eXpelled!

[-Cp]

I can't wait to take my kids to see this next month!



Interesting Ben Stein movie coming out this spring 2008.

Ben Stein makes public the ostracism of well known and respected scientists from
the scientific community due to their daring to suggest that intelligent design should
be considered as a possible reason for man's existence.

It looks like the movie should be interesting.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xGCxbhGaVfE&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xGCxbhGaVfE&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YxGyMn_-J3c&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YxGyMn_-J3c&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[-Cp]

I'm surprised nobody else here thinks this would be a great film!

[Hobbit]

Ah so somebody DID beat me to it. I'd have commented before, but I don't come to the movies section often. My friends and I are all going to see it on Saturday.

[Hagbard Celine]

Intelligent design has been unequivocally exoised as pseudoscience. It's nothing more than a (false) philosophical argument (the clockmaker) pushed to the forefront (again: it was done before under the name "Creationism") by a fringe group of religious folks bent on reading Genesis literally.
But I guess the comedian Ben Stein will finally put the "debate" (there isn't one) to rest with his movie. :rolleyes:
I just really feel for the "scientists" that have been so brutally silenced by those bad ol' Darwinist pagans.

[theHawk]

Intelligent design has been unequivocally exoised as pseudoscience. It's nothing more than a (false) philosophical argument pushed to the forefront (again: it was done before under the name "Creationism") by a fringe group of religious folks bent on reading Genesis literally.
But I guess the comedian Ben Stein will finally put the "debate" (there isn't one) to rest with his movie. :rolleyes:
I just really feel for the "scientists" that have been so brutally silenced by those bad ol' Darwinist pagans.

I think the intention is to open the debate, since most liberals are completely closed about it and are unwilling to debate it. Kind of like what your post demonstrates.

[Hagbard Celine]

I think the intention is to open the debate, since most liberals are completely closed about it and are unwilling to debate it. Kind of like what your post demonstrates.

The problem with your post is that the debate has already taken place. ID has been exposed as pseudoscience unequivocally. The problem is that they do still need to sell tickets to that ID "museum" they built out in corn land so I guess a few people are still grasping at these straws. :dunno: I don't know why. It seems like a waste of time to beat a dead horse. That's just me though.

[glockmail]

I'm surprised nobody else here thinks this would be a great film!
I just saw it advertised this last week and am planning on taking my kids the next rainy Saturday or Sunday.

[Dilloduck]

The problem with your post is that the debate has already taken place. ID has been exposed as pseudoscience unequivocally. The problem is that they do still need to sell tickets to that ID "museum" they built out in corn land so I guess a few people are still grasping at these straws. :dunno: I don't know why. It seems like a waste of time to beat a dead horse. That's just me though.

Who decided the debate was over and settled ?

[Hagbard Celine]

Who decided the debate was over and settled ?

Usually when one side of a debate is exposed to be false, it ends the debate.

[Dilloduck]

Usually when one side of a debate is exposed to be false, it ends the debate.

Then why do the "victors" give a damn about these losers making a few bucks off a failed debate effort ?

[Hagbard Celine]

Then why do the "victors" give a damn about these losers making a few bucks off a failed debate effort ?

As I've said before, there are extremists on both sides of all issues who will hoot and beat their chests at any percieved "victory." The only victor in these types of debates though is the collective consciousness. Yahoos in various form are ephemeral at best.

[theHawk]

The problem with your post is that the debate has already taken place. ID has been exposed as pseudoscience unequivocally. The problem is that they do still need to sell tickets to that ID "museum" they built out in corn land so I guess a few people are still grasping at these straws. :dunno: I don't know why. It seems like a waste of time to beat a dead horse. That's just me though.

Oh, you mean debunked like the following arguement against ID:


I wonder. Did this intelligent being get bored with dinosaurs? For one-hundred million years, dinosaurs were the dominant large animals on earth, and then bang! they were gone with the exception of a few species in the bird family. According to intelligent design supporters, the following must be an untold story of the bible. T-rex and triceratops stopped worshipping the ultimate intelligent designer and started worshipping the rock God. In a rage the intelligent designer (who intelligent design "theorists" can't call God, if they want to sneak their fairy tale into schools) smited them all with fire from the sky.
http://www.useless-knowledge.com/1234/aug/article026.html

Yea, thats really a great debate there. :cool:


I'm not saying everything about ID is 100% correct. But many aspects of its arguements are interesting. Just because scientists scream they have no way of testing it, doesn't make it false in my opinion.

[dan]

Then why do the "victors" give a damn about these losers making a few bucks off a failed debate effort ?

For one thing, two people in this very thread have said that they're bringing their kids to see it, clearly to show them that it's not a failed effort, but to be taught that it's correct, and I'm sure many, many others across the country are doing the same thing.

[Hagbard Celine]

Oh, you mean debunked like the following arguement against ID:


http://www.useless-knowledge.com/1234/aug/article026.html

Yea, thats really a great debate there. :cool:


I'm not saying everything about ID is 100% correct. But many aspects of its arguements are interesting. Just because scientists scream they have no way of testing it, doesn't make it false in my opinion.

You think you're cool because you found an example of a pundit using sarcasm? I have another game you can play: Go outside and everytime a plane flies over yell-out "PLANE!" and point and wave frantically so all you neighbors will know.
The fact that ID can't be tested proves that it's not science.

[Hobbit]

You think you're cool because you found an example of a pundit using sarcasm? I have another game you can play: Go outside and everytime a plane flies over yell-out "PLANE!" and point and wave frantically so all you neighbors will know.
The fact that ID can't be tested proves that it's not science.

Evolution can't be tested either, and I don't see that being junked as science. The debate isn't over. It hasn't even started yet since anytime somebody says anything about it, the academia equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition drops down around their ears and shouts them down. Last I checked, that wasn't winning a debate, it was throwing a tantrum.

[actsnoblemartin]

I would love to see this movie

[glockmail]

The problem with your post is that the debate has already taken place. ID has been exposed as pseudoscience unequivocally. The problem is that they do still need to sell tickets to that ID "museum" they built out in corn land so I guess a few people are still grasping at these straws. :dunno: I don't know why. It seems like a waste of time to beat a dead horse. That's just me though.

