Joined: May 2006
Ruloff, of "Expelled", came to Ben's blog with the same tired and slimy list of the "persecuted". He can't come up with a single new thing to say, which I suppose is why he's dumb enough to make the movie. Anyway, I made a response which is now pending:
|--Do you think this is some kind of fanciful conspiracy theory? Google the names of Richard Sternberg, Caroline Crocker, Guillermo Gonzalez, Dean Kenyon and Bill Dembski and see what you find. These distinguished scientists have suffered severe consequences for questioning Darwinian theory and there are hundreds, if not thousands, more. --|
Naw, it isn't even a competent conspiracy theory.
I'm waiting for Ruloff and Stein to put out the film about how Holocaust deniers are suppressed and persecuted, along with JAD, homeopathy, geocentrists, and believers in UFO abductions. Do you suppose that it is wrong for academia ever to prefer a well-substantiated position over one that is seriously lacking in substance, Ruloff? How is keeping pseudoscientists from teaching religiously-based nonsense any worse than the fact that I don't get to be the preacher of a church?
Is MOND suppressed just because string theory has a much stronger position in academia? Is Wicca persecuted by academia because the latter explains the motions of the heavens through physics instead of the wills of the gods? Is religious persecution behind modern critiques of medieval metaphysics? And is it even suppression at all in the general sense to tell a guy to quit pretending that Baylor has an "ID informatics lab" when it doesn't?
Of course the only real complaint these whiners have is that science and the rest of academia are doing what they're supposed to do, eliminating "hypotheses" that don't work, while teaching and using the ones that do work. ID has been answered (despite its not having anything in its favor from the beginning), something that Ben Stein, Kevin Miller, and Ruloff don't discuss, and no reasonable responses have been forthcoming from these guys.
ID has been considered by academics much better than many genuine scientific hypotheses have been, for the obvious reason, that ID has political clout. Indeed, ID has to some extent distorted science already, by taking attention away from concepts that follow the scientific method, and diverting time and resources with cheesy arguments and attempts to change science into something that accommodates unevidenced magic. Thus ID has managed to suppress science, while ID has open to it all of the venues that it belongs in, including the internet and the churches.
The complaint, in other words, is that science comes to the conclusions expected of it, eventually discarding whatever does not comport with scientific practices and evidence. Their problem is that science works, and it passes judgment upon pseudosciences like ID.
Indeed, one should not forget that "the father of Intelligent Design" denied that HIV causes AIDS, no matter how abundantly the evidence indicates otherwise. And of course HIV denial is frowned upon in the universities, even though HIV denial doesn't even exist as a Wedge for religion. How much more ought we to oppose ID in the centers of learning than even HIV denial, considering that ID not only is completely fallacious as science, but exists expressly in order to oppose the highly successful methods of science?
I do thank Ruloff for so completely exposing the religious nature of ID, however. To be sure, it was evident to anyone who can think, but then Phillip Johnson explicitly stated it in the Wedge document. Yet this whole complaint that we're "suppressing" a "science" because it is in fact religious, is helpful to those of us who wish to maintain the First Amendment and freedom--at least it is in the legal realm.
Believe me, a Holocaust denier would be much less welcome to Baylor than an IDist is. And Ruloff doesn't raise a single objection to shunting out those egregious malingerers. Why should he? We have evidence that the Holocaust happened, and the deniers have no evidence that it did not. Likewise, we have evidence that evolution happened according to mostly known non-teleological processes, and IDists have no evidence for the teleological processes that they claim were involved (which they claim even though they deny that we should look for evidence for teleology in organisms). But supposedly we're suppressing the one, while Ruloff et al. don't care that we're "suppressing" the other one, and indeed, should complain if we didn't do so.
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy