most atheists blindly follow a system of morality that is itself evolved out of Judaeo-Christian morality, and has many of the same values.

Most atheists you meet are therefore just as moral as anyone else. But atheists who consistently draw out consequences from atheism, the way Communists did, are likely to be a murderous bunch of people.

Richard Head said: Hi, Thank you for your questions. Briefly, my view is that if atheists think carefully about the ethical consequences of their atheism, and take those consequences seriously, then atheism will lead to much more killing than theism, other things being equal. However, I do not think most atheists think seriously about the consequences of their atheism. Most atheists blindly follow a system of morality that is itself evolved out of Judaeo-Christian morality, and has many of the same values. Most atheists you meet are therefore just as moral as anyone else. But atheists who consistently draw out consequences from atheism, the way Communists did, are likely to be a murderous bunch of people.

ellazimm said: Okay Richard, all who said what arguments aside: do you think that an atheistic worldview leads to people being killed? AND does an atheistic world view lead to more people being killed than a religious worldview? Please answer 'cause some people are dying to know.

It is an obvious lie that science leads necessarily to murder. It is also an obvious lie that atheism leads necessarily to murder. It is also an obvious lie that Darwin lead necessarily to Hitler and the murder of six million Jews. But, just for the sake of argument, suppose that any or even all of these things were true. What are you going to do about it?

Will you outlaw science? How many people do you think that would kill? Will you outlaw atheism? How can you expect to have any religious freedom in this country if you deny it to others? Will you outlaw Darwin, regardless of whether he was right or not? Since Darwin was right, you are just going to have to live with it, regardless of the consequences. Trying to deny reality will not make it go away.

Now, if you want to wipe out anything that leads to murder, then you should start with religion. If you don't want to wipe out everything that leads to murder, then quite whining that things lead to murder.

How about this, what if Ben's Stein's illogical nonsense inspires someone to go into a biology lab and start shooting? Then it will be Ben who was the cause of murder. Should we wait until that happens, or should we vote now to expell Ben the murderer?

Boy, do I just love that phrase, "the ethical consequences of atheism." Further evidence of the obviously false belief that without a deity to tell us right from wrong, we'd all go around doing terrible things like flying airplanes full of people into buildings full of people. Ya think that just maybe listening to the "wrong" deity might worse than listening to no deity at all? From there it's a much shorter step to realizing that they're all wrong.

How anyone can continue in a post-9/11 world to cling to the delusion that religion is the font of all morality is totally beyond me!

Mr Kilgore,
you said:
"However, I do not think most atheists think seriously about the consequences of their atheism. Most atheists blindly follow a system of morality that is itself evolved out of Judaeo-Christian morality, and has many of the same values. Most atheists you meet are therefore just as moral as anyone else. But atheists who consistently draw out consequences from atheism, the way Communists did, are likely to be a murderous bunch of people."

I'm an atheist. When I became one it took me no time at all to come to a system of personal morality. I take no credit for it - many people have arrived at the same conclusion. My system is: do unto others as you would be done by.
Do you think that principle is a product of "Judaeo-Christian morality"? (and can you show me evidence?) And do you think that I am "murderous" as a result?

How anyone can continue in a post-9/11 world to cling to the delusion that religion is the font of all morality is totally beyond me!

wikipedia:Taiping Rebellion The Taiping Rebellion (or Rebellion of Great Peace) was a large-scale revolt against the authority and forces of the Qing Government in China. It was conducted from 1850 to 1864 by an army and civil administration led by heterodox Christian convert Hong Xiuquan. He established the Heavenly Kingdom of Great Peace (traditional Chinese: 太平天國; simplified Chinese: 太平天国; pinyin: Tàipíng Tiān Guó) with capital Nanjing and attained control of significant parts of southern China, at its height ruling over about 30 million people. The theocratic and militaristic regime instituted several social reforms, including strict separation of the sexes, abolition of foot binding, land socialization, suppression of private trade, and the replacement of Confucianism, Buddhism and Chinese folk religion by a form of Christianity, holding that Hong Xiuquan was the younger brother of Jesus Christ. The Taiping areas were constantly besieged and harassed by Qing forces; the rebellion was eventually put down by the Qing army aided by French and British forces. With an estimated death toll of between 20 and 30 million due to warfare and resulting starvation, this civil war ranks among history's deadliest conflicts.[1][2] Mao Zedong viewed the Taiping as early heroic revolutionaries against a corrupt feudal system. Today, artifacts from the Taiping period can be seen at the Taiping Kingdom History Museum in Nanjing.

Richard Kilgore wrote: However, I do not think most atheists think seriously about the consequences of their atheism. Most atheists blindly follow a system of morality that is itself evolved out of Judaeo-Christian morality, and has many of the same values. Most atheists you meet are therefore just as moral as anyone else. But atheists who consistently draw out consequences from atheism, the way Communists did, are likely to be a murderous bunch of people.

Richard Kilgore said: However, I do not think most atheists think seriously about the consequences of their atheism. Most atheists blindly follow a system of morality that is itself evolved out of Judaeo-Christian morality, and has many of the same values. Most atheists you meet are therefore just as moral as anyone else. But atheists who consistently draw out consequences from atheism, the way Communists did, are likely to be a murderous bunch of people.

In response to some of Richard Kilgore's original comments, I have a few notes:

First, I think that using Dawkins as a reason for Stein's statements is a poor example. Long before Dawkin's made his mark as an atheistic scientist, creationists have tried to make conflate science (particularly evolutionary science) with atheism.

Second, I think it is safe to say that, in blaming "scientists" for the gas chambers, he was not talking about physicists here. He was obviously trying, as he did in the movie, to connect evolutionary theory with Nazism.

Third, I don't believe that his time as a game show host has dulled Stein's intellect and, being in front of a television audience daily, I see it extremely unlikely that he would be lacking in communication skills as a result of it. If anything, his communication skills should have been sharpened, especially in "off the cuff" commentary.

In conclusion, my view is that Stein was pushing the same canard that he did in his movie and, furthermore, was playing up to his audience (the same kind of creationists who would see evolution as equivalent to atheism). Even worse, he lumps all science in with that connection (including those scientists who work on gravitational theory which in no way conflicts with the fundamentalist, literalist view of the Bible).

from the article:

You can see the whole shameful thing here. It's a pity Crouch didn't invite the Rev. Jeremiah Wright into the studio for a three-way conversation. It would have elevated the tone.

I'm getting rather tired of the media missing the obvious hypocrisy of mentioning the foibles of Wright, while conveniently forgetting the foibles of Robertson, Haggard, Falwell, Ham, Hovind, etc. etc.

George Bush appointed 150 graduates of Robertson's "law" college to his administration.

Robertson of course being the one who blamed 9/11 on "liberals" in america.

Richard Kilgore said: Dawkins repeatedly talks of the debate between atheism and theism as a debate between science and religion. The rhetoric of "science versus religion" is central in his writings about religion. Since he is in fact defending atheism, he is effectively conflating science with atheism. I do not see why this needs any citations: it should be obvious to anyone who has read Dawkins at all carefully.

Richard Kilgore said: That comment of Stein can be easily explained. Thanks to Richard Dawkins' misuse of language, people have started to use the word "science" when they really mean "atheistic worldview". The debate between atheists and theists is not a debate between science and religion, as Dawkins would have us believe, but a debate between two worldviews, both of which appeal to science, and both of which count scientists among their adherents. Stein should have known better, but I think by "science" he really meant "atheistic worldview". So he is saying that the atheistic worldview leads to killing. This is not completely implausible after a century which witnessed the mass murders of communism.

