Here is my expression of the Freedom of speech for this, the post of 3 July 2010:
Let me start by saying this: Ben Stein is a political observer and an economist, among other things, but he is not a “scientist” (in terms of physical/ natural sciences, or mathematics, he is at some level what is considered a historical scientist (history, political science, economics, anthropology, and even elements of geology are historical sciences). I am a scientist. I have been criticized by my peers as being too “sciency” and having no soul.
Interestingly, I am one of the few anthropologists an/or archaeologists I know that is also deeply religious (some may not know that I was a part-time pastor once) and i have a strong belief in a creator God…. I have on the other hand done a shitload of research on chaos and emergent phenomena and the like… I have come to the scientific and religious conclusion that creation by a god cannot be excluded hypothetically. The probability that all is due to random chance is extremely low, given the cumulative effects of emergent phenomena in the chemical and biological evolution of the universe… . It seems odd to me that a scientist would argue for random chances as a final solution to questions regarding the origins of the universe and of life within that universe (among other things). They deal with the probabilities of random chance in hypothesis testing all the time… why not apply that to the “big one?”
I also disagree with the notion that Darwinism is counter to the notion of creation by “intelligent design.” Darwin, and neo-Darwinist approaches all are, in practicality, open to a “creationist” interpretation. The evolution of matter, stars, planets, and life need not be “one or the other.” It is foolish to think that things do not evolve. Hell, I evolved! I started unable to cook or clean or pay bills, but I adapted. I failed to adapt at other things (like Physics 203) so, I was selected out of certain life paths (like being an engineer). The same applies less tongue-in-cheek to more serious scientific concerns.
The problem is absolutes…. “Creationists” who want to patently reject evolution and believe strictly in an in situ formation of all that exists are not really considering the broader picture that they themselves are offered and even experience daily. Likewise “Darwinists” who patently reject the notion of a greater intelligence behind the order in the universe are failing to recognize the rational beauty of the very order they seek to explain.
Thus, though I think the message here is a bit over the top, its really no worse than Stephen Hawking believing he can disprove the existence of God through solving the riddle of the Grand Unified Theory….
Time to go set off fireworks…
Related posts:
