as with everything else in our society, it seems that science has been adversely affected by capitalistic principles. the conclusions of research are no longer independent and trustworthy but instead go in whatever direction the money points. unfortunately for ID, there are no lucrative public or private grants available, nor does it stand to make a large profit for a company. instead, dead ends like darwinian natural selection appeal more to the academic elite and therefore command better funding and a higher salary.

The notion that capitalism somehow “corrupted” science in incredibly absurd.

Has capitalism corrupted art? Did Mozart produce less masterpieces just because he was paid for them? Of course not!

As a matter of fact, many scientific discoveries were made while doing work for hire. For instance, the famous experiment of Galileo with dropping cannonballs from the leaning tower of Pisa was done because Galileo was hired to improve the accuracy of Pisan artillery. He, as a meticulous scientist, started with studying the gravitation an body mechanics. The result - the concept of gravity, formalized by Newton.

greg-

I actually like Capitalistic principles. When you say that all of our society has been affected that way, what do you have in mind?

One area where I can agree is that in the current system, everything is a commodity, even things which should be sacrosanct. My fave example is when they put spiderwebs on all of Major League Baseball’s bases to advertise Spiderman 2. Way wrong. . .

armilnov-

Privyet! Ochen’ pryiatno poznakomitsia. Ya chital vash blog — eto neplokho!

I agree that science hasn’t been corrupted by capitalism, but I think it’s fair to say “distorted.” Scientists follow those lines of research most likely to turn a profit, not necessarily the ones which will most expand our general knowledge of the universe.

Regardless, such an approach has led to innumerable breakthroughs and benefits to our society, so I’m kosh with that.

Where I think Greg is right is not on the Capitalism angle, but when he says that Darwinianism appeals to the elite. Academia is a tightly enclosed guild system, and the guild’s “masters” control access to the guild. They are working fervently as gatekeepers to prevent dissenting opinions from gaining access to research facilities, tenured positions and grants. It comes down to power.

It is an illegitimate question from the standpoint that science could never possibly test it.

The nature of the source of a given law cannot be tested, they just are from the standpoint of science.

Just for the sake of the argument suppose that evolution is a law. To be a law it would have to be true everywhere in the universe like gravitation.

If that is the case then evolution was inherent in the beginning of the universe. That is a pretty profound thing when you think about it.

Further, for the sake of thinking about things, suppose evolution and religion are both true, and we just don’t have all the info yet.

The Creator created evolution?

That one is kind of interesting to think about.

Regards

Allen-

First of all, thanks so much for weighing in. I really appreciate the friendly tone you bring to the discussion.

“It is an illegitimate question from the standpoint that science could never possibly test it.”

How is the Big Bang any different than ID in this regard? Neither is based on direct observation. In both cases, one is looking ex post facto at evidence and drawing inferential conclusions.

In the case of the Big Bang, one looks at the movement of celestial bodies and other evidence to infer the origins of their movement, no? With ID, from my understanding, one is looking at the structure of the universe for evidence that it could not have evolved merely by chance, but required an external “guiding hand.” How is that different?

“The Creator created evolution?”

From what I’ve read (admittedly secondary sources), don’t many Intelligent Design advocates believe precisely that? My understanding was that many are theistic evolutionists. . .

Darwinian evolution vs Intelligent Design. Each stems from a world view. Which world view is right?

Evolution’s premise, survival of the fittest, leads to the destruction of “human weeds,” (Margaret Sanger), more from the fit, less from the unfit. Eliminate the imperfect(such as Pope Benedict XVI’s brother killed by the Nazi’s because he had Down’s Syndrome.)Only the perfect, the wanted, are valuable. “Every child a wanted child.” Those not wanted are eliminated (aborted). “My body, my choice.” Darwinian evolution leads to devaluing those who are less than perfect which ultimately leads to the the murder of the innocent,
the old, the infirmed, those that are an economic drain on society. If a society is to become perfect than the imperfect must go.

Intelligent design says there is someone who created all things, someone who has a purpose for the life created. Intelligent design says all of life is valued, the fit and the “unfit.”

Expelled, the movie, makes the case that those in academia who merely mention the words intelligent design are black listed by the science establishment. They are fired and thrown into exile. Yes, Ben Stein has an agenda with this documentary; he does bring to light the injustices done in academia.
He outlines the outcome when a society adopts one world view over another. Stein makes a case for intelligent design, but seems to leave the viewer of the movie in a bit of hopelessness. What he leaves out, I think, is a sovereign God who is actively at work among men. A God who WILL bring about his covenantal purposes. Purposes laid before the foundation of the world.

