Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
There's a movie by Ben Stein (Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed) due for release in cinemas in early 2008 that I think will be very interesting. Stein challenges the scientific community to explain why they're so hostile to 'creationists'.
To see a preview of the movie, visit expelledthemovie.
The point he seems to be making is one about free speech and the right to apply scientific scrutiny to creationist ideas. That seems to me to be a valid argument. There's a book I'm hoping to read soon called The History of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn. He's the guy who coined the phrase "paradigm shift" in the 60s and his view is that scientific knowledge isn't cumulative. Rather, science creates paradigms which in turn are distilled to become school and college texts. Scientific research then becomes about continually validating these paradigms. When research results turn up anomolies, as they arise, they are ignored or refuted using the models created for the existing paradigm. In short, anomolies are regarded as "bad science" and are written off as faulty scientific methods on the part of the researcher. Over time, if anomolies continue to appear, they ultimately reach a kind of critical mass point that leads to major shifts in the paradigm. The other way paradigm change occurs is when a radical new idea or perspective of an existing paradigm knocks the science world on its ass. There are many examples of these kinds of paradigm shifts throughout the history of science. Einstein's proved Newton wrong about gravity, to name just one.
20th century 'science' was one of specialization and the word "scientist" as we understand it today is itself is a relatively new word (less than 150 years old). There are many fields of scientific enquiry today but all science was originally philosophy. Many of the greatest thinkers over the past couple of millennia were polymaths and, as such, would likely have found life difficult in the 20th century academic world - a world which came to shun interdisciplinary research. This is, as we enter the 21st century, an attitude that I'm seeing change.
There's lots of holes in Darwin's evolutionary theories - holes being 'anomolies'. The same is true for creationist dogma. Perhaps the time is nearing for a major paradigm shift which might completely invalidate both and result in a third theory - perhaps the unification theory that has puzzled physicists for the past 80 or so years. Evolutionary theory and creationist beliefs may well continue to be "useful", just as Newton's theories about gravity, while wrong, remain useful for practical purposes.
I personally believe that both evolutionary theory and creationists are yet to properly comprehend "time". In many respects, their perspectives on time are analogous with the Flat-Earthers concept of the geometry of the Earth. Because they can only view such a small part of time, they regard it as linear, with a beginning, middle and end. However, I'm of the belief that time, like light, sound, the movements of planets in space, and perhaps even matter itself, is periodic motion - a waveform. As such, it is the fundamental waveform and everything else in the universe is upper partials of time. Also, if time is a waveform then, like all waveforms, it travels through 360 degrees. In other words, there may be a point at which it's at zero degrees where nothing exists at all. However, 360 degrees is also a circle and circles have no beginning or end thus, no moment of Divine creation and no Big Bang.
Anyway, it's heady stuff and I'm looking forward to seeing the movie.
To see a preview of the movie, visit expelledthemovie.
The point he seems to be making is one about free speech and the right to apply scientific scrutiny to creationist ideas. That seems to me to be a valid argument. There's a book I'm hoping to read soon called The History of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn. He's the guy who coined the phrase "paradigm shift" in the 60s and his view is that scientific knowledge isn't cumulative. Rather, science creates paradigms which in turn are distilled to become school and college texts. Scientific research then becomes about continually validating these paradigms. When research results turn up anomolies, as they arise, they are ignored or refuted using the models created for the existing paradigm. In short, anomolies are regarded as "bad science" and are written off as faulty scientific methods on the part of the researcher. Over time, if anomolies continue to appear, they ultimately reach a kind of critical mass point that leads to major shifts in the paradigm. The other way paradigm change occurs is when a radical new idea or perspective of an existing paradigm knocks the science world on its ass. There are many examples of these kinds of paradigm shifts throughout the history of science. Einstein's proved Newton wrong about gravity, to name just one.
20th century 'science' was one of specialization and the word "scientist" as we understand it today is itself is a relatively new word (less than 150 years old). There are many fields of scientific enquiry today but all science was originally philosophy. Many of the greatest thinkers over the past couple of millennia were polymaths and, as such, would likely have found life difficult in the 20th century academic world - a world which came to shun interdisciplinary research. This is, as we enter the 21st century, an attitude that I'm seeing change.
There's lots of holes in Darwin's evolutionary theories - holes being 'anomolies'. The same is true for creationist dogma. Perhaps the time is nearing for a major paradigm shift which might completely invalidate both and result in a third theory - perhaps the unification theory that has puzzled physicists for the past 80 or so years. Evolutionary theory and creationist beliefs may well continue to be "useful", just as Newton's theories about gravity, while wrong, remain useful for practical purposes.
I personally believe that both evolutionary theory and creationists are yet to properly comprehend "time". In many respects, their perspectives on time are analogous with the Flat-Earthers concept of the geometry of the Earth. Because they can only view such a small part of time, they regard it as linear, with a beginning, middle and end. However, I'm of the belief that time, like light, sound, the movements of planets in space, and perhaps even matter itself, is periodic motion - a waveform. As such, it is the fundamental waveform and everything else in the universe is upper partials of time. Also, if time is a waveform then, like all waveforms, it travels through 360 degrees. In other words, there may be a point at which it's at zero degrees where nothing exists at all. However, 360 degrees is also a circle and circles have no beginning or end thus, no moment of Divine creation and no Big Bang.
Anyway, it's heady stuff and I'm looking forward to seeing the movie.
Labels: Movies, Philosophy, Science
posted by Mister Pervert at 1:30 PM
0 comments