“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Nice elitist attitude Hag.

[Hagbard Celine]

Evolution can't be tested either, and I don't see that being junked as science. The debate isn't over. It hasn't even started yet since anytime somebody says anything about it, the academia equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition drops down around their ears and shouts them down. Last I checked, that wasn't winning a debate, it was throwing a tantrum.

What are you talking about? This is nonsense. Evolution has the entire fossil record, genetics, radio-carbon dating and biochemistry to back it up and supply ample fodder for experimentation.
ID has a failed philosophical proposition = FAIL.

Where are you coming from?

[glockmail]

What are you talking about? This is nonsense. Evolution has the entire fossil record, genetics, radio-carbon dating and biochemistry to back it up and supply ample fodder for experimentation.
ID has a failed philosophical proposition = FAIL.

Where are you coming from?
Actually evolution has a partial fossil record, revealing huge gaps between species types, which is best explained by a "designer" making major changes, not small increments, as would be required by evolutionary theory.

[Hagbard Celine]

Actually evolution has a partial fossil record, revealing huge gaps between species types, which is best explained by a "designer" making major changes, not small increments, as would be required by evolutionary theory.

No, it's best explained by the fact that the fossils either weren't formed or haven't been found yet.
Nothing in the history of the world has ever been factually explained by magic or any other supernatural explanation. Why would bio-diversity be any different?

[glockmail]

No, it's best explained by the fact that the fossils either weren't formed or haven't been found yet.
Nothing in the history of the world has ever been factually explained by magic or any other supernatural explanation. Why would bio-diversity be any different?
These “intermediate” fossils have to have been formed. It's statistically impossible for them not to be. If they have not been found yet then why do you claim that the debate is finished?

No one is claiming magic. That’s a non sequitur.

The existence of God has of course been explained by facts: The fact that witnesses have documented supernatural activities. The fact that life exists. The fact that life would not occur without unique properties of water. The fact that you feel consciousness.

[Hagbard Celine]

These “intermediate” fossils have to have been formed. It's statistically impossible for them not to be. If they have not been found yet then why do you claim that the debate is finished?

No one is claiming magic. That’s a non sequitur.

The existence of God has of course been explained by facts: The fact that witnesses have documented supernatural activities. The fact that life exists. The fact that life would not occur without unique properties of water. The fact that you feel consciousness.

But all of the things you've described are natural and are possible because of the natural laws of the universe. There is no reason to suspect that there is anything supernatural about the world we live in. Rather, the logical assumption is that we just haven't figured it all out yet. Magic, Supernatural "Creators," etc., that's the non-sequitur. There has never been anything to lead us to believe that there is anything in existence, which does not have a natural explanation.

[glockmail]

But all of the things you've described are natural and are possible because of the natural laws of the universe. There is no reason to suspect that there is anything supernatural about the world we live in. Rather, the logical assumption is that we just haven't figured it all out yet. .... If we haven't figured it out yet, then why claim the debate is over?

[Hobbit]

No, it's best explained by the fact that the fossils either weren't formed or haven't been found yet.
Nothing in the history of the world has ever been factually explained by magic or any other supernatural explanation. Why would bio-diversity be any different?

So evolution is 100% absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt true, but the Earth ate your homework, so you can't prove it?

[manu1959]

What are you talking about? This is nonsense. Evolution has the entire fossil record, genetics, radio-carbon dating and biochemistry to back it up and supply ample fodder for experimentation.
ID has a failed philosophical proposition = FAIL.

Where are you coming from?

can you link me up to the fosil record and genetic liniage of where the oooooze came from that created the first being that humans evloved from.....

thanks so much....

[Hagbard Celine]

So evolution is 100% absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt true, but the Earth ate your homework, so you can't prove it?

I haven't made the claim that evolution is "100 percent absolutely, blah, blah true." Neither has anyone else. What it is, is the best theory we have based on the material evidence at hand. It fits in perfectly with all the other sciences. Genetics backs it up. Chemistry backs it up. Geology backs it up. Physics backs it up. Paleontology backs it up. What more do you need? And what has convinced you that the supernatural has any place in the debate when the supernatural is untestable and completely undocumented in every other facet of human knowledge?
When electricity was first being tested, they didn't write it off as supernatural, they made a lightbulb. Why would this be any different? It's a question about the natural world--how did biodiversity occur? Why would the answer be supernatural? It makes absolutely no logical sense to make the jump to a "Creator."

[Abbey Marie]

I haven't made the claim that evolution is "100 percent absolutely, blah, blah true." Neither has anyone else. What it is, is the best theory we have based on the material evidence at hand.
...


If evolution is not 100% true, how can (as you have said), the debate be over?

[Hobbit]

I haven't made the claim that evolution is "100 percent absolutely, blah, blah true." Neither has anyone else. What it is, is the best theory we have based on the material evidence at hand. It fits in perfectly with all the other sciences. Genetics backs it up. Chemistry backs it up. Geology backs it up. Physics backs it up. Paleontology backs it up. What more do you need? And what has convinced you that the supernatural has any place in the debate when the supernatural is untestable and completely undocumented in every other facet of human knowledge?
When electricity was first being tested, they didn't write it off as supernatural, they made a lightbulb. Why would this be any different? It's a question about the natural world--how did biodiversity occur? Why would the answer be supernatural? It makes absolutely no logical sense to make the jump to a "Creator."

So what happened to 'the debate is over?' Are you admitting that evolution isn't absolutely true, in contradiction to your earlier statements? If so, then what is so heretical about a questioning its validity?

As to your questions, let me say this. If you found a very smoothed out rock that was the exact likeness of Abraham Lincoln lying around, would you conclude that it had eroded in an astronomically coincidental way, or would you conclude that it had been intelligently designed? Given that, how can you look at the vast complexities of life: the eye, the DNA molecule, the brain, and then state with near absolute certainty that none of it was designed and that it could only have happened through an astronomical string of astronomical coincidences.