Richard Kilgore said: Briefly, my view is that if atheists think carefully about the ethical consequences of their atheism, and take those consequences seriously, then atheism will lead to much more killing than theism, other things being equal.

Richard Kilgore said: However, I do not think most atheists think seriously about the consequences of their atheism.

Richard Kilgore said: Most atheists blindly follow a system of morality that is itself evolved out of Judaeo-Christian morality, and has many of the same values. Most atheists you meet are therefore just as moral as anyone else. But atheists who consistently draw out consequences from atheism, the way Communists did, are likely to be a murderous bunch of people.

Knowing that it's absurd, I'm really getting sick of theists trying to scare us into their bullshit life-after-death Jesus ethics by putting forward the idea that tyrany and eugenics are logical consequences of atheism. It is a theist view--coming from inside of religion itself--that ethics requires a god. Atheism just claims that no conclusions about anything can be based on the existence of god(s); that's all it fucking says! It implies also that one should end the pathetic practive of mindlessly sponging up drivel out of holy books. There is nothing and nobody who can save us from the responsibilty of thought.

Atheism can lead one only to the conclusion that a moral theory (or any other theory) cannot be based on belief in any god(s) and therefore must be based in naturalism just like any other science. Faith-based ethics is profoundly subjective and can't even begin to provide a rational ethics that people can understand the "why" of and therefore can know that it's good for their lives.

Even to begin the formulation of a scientific ethics, it's necessary to dump religion so as to leave reason free to look at the problem. See video Peikoff: Reason vs. Faith, Question 6 of 8 1min 2sec.

The first question of a moral science is "Why does man need ethics?" Starting out by making lists of virtues is guaranteed to get you nothing more than what you already believe and it still leaves you with no rational foundation at all. See video A theist asks: What's the standard of good and bad? 4min 37sec.

The Objectivist ethics is a modern example of how to work out a reality based prescriptive system in which values are neither subjective nor found like the facts of physics--independent of human life or of any life at all. BTW, in this ethics, in every domain of existence, reason is a virtue and faith is a vice. And, the goal is happiness in life rather than after death--a very big deal indeed and much different than the ethics of the misery cults. When applied to politics, the Objectivist ethics advocates individual rights and not collectivism. From what I've read about eugenics, it always presupposes collectivism, i.e. the good of some group or other is placed above individual rights. If people, without noticing their collectivist premise, start having grand fantasies about what eugenics policies would be good for the human race, then coercion can arise; and, IMO, collectivist governments can easily be tempted by it.

One may not agree with the Objectivist ethics but it is a 100% counter example to any view that a secular ethics can't be worked out and that we therefore have to accept nihilism or relativism--the religionist's favorite accusation. Religion has got the field of ethics so fucked up that we can hardly even begin to think rationally about it--as far as I know, this was not the case among the ancient Greek philosophers. Christianity has divorced morality from reality and most people have bought into this greatest of human disasters. Since religion is also a psychopathology, how do "people of reason" convince "people of faith" about anything? I wish I knew.

I know what a pseudo-science is (e.g., Darwinism, in its claim to account for biological complexity).

Stein meant to use the term "science" in every shape and form. What these ID creationists are doing is molding the minds of people to think that ALL of science is atheistic, so even those scientists who are also theistically oriented are lumped in with all the "bad guys."

In addition, by using the general the term "science," Stein (and the ID'ers) are blackballing every biologist, evolutionist, physicist, geologist, chemist, meteorologist, and every other discipline related to science.

Does Stein and his ID colleagues intend to destroy science? If that's what it takes to eliminate evolution, so be it. That is the stated goal of the DI in their wedge document, and screw every legitimate scientist who has now been marked as a killer.

DavidK said: Does Stein and his ID colleagues intend to destroy science? If that's what it takes to eliminate evolution, so be it. That is the stated goal of the DI in their wedge document, and screw every legitimate scientist who has now been marked as a killer.

Nobody can read Stein's mind, and know what he actually meant, right deep down, by that comment. Human discourse is full of error and misunderstanding. We can go only on his actual words.

That means I regard as arid and unprofitable all argument about what Stein might have meant. For what it's worth, I think it's quite possible that Richard Kilgore is correct to say that Stein conflated "atheistic worldview" with "science" and meant to say that an atheistic worldview leads to killing people. That, on its own, is a gross libel on atheists and an outright attack on freedom of religion, for the necessary consequence is that a nation, being an expression of the people's right "to form a more perfect union...for the common defence", should promote a State religion or religions and/or suppress atheism. It's a viciously stupid idea.

But what he actually said went far beyond even this. Stein directly stated that science leads to killing people and that it was scientists who ordered people to the gas chambers in the Holocaust. These are flagrant lies so monstrous, so hypocritical, and so disgusting as to require one's enraged contempt. It is because of this that I understand, and almost sympathise with, Richard Kilgore's attempt somewhat to ameliorate Stein's words, for outrage is exhausting, and contempt in a sense not wholesome. But when faced with viciously fraudulent calumny on this scale, outrage and contempt are the only rightful and decent reactions.

Your trolls are way dumber than the ones we get in climate denialism. But ours are evile-er. Yours are almost touchingly ignorant.

By the way, is there some way we can make "bread" the "Atheist's Nightmare?" Peanut butter and bananas are already "The Atheist's Nightmare" so I already call a peanut-butter-and-banana sandwich "The Atheist's Nightmare" but getting the bread in there, too, would be neat.

1. Banana is the atheist's nightmare. It fits the human and other primate hand perfectly, as well as the mouth without getting into body parts it might resemble, it peels naturally, it clones well, to show us the Lord wants us to clone plants and not people.

2. Peanut Butter is the atheist's nightmare. It will never give birth to a dinosaur no matter how many times you watch Jurassic Park. Only dinosaurs, now located in Darkest Africa, can do that.

so ...

3. Bread is the atheist's nightmare. You leave the flour, water, etc. out and all it does is grow ergot, which lets you watch the Rapture. But add yeast, which is not going to appear out of thin air, and the bread rises. You can no more have life occur from inorganic matter than you could have unleavened bread.

A long time before Jesus was born Zoroastrians believed (stolen from Wikipedia):

There is one universal and transcendental God, Ahura Mazda, the one Uncreated Creator to whom all worship is ultimately directed.

Active participation in life through good thoughts, good words and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep the chaos at bay. This active participation is a central element in Zoroaster's concept of free will, and Zoroastrianism rejects all forms of monasticism.

Ahura Mazda will ultimately prevail, at which point the universe will undergo a cosmic renovation and time will end (cf: Zoroastrian eschatology). In the final renovation, all of creation — even the souls of the dead that were initially banished to "darkness" — will be reunited in Ahura Mazda.

Thus, central to Zoroastrianism is the emphasis on moral choice, to choose between the responsibility and duty for which one is in the mortal world, or to give up this duty and so facilitate the work of druj. Similarly, predestination is rejected in Zoroastrian teaching. Humans bear responsibility for all situations they are in, and in the way they act to one another. Reward, punishment, happiness and grief all depend on how individuals live their life.

In Zoroastrianism, good transpires for those who do righteous deeds. Those who do evil have themselves to blame for their ruin. Zoroastrian morality is then to be summed up in the simple phrase, "good thoughts, good words, good deeds" (Humata, Hukhta, Hvarshta in Avestan), for it is through these that asha is maintained and druj is kept in check.