Well thank you, politeness and friendliness is undersubscribed these days IMO.

There are some pretty good observations vis a vis the big bang theory from the Hubble Space Telescope, WAMI, and collider work which give some credence to the theory. But, yes then things get inferential after a certain point.

My problem with teaching ID as a theory in science classes has nothing to do with whether I believe it or not. It has to do with the fact that I haven’t seen a single proposed experiment that would help elucidate whether it’s true or not.

I don’t think we should be teaching kids things as a science subject before the scientific method has actually shown it might be true. University classes, no problem, anything lower than that I’m not so comfortable with.

Which, BTW goes hand in hand with the some of the climatology stuff being taught kids.

Regards

Allen-

“I don’t think we should be teaching kids things as a science subject before the scientific method has actually shown it might be true.”

See, this is a reasonable stance, in my opinion. I’m not conversant enough to argue the relative merits of ID studies, but I can see how someone could decide they aren’t yet ready for Prime Time. What I react against are those who blanketly rule out Intelligent Design as even a legitimate field of inquiry. I’ve read enough Foucault to recognize a power play when I see it.

Thanks so much for your thoughtful responses. I really do hope to see you around here more often.

Gail-

Long time no see, LOL.

“He outlines the outcome when a society adopts one world view over another.”

It is interesting how few truly naturalistic societies have been founded in history. What is more interesting is just how many of them have been genocidal monstrosities as well. Your view of the nature of human life really does affect how you weigh the value of individual human lives. That’s not to say that all atheists are monsters, of course. But officially atheist societies really do have a sanguinary history, don’t they?

“Expelled, the movie, makes the case that those in academia who merely mention the words intelligent design are black listed by the science establishment.”

There really does seem to be almost a McCarthyist approach taken toward ID types in academia, from the recent news stories I’ve read. . .

Say hello to your lovely family for us, btw.

I saw Expelled yesterday, I highly recommend it to anyone who wants to know if there really is a debate in science over intelligent design.

J. Wesley

I apologize for long silence.

Spasibo za ochen dobrie slova, chrezvichaino priatno znat chto moi blog chitaut. Spasibo! Takzhe priatno poznakomitsya.

Can desire to make profit, as you put it, “distort” science? Yes, just as desire to make a political statement, or desire to further ideological position can “distort” science too.

Anytime humans are involved, there is a possibility of their efforts being distorted by something, that is human nature. But to single out capitalism as the big, bad, foul-smelling gorilla while ignoring all other gorillas in the room - just as Greg did - is incredibly dishonest.

It is people who choose to distort their work - for whatever reason. It is silly to point fingers at inanimate concept, blaming it for human sins, so to speak.

But anyways, I haven’t seen Expelled yet, so….

Thanks!

armilnov-

Esli eto ne sekret, vui sami otkuda? Ya zhil v Kieve na 4 goda, i ochen’ lyublyu oba Ukrainskuyu i Russkuyu kulturu (no predpochitayu Ukrainskyu, chestno govoria.)

“It is people who choose to distort their work - for whatever reason. It is silly to point fingers at inanimate concept, blaming it for human sins, so to speak.”

I agree. As a conservative, there are elements of Capitalism that bother me — it brings with it constant, rapid social change. But there is no better system in the world. Capitalism is the worst economic system — except all the others.

J Wesley,

Ya rodilsya na Ukraine, no zhil vsu svou zhizn v gorode Yerevan, kotorii segodnya stolica nezavisimoi Respubliki Armenia. S 98-08 zhivu v Florida.

Wow, ya dolzhen skazat, u vas otlichinii russkii yazik! Vi russkii vsego za chetire goda viuchili?

[...] Intelligent design, a theme that seems to surface a lot these days was brought up in a blog I read from time to time: The Comtian Positivist model which holds that the only genuine knowledge is that which can be gained through sense experience IS a religious belief. Certainly, within the context of the scientific method only empirical knowledge is valid, but it is an unjustifiable step to then extrapolate from this that ALL knowledge can only be gained through the scientific method. That is a metaphysical statement — a religious statement. Scientists holding to Positivism are of course free to do so, but they are operating within a religious model. - Expelled the Movie, Intelligent Design, and the Scientific Method | conservativeintelligencer.com [...]