As for your electricity question, electricity isn't life. We saw electricity and we wondered what caused it, so we discovered charge, static, voltage, etc. At that point, we could, with near absolute certainty, point at, say, a battery or a generator and say, "The electricity is coming from there and here's why." All our modern technology, on the other hand, is unable to artificially reproduce even the basest building blocks of life. Even a virus, which isn't technically alive, is too complicated for us, so why then, is it considered not only plausible, but in fact the only possible solution, that these things simply sprang up out of the ground spontaneously without something there to 'build' them? We have no life generator or battery to point to and say, "There, that's where life came from and here's why." In fact, in contrast to electricity, which is generated at random millions of times every second around the world, there has never been an observed instance of life being spontaneously created. We instead have a pile of very old rocks with imprints of ancient life on them. We can't even study their DNA, just what they look like. From that, a guess is the best we can muster. However, atheists have propagated this theory as being the only possible correct one based on an unprovable assumption, namely that we are the only intelligence in existence. Mighty arrogant, I think. Einstein and Newton believed in God, and believed that they were unlocking the secrets to His creation. Why then, must modern scientists insist on begin all discussions with, "Assume there is no God, then..." much like the astronomers of the early Renaissance started all of there discussions with, "Assume the Earth is the center of the universe, then...?" It's the same thing. It's intellectually dishonest, and the zealotry occurs when they shout down anybody who even suggests that maybe this Darwin thing isn't as true as some people once thought, not when somebody suggests that maybe they should toss out the base assumption that there is no God.

[Hagbard Celine]

If evolution is not 100% true, how can (as you have said), the debate be over?

Because there's no such thing as magic. It's illogical and unproductive to try and force a debate where there isn't one. The consensus is that lifeforms have gradually changed over time to reach the state they are in presently and are continuing to change. Genetics supports it. The fossil record supports it. Logic supports it. Barring some unforeseen smoking gun, this is the body of knowledge we'll continue to build on. We certainly won't scrap it to take another look at the Genesis story for no reason other than to try to affirm a few fringe people.

[glockmail]

Because there's no such thing as magic. It's illogical and unproductive to try and force a debate where there isn't one. The consensus is that lifeforms have gradually changed over time to reach the state they are in presently and are continuing to change. Genetics supports it. The fossil record supports it. Logic supports it. Barring some unforeseen smoking gun, this is the body of knowledge we'll continue to build on. We certainly won't scrap it to take another look at the Genesis story for no reason other than to try to affirm a few fringe people.This is the third time that you've brought up magic, yet no one has bought that straw man. It's time to man up on this and admit that the debate is far from over.

[Hagbard Celine]

This is the third time that you've brought up magic, yet no one has bought that straw man. It's time to man up on this and admit that the debate is far from over.

Are actually trying to delineate between magic and "the supernatural?" Please. Would you be happier if I used the word "wizardry?"
The only debate that matters is the one that includes rational arguments. The "Creator" argument falls flat in this regard. There can be no argument based on a creator because there is nothing to back it up. The only real debates that exist are the ones inside evolutionary theory.
Come up with some corporeal evidence and that will change.

[glockmail]

Are actually trying to delineate between magic and "the supernatural?" Please. Would you be happier if I used the word "wizardry?"
The only debate that matters is the one that includes rational arguments. The "Creator" argument falls flat in this regard. There can be no argument based on a creator because there is nothing to back it up. The only real debates that exist are the ones inside evolutionary theory.
Come up with some corporeal evidence and that will change. Magic and wizardy are human tricks and slight-of-hand. I've given you rational arguments that support the existence of supernatural forces which you have ignored.

[Hagbard Celine]

Magic and wizardy are human tricks and slight-of-hand. I've given you rational arguments that support the existence of supernatural forces which you have ignored.

You mean "irreducible complexity?" It's a joke. There's no such thing. It's also been unequivocally exposed as pseudoscience, which means "not science" if you haven't been paying attention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

Michael J. Behe (born January 18, 1952) is an American biochemist and intelligent design advocate. Behe is professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. He advocates the idea that some structures are too complex at the biochemical level to be adequately explained as a result of evolutionary mechanisms. He has termed this concept "irreducible complexity".

Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of key cellular structures are strongly contested by the scientific community. The Department of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University has published an official position statement which says "It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific." [1] Behe's ideas about intelligent design have been rejected by the scientific community and characterized as pseudoscience.[2][3][4]

Behe's testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District is extensively cited by the judge[5][6][7][8] in his ruling that intelligent design is not science but essentially religious in nature.[9]

Behe is married and has nine children.[10]



If any other "evidence" you have to support "the supernatural" is simply holes in evolutionary theory that haven't been filled-in yet, you can leave them out. The theory is sound and is supported heavily by all other areas of science. To suggest that the theory is "wrong" simply because we don't know everything yet is ludicrous.

[glockmail]

You mean "irreducible complexity?" It's a joke. There's no such thing. It's also been unequivocally exposed as pseudoscience, which means "not science" if you haven't been paying attention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe


If any other "evidence" you have to support "the supernatural" is simply holes in evolutionary theory that haven't been filled-in yet, you can leave them out. The theory is sound and is supported heavily by all other areas of science. To suggest that the theory is "wrong" simply because we don't know everything yet is ludicrous.You're being silly tossing up these straw men. The fact is that there are many, many questions as to the theory of evolution, and to claim that the debate is closed is pathetic.

[JimmyAteWorld]

There seems to be an awful lot of debate on an issue in which the debate is over.

I'd say more, but I'm off to see Expelled.

[Sitarro]

If man evolved from apes, why are apes still around and why haven't they evolved. Why haven't any of the other animals on this planet evolved anywhere near as much as humans have. You would think one animal or another could at least build an adobe house when you consider what humans have been able to build. Even the dumbest shit human, being actively recruited as we speak by the Democrat party, is infinitely more intelligent than the smartest animal....... how is that explained. Is it the old opposable thumbs theory? Why have so few species grown thumbs? Why haven't raccoons built spacecraft?

The only thing evolution and survival of the fittest explains is redesign, not original design.

[dan]

Sounds like a pretty fair and balanced movie...