What do you think Richard? Do we still need Christ to give us moral direction?

Or how about the Jains (again, stolen from Wikipedia):

"One of the main characteristics of Jain belief is the emphasis on the immediate consequences of one's physical and mental behavior. Because Jains believe that everything is in some sense alive with many living beings possessing a soul, great care and awareness is required in going about one's business in the world. Jainism is a religious tradition in which all life is considered to be worthy of respect and Jain teaching emphasises this equality of all life advocating the non-harming of even the smallest creatures. Jainism encourages spiritual independence (in the sense of relying on and cultivating one's own personal wisdom) and self-control (व्रत, vratae) which is considered vital for one's spiritual development. The goal, as with other Indian religions, is moksha which in Jainism is realization of the soul's true nature, a condition of omniscience (Kevala Jnana or Keval Gyana). By ancient and contemporary usage, as well as dictionary definitions, a follower of Jain Dharma, or Jainism, is called a Jain."

Richard, is this part of the Judeo-Christian heritage?

Not nearly so old are the Sikhs:

Nanak stressed kirat karō: that a Sikh should balance work, worship, and charity, and should defend the rights of all creatures, and in particular, fellow human beings. They are encouraged to have a caṛdī kalā, or optimistic, view of life. Sikh teachings also stress the concept of sharing—vaṇḍ chakkō—through the distribution of free food at Sikh gurdwaras (laṅgar), giving charitable donations, and working for the good of the community and others (sēvā).

Sikhism is a monotheistic religion. In Sikhism, God—termed Vāhigurū—is formless, eternal, and unobserved: niraṅkār, akāl, and alakh. The beginning of the first composition of Sikh scripture is the figure "1"—signifying the universality of God. It states that God is omnipresent and infinite, and is signified by the term ēk ōaṅkār. Sikhs believe that prior to creation, all that existed was God and his hukam (will or order). When God willed, the entire cosmos was created. From these beginnings, God nurtured "enticement and attachment" to māyā, or the human perception of reality.

What do you think Richard? Could it be that morals are just part of being human and that's why remarkably similar moral standards have arisen many times over the years in different cultures?

I couldn't be that someone created a lawgiver to try to add some authority behind that which they already believed . . . . could it?

Adolph Hitler: My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. ...Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. ... - Adolf Hitler, speech on April 12, 1922

In addition, by using the general the term “science,” Stein (and the ID’ers) are blackballing every biologist, evolutionist, physicist, geologist, chemist, meteorologist, and every other discipline related to science.

raven said: Mao Zedong viewed the Taiping as early heroic revolutionaries against a corrupt feudal system.

Richard Kilgore said: I know he has a law degree from Yale. But that was a long time ago, and recently he has been doing things like hosting "Win Ben Stein's Money": not exactly intellectual, is it? He is, as of now and as far as I am aware, an actor and a celebrity.

an American attorney, political figure, and entertainment personality who in his early career served as speechwriter for U.S. presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. Later he entered the entertainment field and became an Emmy Award-winning actor, comedian, and game show host.

Stein has frequently written commentaries on economic, political, and social issues, along with financial advice to individual investors.
[...]
He currently writes a regular column for the Sunday New York Times Business Section and for Yahoo! Finance online.

Richard Kilgore said: I have noticed for a long time that people tend to use the word "science" when they really mean "atheistic worldview". It is a result of atheist propaganda.

You leave the flour, water, etc. out and all it does is grow ergot, which lets you watch the Rapture.

Rrr said:

Richard Kilgore said: LOL! You are a funny guy, phantomreader42. I think you should be working for Comedy Central, right alongside Ben Stein.

I refuse to see anything funny in this. YOU DO NOT TRIVIALIZE THE HOLOCAUST. You just don't. And you are not the greatest comedian yourself, too, Mr Kilgoer. Ben Stein has transformed himself to eternally radioactive toxic waste material. He probably needed the money, but anyone who tries to defend him becomes immediately contaminated. So now you too are condemned by his curse, which is of the stupid. Sorry. Thanks for playing. Don't come back please.

Larry Boy. said: [Dawkins] central premises is that science leads us to atheism, since it leaves god with nothing to do.

Richard Kilgore said: Hi, Thank you for your questions. Briefly, my view is that if atheists think carefully about the ethical consequences of their atheism, and take those consequences seriously, then atheism will lead to much more killing than theism, other things being equal. However, I do not think most atheists think seriously about the consequences of their atheism. Most atheists blindly follow a system of morality that is itself evolved out of Judaeo-Christian morality, and has many of the same values. Most atheists you meet are therefore just as moral as anyone else. But atheists who consistently draw out consequences from atheism, the way Communists did, are likely to be a murderous bunch of people.

ellazimm said: Okay Richard, all who said what arguments aside: do you think that an atheistic worldview leads to people being killed? AND does an atheistic world view lead to more people being killed than a religious worldview? Please answer 'cause some people are dying to know.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said:

Larry Boy. said: [Dawkins] central premises is that science leads us to atheism, since it leaves god with nothing to do.

While I agree with the rest of your comment, I don't think this is an accurate description of Dawkins' argument, at least as presented in TGD. His argument is that many religions use the idea of a creator as a basis and that such gods are improbable.

Ben Stein is a liar and an idiot. He can't have it both ways. If science inevitably leads to murder and is evil then there are only two possibilities. Either ID is science and is therefore evil by his own reasoning, or ID is not science and should therefore be rightly expelled from science classes. You can't make a movie named Expelled and make this argument, you just can't. It's the dumbest thing a person could possibly do. Of well, at least it explains why there is no science in the movie. We wouldn't want to promote murder now would we?

As for science leading to murder because some guys at the gas chambers wore lab coats, well the last time I saw a cop he was shooting somebody and the last time I saw a priest he was on trial for molesting young boys. By Sten's logic we should therefore ban all law enforcement and all religion. What a moron.

Could you please explain why you think that I am a hypocrite?

Briefly, my view is that if atheists think carefully about the ethical consequences of their atheism, and take those consequences seriously, then atheism will lead to much more killing than theism, other things being equal.

Also, what do you mean by “creationist”?

And why do you use the term “self-defined” here? You either are a atheist or you ar not: so which is it?

Pat said: Evolution covers altruism, too...without it, you wouldn't have a functioning body. All of your cells have to work together; if it were survival of the fittest, the heart might be interested in stopping for a bit to kill off that nutrient-hungry competitor the brain. I'd urge you to use that self-same organ to actually look around at the world sometime. I mean really look, without carrying your conclusions forward first.

I know he has a law degree from Yale. But that was a long time ago, and recently he has been doing things like hosting “Win Ben Stein’s Money”: not exactly intellectual, is it? He is, as of now and as far as I am aware, an actor and a celebrity.

— Richard Kilgore

I have given what I think is a *plausible* explanation of Stein’s comment, based on the evidence.

The point is, w just do not have a basis for the accusations people want to hurl at this brave man.

Richard Kilgore said: Stein is an actor, and celebrity. He is not a scientist or philosopher, and so attributing to him a verbal confusion of this kind seems eminently plausible to me.

So to combine 2 statements that Ben Stein would probably agree with individually... 1. ID is science. 2. Science leads to killing people. Therefore, Intelligent Design leads to killing people. I wonder if he would agree with that?

