[ExI] New documentary by Ben Stein, "Expelled"
Lee Corbin
lcorbin at rawbw.com
Fri Mar 14 06:56:39 UTC 2008
BillK writes
> One of the first available, from the Orlando Sentinel, is here:
> <http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_movies_blog/2008/02/is-ben-stein-th.html>
>
> Quotes:
> Is Ben Stein the new face of Creationism?
> ...
> ID is "creation science" is "creationism" is "God dun it." Teaching
> that as something provable beyond faith in a science curriculum is a
> big reason future Nobel winners will pour out of China and India, and
> not Kansas. Or Florida. That's the reason a consensus of the world's
> scientists fret so much over the time they have to waste on this
> non-debate. Stein found a Pole and the infamous Discovery Institute to
> back up his attacks, even though they offer no counter theories that
> they can back up.
What would be the effect of Ben Stein having substituted "round Earth
theory" for "evolution" and "Flat Earth theory" for creation science?
Or vice-versa? Surely, as mathematicians would say, there should be
some invariants here.
"Should" as in "highly desirable" or "expected". An appeal to principle
if you will.
> "Expelled" makes good points about academic freedom and the ways
> unpopular ideas are shouted down in academia, the press and the
> culture.
It does. But no one is going to prison in the West yet for saying
anything, even denying climate change or saying that the Holocaust
never happened. (Europe is not quite so lucky.)
Here is the *real* problem. The problem comes down to who
gets to make decisions, and who is affected by them. Is it really
proper for a tax-payer supported public institution to take sides
in a scientific/philosophic controversy? "Oh yes," I'll hear almost
everyone on this list say. "Since the government is necessary to
decide everything, it's all okay so long as we go with the majority
rule. Right now the Bush administration gets to decide what
science is done, and by this time next year some other administration
will decide---the people will have spoken. What could be fairer and
better than that?"
The short answer: Please go read Thomas Sowell's "Knowledge
and Decisions".
At a private university, you see, there is no problem! A professor
has the right to say anything he likes, even that 2+2 = 5 according
to his latest theories. But the university also has the right to
dismiss him for any reason they like---their customers (paying
students and their parents) just might not think that the university
is doing its job.
So if Bob Jones university wants to teach creationism, I say fine.
And if Harvard with its billions and billions wants to teach evolution,
I say fine. IT IS NOT UP TO YOU AND ME TO SAY!
But no, totally ignoring the NAP (who here even remembers that?),
the government goes around and confiscates huge amounts of money
for---for what? to defend the very system of free government? to
administer justice and enforce contracts? to maintain infrastructure
that business may not be able to cooperate on? Dream on!
Those were the old days. Our New Model Government is composed
of people who are so wise they can, for example, know so much
about some tiny town in Appalachia---its people, its customs, its
traditions, how strongly the parents and children feel, what the
consequences of various courses of action would be, and so on
and on---that they can know whether or not school prayer should
be permitted in the schools there. "Why not?", again I hear most
people on this list say, "After all, God doesn't exist and so the
people's money shouldn't be spent supporting that!"
Whose money? Whose money? Money belonging to the people in that
small town? Of course not.
The money comes from all over the U.S., and government bureaucrats
amass immense power by deciding who gets how much of it. But this
is all good and fair, you see, because we vote on it, we get to
vote on who will have all that power, so it's okay.
Lee
More information about the extropy-chat
mailing list