It's reasonable to expect Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, an intelligent-design documentary starring and co-written by former Nixon speechwriter, game-show host, and "Bueller, Bueller" guy Ben Stein, to address these basic questions with at least a modicum of depth. No such luck. Instead, Expelled is a classic bait-and-switch, presenting itself as a plea for freedom in the scientific marketplace of ideas, while actually delivering a grossly unfair, contradictory, and ultimately repugnant attack on Darwinists, whose theory of life is first described, in frustratingly vague terms, as "unintelligible" and "a room full of smoke," then as a pathway to atheism, and finally as a Nazi justification for the Holocaust.

http://www.avclub.com/content/cinema/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed

[Hagbard Celine]

If man evolved from apes, why are apes still around and why haven't they evolved. Why haven't any of the other animals on this planet evolved anywhere near as much as humans have. You would think one animal or another could at least build an adobe house when you consider what humans have been able to build. Even the dumbest shit human, being actively recruited as we speak by the Democrat party, is infinitely more intelligent than the smartest animal....... how is that explained. Is it the old opposable thumbs theory? Why have so few species grown thumbs? Why haven't raccoons built spacecraft?

The only thing evolution and survival of the fittest explains is redesign, not original design.

Man didn't evolve from apes. Man and apes evolved from a common, siman-like ancestor. You're ridiculing the theory when you don't even fully understand it. How does that make any sense? There is evidence that there have been other hominids that did evolve alongside modern homosapiens (neanderthal for instance) but they were either hunted into extinction or they were bred-out by humans into extinction. And ape behavior has changed. Chimps have recently been observed making and using spears to hunt bushmeat. This is new behavior--they're learning.
The reason that drastic changes haven't been observed is because the theory is only a century-old. Hell, recorded history is only a little over 2000 years. In the evolutionary timespan, this is less than a blink of an eye. The eras and epochs we discuss like the jurassic, cretacious, tertiary, etc.--these are millions of years. Besides, you can't act as if evolutionary theory is ridiculous when there has never been a single instance of credible supernatural phenomenon documented in the history of mankind.

[diuretic]

The currently accepted theory of evolution - as the theory exists today - is the best explanation for observed phenomena. At least in the scientific community and I have to say in the broader general community it's accepted and understood. In those who have a fundamentalist approach to religion it's rejected. And that's of course anyone's right.

But don't try and say that ID or Creationism is anything else but religion. It's not science and that's a fact Jack.

[diuretic]

Sounds like a pretty fair and balanced movie...



http://www.avclub.com/content/cinema/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed

It sounds like a really stupid movie. It's being dismembered in reviews. I doubt it will make it here as the ID thing is treated as a joke but I have to say I wouldn't piss my money away on it.

[glockmail]

The currently accepted theory of evolution - as the theory exists today - is the best explanation for observed phenomena. At least in the scientific community and I have to say in the broader general community it's accepted and understood. In those who have a fundamentalist approach to religion it's rejected. And that's of course anyone's right.

But don't try and say that ID or Creationism is anything else but religion. It's not science and that's a fact Jack.
So how did life begin then? :coffee:

[Hobbit]

The currently accepted theory of evolution - as the theory exists today - is the best explanation for observed phenomena. At least in the scientific community and I have to say in the broader general community it's accepted and understood. In those who have a fundamentalist approach to religion it's rejected. And that's of course anyone's right.

But don't try and say that ID or Creationism is anything else but religion. It's not science and that's a fact Jack.

How would you know if you never looked into it? I do not accept ID due to religious concerns. If evolution is true, then it doesn't shake my belief that it was guided by God and is another of His awesome mechanisms. However, I followed the evidence and arrived at the conclusion that life is too complicated to have been a random string of chemical reactions that happened to result in us being here.

I would also really like to know what makes it 'not science.' The only answer I can get that doesn't require simple, blind acceptance that Darwin was 100% correct is that it implies a being that we have not discovered, but isn't the unproven assumption that there is no higher intelligence just as, if not more crippling to scientific thought as the assumption that the Earth is only 6000 years old?

[diuretic]

So how did life begin then? :coffee:

I can't tell you until after I get my Nobel Prize
:laugh2:

Just kidding.

Right now we don't know.

Next question? :coffee:

[diuretic]

How would you know if you never looked into it? I do not accept ID due to religious concerns. If evolution is true, then it doesn't shake my belief that it was guided by God and is another of His awesome mechanisms. However, I followed the evidence and arrived at the conclusion that life is too complicated to have been a random string of chemical reactions that happened to result in us being here.

I would also really like to know what makes it 'not science.' The only answer I can get that doesn't require simple, blind acceptance that Darwin was 100% correct is that it implies a being that we have not discovered, but isn't the unproven assumption that there is no higher intelligence just as, if not more crippling to scientific thought as the assumption that the Earth is only 6000 years old?

H you are free to believe whatever you wish and I don’t mean that in a dismissive or offhand manner. On that I have to say I’m surprised when anyone with strong religious faith – usually a Christian – finds the scientific theory of revolution threatening to their faith. I’m not directing this at you by the way, just reflecting on the ideas.

You’ve explained why no person of faith should be threatened by the theory of evolution. As far as I’m aware no scientist has actually formally expressed the idea that the theory of evolution, accepted in the scientific community as a valid theory for observed phenomena, disproves the existence of a creator. The theory of evolution simply seeks to explain phenomena and it does it very well. To date it hasn’t been overturned. You might want to compare this to Lamarckism to see how ideas can be challenged in science.

ID isn’t science, it’s religion. What really gets to me are the attempts of those who should know better to dress up what is essentially a matter of religious faith as science when it patently isn’t and that has been found in a court of law which is a pretty good tribunal of fact. This is why ID is considered “non-science”

ID doesn’t meet the Daubert Standard –

http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/3210/3210lect01a.htm

http://www.daubertontheweb.com/progeny.htm

I’ll reiterate. You’re free to believe what you wish. You can believe ID is science but I’ll show the evidence to anyone who wishes to read it which shows that ID isn’t science.