Dan said:

Richard Kilgore said: That comment of Stein can be easily explained. Thanks to Richard Dawkins' misuse of language, people have started to use the word "science" when they really mean "atheistic worldview". The debate between atheists and theists is not a debate between science and religion, as Dawkins would have us believe, but a debate between two worldviews, both of which appeal to science, and both of which count scientists among their adherents. Stein should have known better, but I think by "science" he really meant "atheistic worldview". So he is saying that the atheistic worldview leads to killing. This is not completely implausible after a century which witnessed the mass murders of communism.

It's one thing for Stein to blame the Holocaust on Darwin. But now Kilgore is attempting to blame the Holocaust (Wannsee Conference, January 20, 1942) on Dawkins (born March 26, 1941).

MattusMaximus said: I sent the transcript of Stein's conversation about "Science = Murder" to some of my science teacher colleagues, and one responded with a very interesting observation...

So to combine 2 statements that Ben Stein would probably agree with individually... 1. ID is science. 2. Science leads to killing people. Therefore, Intelligent Design leads to killing people. I wonder if he would agree with that?

MattusMaximus said:

Richard Kilgore said: Stein is an actor, and celebrity. He is not a scientist or philosopher, and so attributing to him a verbal confusion of this kind seems eminently plausible to me.

Exactly. So his "expert" opinion on the science of evolution should be worth squat. Thanks for the admission :)

You have insinuated utterly irrelevant facts about other people, nothing more and nothing less, and then gotten snarky in defense of this non-evidence.

Richard Head said: I am happy to admit Stein is not an authority on evolution. However, he did manage to get Dawkins to treat Intelligent Design as a serious possibility ON CAMERA. That was pure genius. Getting Dawkins to admit that the NCSE is dishonest in its outreach to religious people was brilliant as well. So let's give Stein some credit where it is due!

MattusMaximus said:

Richard Kilgore said: Stein is an actor, and celebrity. He is not a scientist or philosopher, and so attributing to him a verbal confusion of this kind seems eminently plausible to me.

Exactly. So his "expert" opinion on the science of evolution should be worth squat. Thanks for the admission :)

David Stanton said: Ben Stein is a liar and an idiot. He can't have it both ways. If science inevitably leads to murder and is evil then there are only two possibilities. Either ID is science and is therefore evil by his own reasoning, or ID is not science and should therefore be rightly expelled from science classes. You can't make a movie named Expelled and make this argument, you just can't. It's the dumbest thing a person could possibly do. Of well, at least it explains why there is no science in the movie. We wouldn't want to promote murder now would we? As for science leading to murder because some guys at the gas chambers wore lab coats, well the last time I saw a cop he was shooting somebody and the last time I saw a priest he was on trial for molesting young boys. By Sten's logic we should therefore ban all law enforcement and all religion. What a moron.

phantomreader42 said: So, Dick Head, now you're proud that Ben Stein is a baldfaced liar. And you're also ready to just make shit up if it advances your goals. Thanks for putting your christian morality on display once again, Liar For Jesus™!

Richard Head said: I am happy to admit Stein is not an authority on evolution. However, he did manage to get Dawkins to treat Intelligent Design as a serious possibility ON CAMERA. That was pure genius. Getting Dawkins to admit that the NCSE is dishonest in its outreach to religious people was brilliant as well. So let's give Stein some credit where it is due!

MattusMaximus said:

Richard Kilgore said: Stein is an actor, and celebrity. He is not a scientist or philosopher, and so attributing to him a verbal confusion of this kind seems eminently plausible to me.

Exactly. So his "expert" opinion on the science of evolution should be worth squat. Thanks for the admission :)

However, he did manage to get Dawkins to treat Intelligent Design as a serious possibility ON CAMERA.

Getting Dawkins to admit that the NCSE is dishonest in its outreach to religious people was brilliant as well.

Richard Kilgore said:

You have insinuated utterly irrelevant facts about other people, nothing more and nothing less, and then gotten snarky in defense of this non-evidence.

Look, I have not been "snarky", whatever exactly that means. I have been very polite throughout. You are just projecting onto me your previous experience with other people.

PvM said:

However, he did manage to get Dawkins to treat Intelligent Design as a serious possibility ON CAMERA.

That is misleading because ID has nothing to do with natural designers.

Getting Dawkins to admit that the NCSE is dishonest in its outreach to religious people was brilliant as well.

Getting Stein to admit that ID is all about God was far more fascinating. Getting Dawkins to oppose outreach to religious people is hardly earth shattering really.

To a point I can see where Stein and Richard (Kilgore) are coming from. The holocaust is no laughing matter. I come from a part of the world where terrible atrocities were committed over a period of thirty years. Over three thousand dead . OK so that may sound trivial but if you extrapolate those figures to say the population of the UK it becomes over 150,000. In the US it would be over 500,000 dead. Many of the murders here were carried out by very religious people (both Roman Catholic and Protestant) and most of the victims were entirely innocent. Just ordinary people going about their daily routine. Even though we have peace now many relatives still can't forgive what happened here.

But to blame what went on in Nazi Germany on science is just plain wrong. What does Stein want us to do. Go back to the medical science of 200 years ago ? I am one of those people who owe their life and well being to medical science. here it not for the pioneering vision of two men in the 1940's my life would be an absolute misery and I might very well not me alive. So just have a think about what Stein actually said Richard and the results for every one if those sentiments came true. This is what medical science did for me:

http://www.securicaremedical.co.uk/pdf/Ileostomy%20spreadstoview.pdf

http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/common/standard/transform.jsp?requestURI=/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/enterostomy.jsp

Just two men (both medical pioneers) changed the lives of millions. When I look at what people like Stein and others are doing to science it just makes me cringe !

You also need to have a look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPuKoEYCs2o

Richard Head said: No, I do not think Stein is a liar for catching Dawkins out. Where exactly did he lie? What is your proof for that?

phantomreader42 said: So, Dick Head, now you're proud that Ben Stein is a baldfaced liar. And you're also ready to just make shit up if it advances your goals. Thanks for putting your christian morality on display once again, Liar For Jesus™!

Richard Head said: I am happy to admit Stein is not an authority on evolution. However, he did manage to get Dawkins to treat Intelligent Design as a serious possibility ON CAMERA. That was pure genius. Getting Dawkins to admit that the NCSE is dishonest in its outreach to religious people was brilliant as well. So let's give Stein some credit where it is due!

MattusMaximus said:

Richard Kilgore said: Stein is an actor, and celebrity. He is not a scientist or philosopher, and so attributing to him a verbal confusion of this kind seems eminently plausible to me.

Exactly. So his "expert" opinion on the science of evolution should be worth squat. Thanks for the admission :)

So Richard, if you are such an expert on what Stein meant, which is it? Is he saying that ID is science and therefore inevitably leads to murder and therefore evil, or is he trying to say that ID is not science and should therefore rightly be expelled from science classes? Those seem to be the only two possibilities given the logic he used.

You can't redefine his words to mean something else. And even if you do redefine his words, you still don't have a leg to stand on except some preconceived notions about atheists. You certainly must realize by now that such generalizations do not conform to reality. You may not want to admit that atheists can examine their moral positions, but in general they do so much more often than people who get their morality out of a book. Those are the people who usually do not question the logical basis of their moral positions.

Or maybe you could explain to us how Stein knew that those guys wearing the lab coats at the gas chambers were atheists.

teach said: PvM Please correct me if I'm wrong, but Stein didn't "get" Dawkins to do anything. Weren't his questions spliced in after the interview was completed? If that's true, isn't it absurdly easy to make it look as if Stein won?