It seems to me that ID is an effort by some to prove the existence of a creator. As such it's just another manifestation of the teleogical arguments. Aquinas did this with his five proofs. But Aquinas proved nothing in actuality, he simply constructed five arguments, valid in terms of logical structure, but which had absolutely no value as proofs of fact. Having said that I still admire his elegance of argument.

ID can't prove the existence of a creator in just the same manner Aquinas couldn't prove the existence of a creator. ID pretends to use science to do so but it's exposed as a sham and isn't to be taken seriously.

My argument is with the ID'ers who dishonestly insist that they have a scientific case for their claims. They don't.

[dan]

It sounds like a really stupid movie. It's being dismembered in reviews. I doubt it will make it here as the ID thing is treated as a joke but I have to say I wouldn't piss my money away on it.

I'd say it's like your average Michael Moore movie: it'll be seen only by those who already support its claims and it'll change nobody's minds... which was probably what the filmmakers expected anyway.

[glockmail]

I can't tell you until after I get my Nobel Prize
:laugh2:

Just kidding.

Right now we don't know.

Next question? :coffee: Actually we do.:poke:

[Hobbit]

H you are free to believe whatever you wish and I don’t mean that in a dismissive or offhand manner. On that I have to say I’m surprised when anyone with strong religious faith – usually a Christian – finds the scientific theory of revolution threatening to their faith. I’m not directing this at you by the way, just reflecting on the ideas.

You’ve explained why no person of faith should be threatened by the theory of evolution. As far as I’m aware no scientist has actually formally expressed the idea that the theory of evolution, accepted in the scientific community as a valid theory for observed phenomena, disproves the existence of a creator. The theory of evolution simply seeks to explain phenomena and it does it very well. To date it hasn’t been overturned. You might want to compare this to Lamarckism to see how ideas can be challenged in science.

Actually, many Darwinists, most prominently Richard Dawkins, have clearly stated that belief in Darwinism turned them away from religion.


ID isn’t science, it’s religion. What really gets to me are the attempts of those who should know better to dress up what is essentially a matter of religious faith as science when it patently isn’t and that has been found in a court of law which is a pretty good tribunal of fact. This is why ID is considered “non-science”

Consensus and law do not make science. Tests, retests, and conclusions based on observations are what make science. One side of the argument takes every species we know of, observes the similarities, and concludes they must have had common ancestry. The other side looks at the same evidence, sees the complexity of life in general, as well as the mind-boggling complexity of even the simplest cell, and concludes that some sort of higher intelligence must have designed it, as random reactions couldn't have accounted for the sheer complexity of it all. Both are observations made based on evidence. I really don't understand how anybody can possibly entertain this 'it's not science' position. Both sides made observations. They reached different theories. Neither can be tested. However, one side has repeatedly argued that, because of the conclusion reached and not the method used to reach that conclusion, that the other side is actually religion and not science, despite the fact that their conclusion is also based on an underlying assumption that is entirely faith based and cannot be proven, namely, that there cannot possibly have ever been a higher intelligence anywhere in the universe. Doesn't that also count as religion?


ID doesn’t meet the Daubert Standard –

http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/3210/3210lect01a.htm

http://www.daubertontheweb.com/progeny.htm

After reading those, I'm led to believe that Darwinism doesn't meet the same standard, either. The primary argument I've heard about Darwinism is that it's a 'scientific consensus' (ironically, the same argument for 'global climate change'), but the Daubert Standard rejects the notion of scientific consensus and instead demands that the science have been tested and found to be accurate beyond reasonable doubt. I don't recall Darwinism having ever been tested.


I’ll reiterate. You’re free to believe what you wish. You can believe ID is science but I’ll show the evidence to anyone who wishes to read it which shows that ID isn’t science.

I'd like to see that.


It seems to me that ID is an effort by some to prove the existence of a creator. As such it's just another manifestation of the teleogical arguments. Aquinas did this with his five proofs. But Aquinas proved nothing in actuality, he simply constructed five arguments, valid in terms of logical structure, but which had absolutely no value as proofs of fact. Having said that I still admire his elegance of argument.

If ID is nothing more than a theological argument meant to legitimize argument for the existence of God, then how do you explain the number of scientists who, at one time, were Atheists, but after studying enough biology, came to the conclusion of ID and either took up religion or concluded that there must be higher life forms somewhere in the universe?


ID can't prove the existence of a creator in just the same manner Aquinas couldn't prove the existence of a creator. ID pretends to use science to do so but it's exposed as a sham and isn't to be taken seriously.

And Darwinism has not proven that natural selection and mutation can result in a new species with new organs, nor can it account for the formation of the first life form. Intelligent Design is an intellectual, not a religious, argument that theorizes that the complexity of even the simplest cell is so massive that it could not have appeared at random. There are even some Darwinists who also believe ID, in that the first cells were 'seeded' on this planet by the higher intelligence that designed them. In the movie (which I saw last Saturday), Richard Dawkins, in an unedited interview with Ben Stein, admits the possibility that the first life form was intelligently created, and then you must somehow account for the creation of the designer.


My argument is with the ID'ers who dishonestly insist that they have a scientific case for their claims. They don't.

And my argument with Darwinists is that any attempts at intelligent academic discussion of the subject is met with primarily rhetoric accusing me of everything from intellectual terrorism (no, I'm not making that up) to dishonesty to theocracy to flat out lunacy that I could POSSIBLY entertain for even a moment the possibility that humans aren't the highest intelligence ever in existence. They don't even know if there IS a scientific case for the claims because they refuse to listen to it. Science requires a little more open-mindedness than that, and you cannot make assumptions that are unproven, as it limits your frame of reference.

Actually, if you want to be intellectually honest, it boils down to what you think of the odds. If you think a cosmically ludicrous string of astronomical coincidences is more probable than the existence of a higher intelligence capable of creating life as we know it, then sure, believe Darwinism. What if, however, you think the probability of that advanced intelligence is more probable than the cosmic string of coincidences? Both sides started with evidence. Both sides made observations. Both sides then made conclusions based on an unproven belief (that no higher intelligence exists or that it's possible). Is Darwinism more valid simply because it leaves virtually no for room God? Is it more valid because it's what Atheists believe? Seriously, what about Darwinism makes it SO different from ID as to classify one as science and the other as religion?

[diuretic]

Actually we do.:poke:

We know how life began? We do? I know, here comes the religious version. Go ahead then. But understand that repeating a religious belief isn't demonstrating a fact, but do go on.

[diuretic]

Hobbit I'll keep it short. ID isn't science:

Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District


It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science.

[glockmail]

We know how life began? We do? I know, here comes the religious version. Go ahead then. But understand that repeating a religious belief isn't demonstrating a fact, but do go on.
How is a fact proven in a court of law?

[diuretic]

How is a fact proven in a court of law?

By the production of evidence.

[glockmail]

By the production of evidence.
What kind of evidence?

[Hagbard Celine]

What kind of evidence?

corporeal evidence.

[glockmail]

corporeal evidence.
Is that the only type of evidence accepted in a court of law?

[Hagbard Celine]

Is that the only type of evidence accepted in a court of law?

I don't know man. What's your point?

[glockmail]

I don't know man. What's your point?
That the rules of the game have to be established before it can be played.

[diuretic]

What kind of evidence?

That's a broad question.

Evidence can be physical evidence or it can be oral testimony from a witness (allowing for dying depositions). As you would be aware we can continue to break it down from there but I suspect that's not required - at this stage.

[Hagbard Celine]

That the rules of the game have to be established before it can be played.

It's more simple than you're making it. Scienctific standards already set the stage for what the "rules" are. ID doesn't measure up. No matter what the court of law considers evidence, it has no bearing on our argument because the court has already found (by it's own standards) that ID isn't science. The end. THE DEBATE IS OVER. The fact that you don't understand this fact or that Ben Stein has made a movie about it isn't proof that there is still a debate. To the contrary, it's just proof that your side of the "debate" is continuing to beat a dead horse.

[Hobbit]

Hobbit I'll keep it short. ID isn't science:

Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District

You've just missed the point of the entire movie! Judges and juries are not all-knowing gods, and they mess things up, too. One of the main thrusts of the movie is that academia, with the help of a lot of politically motivated legal funds, has done its dead-level best to convince everybody that Darwinism is absolutely sound and true from beginning to end, but that ID is nothing but 'philosophy,' no matter how much evidence or scientific method is brought to bear on the subject. Whenever yet another scientist or teacher gets dragged into court because he dared look at the complexity of life and think it was possible that it wasn't all random chance, the foregone conclusion of pretty much everybody in that courtroom, and the picture the plaintiff will paint, is that the guy is nothing but a religious zealot trying to shoehorn theology into the classroom. It is both arrogant and oppressive.

[glockmail]

That's a broad question.

Evidence can be physical evidence or it can be oral testimony from a witness (allowing for dying depositions). As you would be aware we can continue to break it down from there but I suspect that's not required - at this stage. What's a dying deposition?

[diuretic]

You've just missed the point of the entire movie! Judges and juries are not all-knowing gods, and they mess things up, too. One of the main thrusts of the movie is that academia, with the help of a lot of politically motivated legal funds, has done its dead-level best to convince everybody that Darwinism is absolutely sound and true from beginning to end, but that ID is nothing but 'philosophy,' no matter how much evidence or scientific method is brought to bear on the subject. Whenever yet another scientist or teacher gets dragged into court because he dared look at the complexity of life and think it was possible that it wasn't all random chance, the foregone conclusion of pretty much everybody in that courtroom, and the picture the plaintiff will paint, is that the guy is nothing but a religious zealot trying to shoehorn theology into the classroom. It is both arrogant and oppressive.

Assuming that's the point of the movie (which I haven't and probably won't see) then I've missed nothing.

Why do people “get dragged into court”? Not for daring to think differently (remember the Church used to do that to people?) but to get them to understand that they have to obey the law. I can guarantee that someone who thinks that the world is 6000 years old and that humans were createdby God is not (at least in America and in my country) going to be dragged into court.

But let's get back to the point. ID is not science, it's religion. If a kid of mine were subjected to phlogiston theory in a school science class and told it's a valid and accepted theory in the scientific community I would be outraged as if the teacher had told my kid that ID was a valid and accepted theory in the scientific community and my outrage would have the same wellspring. Neither is science. Phlogiston theory can be taught as a part of the history of science but not represented as currently accepted theory. ID can be taught as theology but not science.

[glockmail]

..... ID is not science, it's religion. If a kid of mine were subjected to phlogiston theory in a school science class and told it's a valid and accepted theory in the scientific community I would be outraged as if the teacher had told my kid that ID was a valid and accepted theory in the scientific community and my outrage would have the same wellspring. Neither is science. Phlogiston theory can be taught as a part of the history of science but not represented as currently accepted theory. ID can be taught as theology but not science.
If science doesn't have a clue how life was created, and doesn't even have a plan for a theory how it was created, how is a science teacher supposed to explain that to students? Instead of saying “no one knows”, wouldn’t it be better to say “only religion can answer that”, or even “science cannot explain it”?

[diuretic]

If science doesn't have a clue how life was created, and doesn't even have a plan for a theory how it was created, how is a science teacher supposed to explain that to students? Instead of saying “no one knows”, wouldn’t it be better to say “only religion can answer that”, or even “science cannot explain it”?

What's wrong with the truth? We don't know yet. Why bring in “only religion can answer that” when patently it can't? Religion is about faith, not about fact. Religion is about what we believe, not what we know for a fact.

If a kid were told "only religion can answer that" they may well wonder why the hell they were taking science classes in the first place. In a theocracy that would be fine, but do you want kids to get that response in a secular society?

"We don't know yet", isn't heresy, it's a truth and it's a wonderful truth because we're finding out things every day.

[JimmyAteWorld]

What's wrong with the truth? We don't know yet. Why bring in “only religion can answer that” when patently it can't? Religion is about faith, not about fact. Religion is about what we believe, not what we know for a fact.

If a kid were told "only religion can answer that" they may well wonder why the hell they were taking science classes in the first place. In a theocracy that would be fine, but do you want kids to get that response in a secular society?

"We don't know yet", isn't heresy, it's a truth and it's a wonderful truth because we're finding out things every day.