Peter Henderson said: But to blame what went on in Nazi Germany on science is just plain wrong. What does Stein want us to do. Go back to the medical science of 200 years ago ?

I am one of those people who owe their life and well being to medical science. here it not for the pioneering vision of two men in the 1940's my life would be an absolute misery and I might very well not me alive. So just have a think about what Stein actually said Richard and the results for every one if those sentiments came true.

Well, the Dishonesty Institute has explicitly endorsed redefining science so ASTROLOGY would count. It seems they basically want to bring back the Dark Ages.

Stanton said:

teach said: PvM Please correct me if I'm wrong, but Stein didn't "get" Dawkins to do anything. Weren't his questions spliced in after the interview was completed? If that's true, isn't it absurdly easy to make it look as if Stein won?

Yes: Dawkins was asked about what would be a plausible, testable example of an "Intelligent Designer," to which he replied "aliens." Then, Mark Matthis and friends edited the footage so Ben Stein could ridicule Richard Dawkins for being an Intelligent Design supporter who believes that life on Earth was created by aliens.

Stein asked Dawkins “What is the possibility that Intelligent Design could contribute to understanding biology?”

harold wrote: I don’t follow a formal religion, nor believe in magical entities, nor that human rituals have magic powers. However, I strongly support the right of others to believe and live as they see fit, with only the restriction that they respect one anothers’ rights. I believe that religious behaviors are deeply ingrained in the human psyche. I believe that is hurtful and inhumane to needlessly attack the deep cultural and personal beliefs of others, especially if they rely on those beliefs as a coping mechanism in times of grief, trauma, or intense stress. I believe it is arrogant and insensitive to dismiss the beliefs of others, that one does not share, as “ridiculous”, “primitive”, or otherwise deserving of insult, if they are not harmful. I strongly believe that atheists should stand up strongly for their own right to live and believe as they see fit, with the same caveat as above. I also believe that murder, unjustified war, authoritarian imposition of arbitrary, sectarian “morality” on the general population, bigotry, and so on, should be strongly condemned, but condemned specifically, not with a vague condemnation of “religion”, followed by a post-hoc explanation that one really meant specific abuses sometimes said to be justified by religion.

william e emba said:

Richard Kilgore said:

You have insinuated utterly irrelevant facts about other people, nothing more and nothing less, and then gotten snarky in defense of this non-evidence.

Look, I have not been "snarky", whatever exactly that means. I have been very polite throughout. You are just projecting onto me your previous experience with other people.

The snarkiness I referred to was your "LOL" and "ComedyCentral" remarks. There's no projection on my part. Meanwhile, I notice you are not defending yourself whatsoever. I take it you are simply ducking the actual issues I identified regarding your gross incompetence and grabbing onto the one thing where you might have something to say in your own favor, and playing the usual idiot's gambit that this suffices to refute the laundry list of your stupidities. Either that, or you really really do believe that pointing out that somebody is an actor and a celebrity counts as "evidence" that what they said actually meant something else of your own moronic invention.

That is misleading because ID has nothing to do with natural designers.

MememicBottleneck said: P.S. The wife and kids all accept evolution. I'm sure in Richard's world they cannot possibly be Xian.

ellazimm said: What do you think Richard? Do we still need Christ to give us moral direction?

However, he did manage to get Dawkins to treat Intelligent Design as a serious possibility ON CAMERA. That was pure genius.

Richard Kilgore said: Do your wife and kids think that evolution was an unguided process, not intelligently directed by any agent?

MememicBottleneck said: P.S. The wife and kids all accept evolution. I'm sure in Richard's world they cannot possibly be Xian.

Richard Kilgore said: I am happy to admit Stein is not an authority on evolution. However, he did manage to get Dawkins to treat Intelligent Design as a serious possibility ON CAMERA. That was pure genius. Getting Dawkins to admit that the NCSE is dishonest in its outreach to religious people was brilliant as well.

Richard Kilgore said: Look, I have not been "snarky", whatever exactly that means. I have been very polite throughout. You are just projecting onto me your previous experience with other people.

Thomas S. Howard said: RK wrote:

However, he did manage to get Dawkins to treat Intelligent Design as a serious possibility ON CAMERA. That was pure genius.

RK, you're wrong about Stein's "achievement" with Dawkins. He's covered exactly that ground before. He discusses it at relative length in "The Ancestor's Tale", and clearly states that while it's a reasonable speculation which is amenable to scientific investigation, he considers it to essentially be science fiction.

phantomreader42 said: Creationists are truly despicable people.

MattusMaximus said:

Richard Kilgore said: Look, I have not been "snarky", whatever exactly that means. I have been very polite throughout. You are just projecting onto me your previous experience with other people.

That may be, but all that does is make you a polite liar.

Richard Kilgore said: The design inference is intended to be as applicable to SETI as it is to evolution: it is meant to identify intelligent causation as such, without taking any stand at all on whether or not it is supernatural.

The way this happens is as follows. When ID advocates posit that DNA – which is a complicated, molecular blueprint – is solid evidence for a designer, most scientists are unconvinced. They counter that the structure of this biological building block is the result of self-organization via evolution, and not a proof of deliberate engineering. DNA, the researchers will protest, is no more a consciously constructed system than Jupiter’s Great Red Spot. Organized complexity, in other words, is not enough to infer design. But the adherents of Intelligent Design protest the protest. They point to SETI and say, “upon receiving a complex radio signal from space, SETI researchers will claim it as proof that intelligent life resides in the neighborhood of a distant star. Thus, isn’t their search completely analogous to our own line of reasoning – a clear case of complexity implying intelligence and deliberate design?” And SETI, they would note, enjoys widespread scientific acceptance. ... In short, the champions of Intelligent Design make two mistakes when they claim that the SETI enterprise is logically similar to their own: First, they assume that we are looking for messages, and judging our discovery on the basis of message content, whether understood or not. In fact, we’re on the lookout for very simple signals. That’s mostly a technical misunderstanding. But their second assumption, derived from the first, that complexity would imply intelligence, is also wrong. We seek artificiality, which is an organized and optimized signal coming from an astronomical environment from which neither it nor anything like it is either expected or observed. Very modest complexity, found out of context. This is clearly nothing like looking at DNA’s chemical makeup and deducing the work of a supernatural biochemist.

Richard Kilgore said: To call someone a "liar" is to say that they are deliberately uttering falsehoods. I do not claim to be free of error (I do my best), but I can assure you I have not deliberately misrepresented anything in my time on this blog. I am not a liar, sir. Please do not make baseless, false accusations against me. You do stand corrected, sir.

Now the problem is this: why are scientists being attacked (or even expelled) merely for pursuing what Dawkins admits is a *reasonable* speculation or an *intriguing* possibility?

Richard Kilgore said:

That is misleading because ID has nothing to do with natural designers.