In this case, science is not advocating the truth, it is advocating an opinion that you and many others desperately want to be true. That does not make it fact. Where religion is about faith, science is about theory. Religion is about what we believe AND what we know for fact, science is about somebody's best guess.

One of the most notable points made in the movie was that today's science community "blackballs" anyone that strays outside the box of accepted thinking, yet when Darwin's theories were presented he was outside the box of accepted thinking. Earlier, you responded to the science community "dragging people before the court" by saying the Church once did it to people. That's true, but I also assume you've heard the phrase two wrongs don't make a right.

[JimmyAteWorld]

Not sure how this posted twice. Some kind of login snafu. Consider this intermission.

[dan]

Instead of saying “no one knows”, wouldn’t it be better to say “only religion can answer that”,

You really think this is what should be taught in our schools?

[glockmail]

What's wrong with the truth? We don't know yet. Why bring in “only religion can answer that” when patently it can't? Religion is about faith, not about fact. Religion is about what we believe, not what we know for a fact.

If a kid were told "only religion can answer that" they may well wonder why the hell they were taking science classes in the first place. In a theocracy that would be fine, but do you want kids to get that response in a secular society?

"We don't know yet", isn't heresy, it's a truth and it's a wonderful truth because we're finding out things every day. I figured you'd blow off the alternate explanation of “science cannot explain it”. You did not dissapoint!

[glockmail]

You really think this is what should be taught in our schools?
You too? Now I'm dissapointed. :cool:

[Hagbard Celine]

I figured you'd blow off the alternate explanation of “science cannot explain it”. You did not dissapoint!

I don't get what you're looking for. Scientific inquiry has given us the best possible explanation for how things have come to be and it has based that explanation upon real-life, physical and material evidence gleamed from nature.
It's impossible for science to live-up to the unrealistic, faith-based standards you've adopted concerning this topic. Even if a discovery was made that would help build a conclusive theory on the origin of life, you'd still challenge it with "no one could ever know for sure because no one was there," which is of course ridiculous. So if you really want to cling to the laughable notion that is "ID," then go right ahead. The rest of us will continue to move forward.

[glockmail]

I don't get what you're looking for. Scientific inquiry has given us the best possible explanation for how things have come to be and it has based that explanation upon real-life, physical and material evidence gleamed from nature.
It's impossible for science to live-up to the unrealistic, faith-based standards you've adopted concerning this topic. Even if a discovery was made that would help build a conclusive theory on the origin of life, you'd still challenge it with "no one could ever know for sure because no one was there," which is of course ridiculous. So if you really want to cling to the laughable notion that is "ID," then go right ahead. The rest of us will continue to move forward. So how does science explain the origin of life?

[Hagbard Celine]

So how does science explain the origin of life?

Currently the explanation is that simple molecular structures formed spontaneously that were able to replicate themselves due to the ability of complex systems (primordial soup made of millions of different types of molecules) to generate order.

[glockmail]

Currently the explanation is that simple molecular structures formed spontaneously that were able to replicate themselves due to the ability of complex systems (primordial soup made of millions of different types of molecules) to generate order. That might explain how some simple structures formed but I asked you about the origin of life. Ya know, the "juice" that makes those structures move around, hump and stuff. And consciousness.

[Hagbard Celine]

That might explain how some simple structures formed but I asked you about the origin of life. Ya know, the "juice" that makes those structures move around, hump and stuff. And consciousness.

Consciousness is simply a side effect of having incredibly complex brains. Having incredibly complex brains is simply a side effect of natural selection.
I don't know what you're referring to when you say "da juice." I think you're referring to quantum order or chaos theory, which is simply the means by which the universe creates order out of chaos.

[glockmail]

Consciousness is simply a side effect of having incredibly complex brains. Having incredibly complex brains is simply a side effect of natural selection.
I don't know what you're referring to when you say "da juice." I think you're referring to quantum order or chaos theory, which is simply the means by which the universe creates order out of chaos. No I'm talking about whatever it is that causes these simple structures that you're talking about start to move and do stuff.

[diuretic]

In this case, science is not advocating the truth, it is advocating an opinion that you and many others desperately want to be true. That does not make it fact. Where religion is about faith, science is about theory. Religion is about what we believe AND what we know for fact, science is about somebody's best guess.

One of the most notable points made in the movie was that today's science community "blackballs" anyone that strays outside the box of accepted thinking, yet when Darwin's theories were presented he was outside the box of accepted thinking. Earlier, you responded to the science community "dragging people before the court" by saying the Church once did it to people. That's true, but I also assume you've heard the phrase two wrongs don't make a right.

I think you've made a mistake referring to the movie as an authority. Science thrives on controversy and difference, that's what makes it so starkly different from religion which requires adherence to dogma.

Science rewards people who think differently about accepted ideas, it's all about trying to demolish them in favour of better ones. Can you imagine the kudos a scientist would gather if he or she was able to prove the currently accepted theory of evolution was flawed? But the kudos would only flow after the scientist was well and truly flogged by the scientific community. Every little piece of their work would be analysed around the world by scientists trying to show the claim was wrong. That's part of the scientific method.

Science progresses when current theories of observed phenomena fail to explain well enough. I don't know if you're familiar with Thomas Kuhn's idea of the paradigm shift but it's a great illustrator of how science progresses.

Why I'm against ID is that it's simply Creationism - theology - masquerading as science. It isn't science, it's religion. This movie is trying to run the line that ID is science. It isn't.

I don't understand why people so fervently want to keep running the old arguments for proof of God. Is there faith so weak that they have to pervert science to convince themselves that there really is a God? This ontological argument goes back to St Anselm and has a long line from him through Aquinas to today. The proofs are interesting of themselves, but they don't pretend to be scientific, they're metaphysical and as such have their own intrinsic value as metaphysical ideas.

As a theology I say go for it, knock yourselves out. But I also say don't pretend the theology is science, because it's just not so. And don't round on science because science rejects your propositions. The two can co-exist peacefully absent the fraud of ID.

[diuretic]

I figured you'd blow off the alternate explanation of “science cannot explain it”. You did not dissapoint!