Now this kind of remark leads me to think that the neoDarwinist side in this debate has not been paying attention to what the ID people have been writing. The whole point of the ID research program is to investigate whether or not we can identify the action of intelligent causes *independently of knowing their nature*. Dembski argues that specified complexity is a criterion which allows you to do just that. The design inference is intended to be as applicable to SETI as it is to evolution: it is meant to identify intelligent causation as such, without taking any stand at all on whether or not it is supernatural. I know people here will think Dembski and Behe are being deceptive, but I think they mean what they write: they acknowledge that the designer cannot be identified as God solely on the basis of the empirical evidence. They therefore acknowledge as successful one of the classical preDarwinian objections to the argument from design, namely that evidence of design in nature cannot tell you much more about the designer than that he/she/it is intelligent and powerful, and certainly can't establish the standard attributes of the perfect God of classical theism. Behe and Demsbki would both count it as a success if the scientific community reached the conclusion that some nonhuman natural designer had a hand in the origin of life. They would perhaps be privately convinced that the designer is God, but based on other grounds (like revelation), and not based on the empirical evidence.

Richard Kilgore said:

That is misleading because ID has nothing to do with natural designers.

Now this kind of remark leads me to think that the neoDarwinist side in this debate has not been paying attention to what the ID people have been writing. The whole point of the ID research program is to investigate whether or not we can identify the action of intelligent causes *independently of knowing their nature*. Dembski argues that specified complexity is a criterion which allows you to do just that.

Now the problem is this: why are scientists being attacked (or even expelled) merely for pursuing what Dawkins admits is a *reasonable* speculation or an *intriguing* possibility? Why are careers being destroyed over such a matter? In physics, people routinely consider far-fetched speculative scenarios involving multiple universes and so on. In some areas of science, pretty much every theory anyone comes up with seems to be speculation (e.g. abiogenesis research, what caused the Big Bang, and so on). If some scientist thinks that some form of ID is the best available or most likely speculation concerning the origin of life, where is the harm in that? After all, it is an “intriguing possibility”, according to Richard Dawkins.

Behe and Demsbki would both count it as a success if the scientific community reached the conclusion that some nonhuman natural designer had a hand in the origin of life.

hen the EF implies that certain systems are intelligently designed, Dembski does not think it follows that there is some intelligent designer or other. He says that, "even though in practice inferring design is the first step in identifying an intelligent agent, taken by itself design does not require that such an agent be posited. The notion of design that emerges from the design inference must not be confused with intelligent agency" (TDI, 227, my emphasis).

— dembski

Richard Kilgore said: Do your wife and kids think that evolution was an unguided process, not intelligently directed by any agent?

MememicBottleneck said: P.S. The wife and kids all accept evolution. I'm sure in Richard's world they cannot possibly be Xian.

OT but great news.

The Florida House and Senate have adjourned their legislative sessions.

NO ACADEMIC FREEDOM BILL

Florida Citizens for Science

You seem to have bought into the scam hook, line, and sinker. This post is fractally wrong. For instance, you say The design inference is intended to be as applicable to SETI as it is to evolution: it is meant to identify intelligent causation as such, without taking any stand at all on whether or not it is supernatural. That's funny. Because no SETI researcher, anywhere, applies any of Dembski's empty formalisms to any aspects of their work. In fact, you have it exactly backward. While Dembski et al are hopelessly hung up on a diversity of vacuous conceptualizations of what they are pleased to call "complexity," what current SETI projects are looking for is unexpected simplicity, i.e. a very strong, relatively noise-free narrow band signal, like a carrier wave, not a complex message.

You claim that SETI has nothing to do with Dembski’s work because SETI researchers look for simplicity, whereas Dembski claims design inferences are based on complexity. But this is to overlook exactly the sense in which Dembski uses the word “complexity”. This word is being used in a technical sense, and is essentially a synonym for “improbability”.

PvM said: The word is use in an equivocating sense and is indeed a measure of 'improbability'. Hence the ID argument is the typical argument from improbability which has failed to impress.

Richard Kilgore said: To call someone a "liar" is to say that they are deliberately uttering falsehoods. I do not claim to be free of error (I do my best), but I can assure you I have not deliberately misrepresented anything in my time on this blog. I am not a liar, sir. Please do not make baseless, false accusations against me. You do stand corrected, sir.

MattusMaximus said:

Richard Kilgore said: Look, I have not been "snarky", whatever exactly that means. I have been very polite throughout. You are just projecting onto me your previous experience with other people.

That may be, but all that does is make you a polite liar.

Richard Kilgore said: But this is to overlook exactly the sense in which Dembski uses the word "complexity". This word is being used in a technical sense, and is essentially a synonym for "improbability". For example, Dembski writes on p.9 of "No Free Lunch" that "to determine whether something is sufficiently complex to underwrite a design inference is to determine whether it has sufficiently small probability." In this specific technical sense of "complexity", what SETI researchers are looking for is indeed "complex". The reason is that the kind of signal they are looking for is very improbable given only purely natural causes.

Richard Head said: Now the problem is this: why are scientists being attacked (or even expelled) merely for pursuing what Dawkins admits is a *reasonable* speculation or an *intriguing* possibility? Why are careers being destroyed over such a matter?

I do not think that ID is a *typical* argument from improbability, because Dembski has given a justification for setting a lower probability bound, such that events having probability less than that bound can reasonably be concluded not to have happened by chance. The lower probability bound for him is 10^-150 (whereas for Borel it was 10^-50).

Why not try to get a more precise version of what exactly that means, in the form of a probability bound? Dembski has given us that, and I have yet to see anything better in this connection.

phantomreader42 said: You have repeatedly made false statements here. That makes your either a liar, willfully ignorant (which is in itself a form of dishonesty), too lazy to even bother looking at the facts, or mind-bogglingly STUPID. Take your pick. Are you lying to us? Are you lying to yourself? Did you never bother to learn the facts, but you still feel qualified to babble and pretend you know things you don't? Or are you just so totally brain-dead you can't tell the difference between the truth and a lie?

Richard Kilgore said: To call someone a "liar" is to say that they are deliberately uttering falsehoods. I do not claim to be free of error (I do my best), but I can assure you I have not deliberately misrepresented anything in my time on this blog. I am not a liar, sir. Please do not make baseless, false accusations against me. You do stand corrected, sir.

MattusMaximus said:

Richard Kilgore said: Look, I have not been "snarky", whatever exactly that means. I have been very polite throughout. You are just projecting onto me your previous experience with other people.

That may be, but all that does is make you a polite liar.

Richard Head said: My "LOL" is directed at people who write posts as if they are having an epileptic fit in response to my writings. It is quite funny, you have to admit. My Comedy Central remarks were directed at phantom reader, who is as rude as it is possible to be, but he does it in a funny way. So, I like him anyway. I will pray for your soul phantom reader!!! As for my not defending myself, I plan to do so as and when I find the time. However, I do not feel the need to defend myself against each and every piece of drivel that is hurled against me. And 90% of the things people have been writing here aginst me I do, with all due respect, sincerely regard as complete and utter drivel. I do not even feel like people have come close to understanding what I have been saying. They are mostly just responding to some image they have in their mind of a "creationist".

william e emba said:

Richard Kilgore said:

You have insinuated utterly irrelevant facts about other people, nothing more and nothing less, and then gotten snarky in defense of this non-evidence.

Look, I have not been "snarky", whatever exactly that means. I have been very polite throughout. You are just projecting onto me your previous experience with other people.

The snarkiness I referred to was your "LOL" and "ComedyCentral" remarks. There's no projection on my part. Meanwhile, I notice you are not defending yourself whatsoever. I take it you are simply ducking the actual issues I identified regarding your gross incompetence and grabbing onto the one thing where you might have something to say in your own favor, and playing the usual idiot's gambit that this suffices to refute the laundry list of your stupidities. Either that, or you really really do believe that pointing out that somebody is an actor and a celebrity counts as "evidence" that what they said actually meant something else of your own moronic invention.

And the project is really useful, for surely some things really are too improbable to happen by chance. Isn’t it a perfectly reasonable form of argument to say “That is so improbable it could not have happeend by chance”? Why not try to get a more precise version of what exactly that means, in the form of a probability bound? Dembski has given us that, and I have yet to see anything better in this connection.

Richard Kilgore said:

PvM said: The word is use in an equivocating sense and is indeed a measure of 'improbability'. Hence the ID argument is the typical argument from improbability which has failed to impress.

Thank you for your comment PvM. I do not think that ID is a *typical* argument from improbability, because Dembski has given a justification for setting a lower probability bound, such that events having probability less than that bound can reasonably be concluded not to have happened by chance. The lower probability bound for him is 10^-150 (whereas for Borel it was 10^-50). There is a justification, based on information from physics regarding the number of particles in the universe, for taking this to be the lower probability bound. So Demsbki has explicitly specified, with an argument, just how improbable an event has to be for us to conclude that it did not happen by chance. I think the project is really interesting, whatever you think of all the details of the argument (I am not fully convinced, but I enjoy reading Demsbki's stuff). And the project is really useful, for surely some things really are too improbable to happen by chance. Isn't it a perfectly reasonable form of argument to say "That is so improbable it could not have happeend by chance"? Why not try to get a more precise version of what exactly that means, in the form of a probability bound? Dembski has given us that, and I have yet to see anything better in this connection.

Richard Kilgore said: As for being a "Liar for Jesus", I am not even Christian, and never was. Thanks for the laughs, man!

Richard Kilgore said: Hi, Thank you for your questions. Briefly, my view is that if atheists think carefully about the ethical consequences of their atheism, and take those consequences seriously, then atheism will lead to much more killing than theism, other things being equal. However, I do not think most atheists think seriously about the consequences of their atheism. Most atheists blindly follow a system of morality that is itself evolved out of Judaeo-Christian morality, and has many of the same values. Most atheists you meet are therefore just as moral as anyone else. But atheists who consistently draw out consequences from atheism, the way Communists did, are likely to be a murderous bunch of people.

ellazimm said: Okay Richard, all who said what arguments aside: do you think that an atheistic worldview leads to people being killed? AND does an atheistic world view lead to more people being killed than a religious worldview? Please answer 'cause some people are dying to know.

That may be, but all that does is make you a polite liar.

dhogaza said:

That may be, but all that does is make you a polite liar.

There's no such thing as a polite liar, since lying is one of the rudest behaviors one can engage in. And this applies particularly to RK, who doesn't simply lie, but lies about his lying, as well.

As for being a “Liar for Jesus”,

Technically "Liars for Jesus" is an incorrect term. Since Jesus didn't really have anything to do with the old testament. It's just a lot easier to say than "Liars who think they know the mind of God (i.e. false prophets) regarding a couple of pages of the old testament".

Richard Kilgore said: Stein asked Dawkins "What is the possibility that Intelligent Design could contribute to understanding biology?" Dawkins: "Well it could happen in the following way...there is the intriguing possibility that some designer created a form of life and seeded the earth with it...of course the designer would have to have arisen by Darwinian evolution elsewhere in the universe...I suppose you could find evidence for that in biochemistry...." (That is as close as I can remember, but the gist of it is accurate). Stein (voiceover): So Dawkins thinks Intelligent Design is a possibility?

Please ban Charlemagne. His preaching is tedious and adds nothing to even off-topic threads. Or send him to the Bathroom wall to rant to his heart's content.

Richard Kilgore said: The whole point of the ID research program...

Dembski argues that specified complexity is a criterion which allows you to do just that.

Now the problem is this: why are scientists being attacked (or even expelled) merely for pursuing what Dawkins admits is a *reasonable* speculation or an *intriguing* possibility?

Isn’t it a perfectly reasonable form of argument to say “That is so improbable it could not have happeend by chance”?

What a jerk! I reply, but where's my response with a lovely "Thank you for your comment" at the beginning? Nowhere, that's where. And you call yourself polite, RK. For shame.

OK, in all seriousness, RK, enough with the "Thank you for your comment". No one really cares about your gratitude, which is of dubious sincerity anyway, so just stick to attempting to answer questions and defending the indefensible. Just in a few short blog comments, you've managed to make "Thank you for your comment" as hollow, formulaic and obnoxious as "I'll pray for you" and "Sorry for your loss".

Richard Kilgore said: You claim that SETI has nothing to do with Dembski's work because SETI researchers look for simplicity, whereas Dembski claims design inferences are based on complexity. But this is to overlook exactly the sense in which Dembski uses the word "complexity". This word is being used in a technical sense, and is essentially a synonym for "improbability". For example, Dembski writes on p.9 of "No Free Lunch" that "to determine whether something is sufficiently complex to underwrite a design inference is to determine whether it has sufficiently small probability." In this specific technical sense of "complexity", what SETI researchers are looking for is indeed "complex". The reason is that the kind of signal they are looking for is very improbable given only purely natural causes.

Science Avenger said:

Richard Kilgore said: The whole point of the ID research program...

There is no ID research program Richard. There are armchair ID theorists, but that is where they stop. If a science, they would be the only science in the world who's major proponents refuse to do even the most basic experimental work.

William Dembski's at UD is completely baffled by Mark's use of the word "pseudodocumentary". That isn't surprising; he thinks that PT is a pseudoblog. If he wasn't completely clueless he would know that UD is actually the pseudoblog since their zealous bannings (expellings?) are completely contrary to the spirit of the collaborative web. What a fool.

RK. Although I have never read any Dembski, and likely never will, I feel almost 100% positive that he has made the following mistake.

Take a bucket of dice, (say 100) the probability of rolling all dice and simultaniously obtaining all 6's is (1/6)^100. Keep putting all the dice in the bucket and rolling them again, you may do this your whole life, they will never all be 6's.

Now, do this again, but now, you don't have to reroll any dice that came up 6's. Roll once: ~17 of them will come up w/ 6's, roll twice and you have 17+13=30; after ~25 ish attempts you have an event which looks incredibly improbably if you do not consider the way that it came about.

When calculating probabilities you must be incredibly careful to consider events properly, this is not seat of your pants intuitive stuff.

-It is past my bed time. I am tired. Sorry for the poor explanation. The fossil record is enormously, wonderfully, unbelievable confirmation of Darwin. Do you doubt that statement because some one has told you to doubt it, or because you have looked at a bunch of fossils?

William Dembski’s at UD is completely baffled by Mark’s use of the word “pseudodocumentary”. That isn’t surprising; he thinks that PT is a pseudoblog. If he wasn’t completely clueless he would know that UD is actually the pseudoblog since their zealous bannings (expellings?) are completely contrary to the spirit of the collaborative web. What a fool.

Richard Kilgore said: The whole point of the ID research program is to investigate whether or not we can identify the action of intelligent causes *independently of knowing their nature*. Dembski argues that specified complexity is a criterion which allows you to do just that. ... Behe and Demsbki would both count it as a success if the scientific community reached the conclusion that some nonhuman natural designer had a hand in the origin of life. They would perhaps be privately convinced that the designer is God, but based on other grounds (like revelation), and not based on the empirical evidence.

Dear Rolf,

Not only is the main theme of "Expelled", the delusional allegation that Intelligent Design advocates within the scientific community are somehow being "persecuted" for their belief by mainstream science, but the other, far more noxious, delusional theme, is the "fact" that "Darwinism" was responsible for Nazism and the Shoah (Nazi Holocaust), a point that has been a reoccurring argument stated by Discovery Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers David Klinghoffer and Bill Dembski, among others, but one that has been refuted most recently by both Richard Dawkins and John Derbyshire. Indeed, we must remind both the Discovery Institute's delusional band of mendacious intellectual pornographers and their intellectually-challenged sycophants (whom I have referred sarcastically as members of the "Discovery Institute IDiot Borg Collective" elsewhere online, most frequently at Amazon.com) that they are committing - to use John Derbyshire's expression - a "blood libel against Western Civilization".

Appreciatively yours,

John

"Charlemagne" has been added to the moderation queue by author request.

Richard Kilgore said: You claim that SETI has nothing to do with Dembski's work because SETI researchers look for simplicity, whereas Dembski claims design inferences are based on complexity. But this is to overlook exactly the sense in which Dembski uses the word "complexity". This word is being used in a technical sense, and is essentially a synonym for "improbability". For example, Dembski writes on p.9 of "No Free Lunch" that "to determine whether something is sufficiently complex to underwrite a design inference is to determine whether it has sufficiently small probability."

In this specific technical sense of "complexity", what SETI researchers are looking for is indeed "complex". The reason is that the kind of signal they are looking for is very improbable given only purely natural causes.

Richard Kilgore said: Dembski has given a justification for setting a lower probability bound, such that events having probability less than that bound can reasonably be concluded not to have happened by chance. The lower probability bound for him is 10^-150 (whereas for Borel it was 10^-50).

Dembski has given a justification for setting a lower probability bound, such that events having probability less than that bound can reasonably be concluded not to have happened by chance. The lower probability bound for him is 10^-150 (whereas for Borel it was 10^-50).

— Richard Kilgore

From Probability and Certainty, p. 124-126: The Problem of Life. In conclusion, I feel it is necessary to say a few words regarding a question that does not really come within the scope of this book, but that certain readers might nevertheless reproach me for having entirely neglected. I mean the problem of the appearance of life on our planet (and eventually on other planets in the universe) and the probability that this appearance may have been due to chance. If this problem seems to me to lie outside our subject, this is because the probability in question is too complex for us to be able to calculate its order of magnitude. It is on this point that I wish to make several explanatory comments. When we calculated the probability of reproducing by mere chance a work of literature, in one or more volumes, we certainly observed that, if this work was printed, it must have emanated from a human brain. Now the complexity of that brain must therefore have been even richer than the particular work to which it gave birth. Is it not possible to infer that the probability that this brain may have been produced by the blind forces of chance is even slighter than the probability of the typewriting miracle? It is obviously the same as if we asked ourselves whether we could know if it was possible actually to create a human being by combining at random a certain number of simple bodies. But this is not the way that the problem of the origin of life presents itself: it is generally held that living beings are the result of a slow process of evolution, beginning with elementary organisms, and that this process of evolution involves certain properties of living matter that prevent us from asserting that the process was accomplished in accordance with the laws of chance. Moreover, certain of these properties of living matter also belong to inanimate matter, when it takes certain forms, such as that of crystals. It does not seem possible to apply the laws of probability calculus to the phenomenon of the formation of a crystal in a more or less supersaturated solution. At least, it would not be possible to treat this as a problem of probability without taking account of certain properties of matter, properties that facilitate the formation of crystals and that we are certainly obliged to verify. We ought, it seems to me, to consider it likely that the formation of elementary living organisms, and the evolution of those organisms, are also governed by elementary properties of matter that we do not understand perfectly but whose existence we ought nevertheless admit. Similar observations could be made regarding possible attempts to apply the probability calculus to cosmogonical problems. In this field, too, it does not seem that the conclusions we have could really be of great assistance.

Richard Kilgore said: As for being a "Liar for Jesus", I am not even Christian, and never was.

Thanks for the laughs, man!

MattusMaximus said: A good example of non-Christian ID-proponents is the Raelians.

Looks like RK has retreated back to his haven under the bridge. Typical.

J. Biggs said: Except for SETI is searching for signals that look designed based on what they know of signals designed by human designers. In other words SETI has a basis for comparison. (i.e. they know what artificial (designed) signals look like).

Hmm, So. ID is science. And science leads to murder. And Stein wants ID taught in schools. Thus the only conclusion must be that Stein and his fellows pseudo-scientists at DI wants to promote more murder?

We really shouldn't be surprised: Remember when Stein blamed the 9/11 attacks on athiests?

It's become apparent that his apology was not sincere after all.

"" SETI is not looking for signals that are ”designed”. SETI is looking for signals that are artificial, which is decidedly different from ”designed”. ""

Can you give me examples of things that artificial but not designed and things that are designed and not artificial to clarify your point?

I can't resist.

Neptunium is artificial but not designed (as are nobelium, bohrium, and other trans-uranium elements). They're man-made, but nobody sat down and designed an atom first and they don't exist in nature.

Anything that was designed would be artificial, unless you want to limit the definition of "artificial" to "produced by intelligence" a priori. In that case, termite mounds and ant nests could be considered designed but not artificial, but the "designed" itself becomes a rather sketchy proposition because it also implies a creative intelligence at work. Insects, it has been demonstrated, don't operate by intelligence but by a number of simple mechanical rules when it comes to spacial relationships.

More relevant to SETI, the alternating 50/60Hz radio signal put out by the rotating Earth is artificial but was not designed.

Richard Simons said: More relevant to SETI, the alternating 50/60Hz radio signal put out by the rotating Earth is artificial but was not designed.

Mike O'Risal said: I can't resist. Neptunium is artificial but not designed (as are nobelium, bohrium, and other trans-uranium elements). They're man-made, but nobody sat down and designed an atom first and they don't exist in nature. Anything that was designed would be artificial, unless you want to limit the definition of "artificial" to "produced by intelligence" a priori. In that case, termite mounds and ant nests could be considered designed but not artificial, but the "designed" itself becomes a rather sketchy proposition because it also implies a creative intelligence at work. Insects, it has been demonstrated, don't operate by intelligence but by a number of simple mechanical rules when it comes to spacial relationships.

bobby said: Your definition of artificial is 'man-made'? And give me your example of something that is designed.

On the one hand, if Intelligent Design "theory" is a science, then, according to Ben Stein's logic, all Intelligent Design proponents, along with all other scientists, are murderers who were complacent in atrocities such as the Holocaust.

Unless, of course, Intelligent Design "theory" is not a science, then, there is no reason to teach it in any science curriculum in the first place.

On the other hand, to continue with Ben Stein's logic, we shouldn't teach science, at all, because it would lead to people killing people, and that it would apparently be better to die of disease and starvation, and any other treatable condition, instead.

bobby said:

Mike O'Risal said: Anything that was designed would be artificial, unless you want to limit the definition of "artificial" to "produced by intelligence" a priori. In that case, termite mounds and ant nests could be considered designed but not artificial, but the "designed" itself becomes a rather sketchy proposition because it also implies a creative intelligence at work. Insects, it has been demonstrated, don't operate by intelligence but by a number of simple mechanical rules when it comes to spacial relationships.

Your definition of artificial is 'man-made'? And give me your example of something that is designed.

bobby said: Are you talking about the typical AC house current?

This had to be a bit like the American Civil Liberties Union blackballing historian David McCullough from giving a speech on the Fourth of July because he might mention the Declaration of Independence