We don't know yet - that's the current situation. So to paraphrase you - "science cannot explain it yet".

[glockmail]

We don't know yet - that's the current situation. So to paraphrase you - "science cannot explain it yet". Then why is the "debate over"? :coffee:

[diuretic]

What's a dying deposition?

I should have used the term "dying declaration".

[diuretic]

Then why is the "debate over"? :coffee:

If you mean the debate about whether ID is science or theology, then it's over, ID is theology, not science.

[Dilloduck]

If you mean the debate about whether ID is science or theology, then it's over, ID is theology, not science.

Does relying on science for answers as opposed to theology make one a smarter or wiser person ?

[diuretic]

Does relying on science for answers as opposed to theology make one a smarter or wiser person ?

It depends on the questions. For some questions it's best to go to science, for other questions it's best to go for theology. As for being smarter or wiser, I think as long as the right choice was made for the question being asked then someone can come out of it better informed.

[glockmail]

If you mean the debate about whether ID is science or theology, then it's over, ID is theology, not science. Let's summarize:

1. Science cannot explain how life began.
2. Science does not have a research proposal on how to figure out how life began.
3. Therefore Intelligent Design is theology, and the debate about that is over.

Sorry but I don't see your logic.

[diuretic]

The first thing I have to say is that ID isn't science, that's been shown in Katzmiller. It was also shown that ID is theology.
Those claims stand separately from anything else.

If we want to discuss science and the search for an explanation of how life began then that's a separate issue. There's a lot of work being done by science and I think it's fair to say that – as far as I know, not being a scientific type – that as yet no scientist is prepared to claim that they have found out how life began. But they'll keep working on it and they'll keep working on it using the scientific method.

As for the theological explanations of the origins of life, well, they're theological and as such I have no objection to them.

[glockmail]

The first thing I have to say is that ID isn't science, that's been shown in Katzmiller. It was also shown that ID is theology.
..... I think this is an important point, and where we disagree. For science to reject God as a possible influence in creation of life is irresponsible.

[diuretic]

I think this is an important point, and where we disagree. For science to reject God as a possible influence in creation of life is irresponsible.

Again, not being a scientist I'm only going from what I've read elsewhere but it seems to me that science hasn't rejected God as a possible influence in the creation of life. I mean, imagine if you're a scientist and you find evidence that God created everything, I mean evidence in the sense of proof. I don't care if you are the world's biggest atheist scientist, you'd make a bit of a splash I would think.

And let's not forget that there are a few scientists who are out there, I don't mean "out there" in a disparaging manner, I mean in the sense that they've gone past the regular stuff. A British scientist who used to be at one of our universties who's now at Arizona I think, is the type of person I'm thinking about - http://aca.mq.edu.au/PaulDavies/research/current.htm

Do you see where I have a problem with ID representing itself as science? It's because ID hypothesises a Creator and looks for evidence to fit that single hypothesis. I mean IDers are free to do that of course, but that's not how science is done and they shouldn't represent themselves as scientists doing science.

When it comes to arguments from design I would think students would be better off studying Anselm and Aquinas. Both constructed elegant ontological arguments which are classics of metaphysics. But metaphysics isn't science and importantly it doesn't pretend to be and you know, it doesn't have to be.

In a sense metaphysics studies natural human wonder about our universe, the big picture stuff, while science does the hard work of trying to prove/disprove some of the ideas generated by metaphysics over the centuries. That's overl simplistic but as I said, I'm not a scientist nor am I a philosopher, not got any particular expertise in either area. But I do know that theology an science are separate and I do know they should be separate. They take different paths but they help us make sense of our universe and I'm fine with that.

[glockmail]

Again, not being a scientist I'm only going from what I've read elsewhere but it seems to me that science hasn't rejected God as a possible influence in the creation of life. I mean, imagine if you're a scientist and you find evidence that God created everything, I mean evidence in the sense of proof. I don't care if you are the world's biggest atheist scientist, you'd make a bit of a splash I would think.

And let's not forget that there are a few scientists who are out there, I don't mean "out there" in a disparaging manner, I mean in the sense that they've gone past the regular stuff. A British scientist who used to be at one of our universties who's now at Arizona I think, is the type of person I'm thinking about - http://aca.mq.edu.au/PaulDavies/research/current.htm

Do you see where I have a problem with ID representing itself as science? It's because ID hypothesises a Creator and looks for evidence to fit that single hypothesis. I mean IDers are free to do that of course, but that's not how science is done and they shouldn't represent themselves as scientists doing science.

When it comes to arguments from design I would think students would be better off studying Anselm and Aquinas. Both constructed elegant ontological arguments which are classics of metaphysics. But metaphysics isn't science and importantly it doesn't pretend to be and you know, it doesn't have to be.

In a sense metaphysics studies natural human wonder about our universe, the big picture stuff, while science does the hard work of trying to prove/disprove some of the ideas generated by metaphysics over the centuries. That's overl simplistic but as I said, I'm not a scientist nor am I a philosopher, not got any particular expertise in either area. But I do know that theology an science are separate and I do know they should be separate. They take different paths but they help us make sense of our universe and I'm fine with that.

Do you realize that science uses deductive reasoning? Isn't that "proof".

[diuretic]

Do you realize that science uses deductive reasoning? Isn't that "proof".

I would have thought it was just a single process. But as I said, I'm not a scientist or philosopher so when it comes to that stuff I have to Google it or do it the old fashioned way and get out the books (which is sometimes better).

I would think thought that if deductive reasoning is used in science (not doubting you as I don't know one way or the other) then it would have to be applied to some form of observable phenomenon/phenomena. So, let's say it's applied. What's the outcome? And how is the outcome of the deducation to be demonstrated as valid? I think is when the rest of the scientific method kicks in, the falsifiability thing and the rest of it.

So, while deductive reasoning might be part of science, it's just a part.

But it does bring to mind the old joke about Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson out camping. Holmes and Watson may be been deducing but without a whole lot of other activity they weren't doing science.

[PTT]

Here is the link: http://photontorpedotube.blogspot.com/2008/04/my-review-of-expelled.html

April 27, 2008
My Review of Expelled

A Documentary that Makes You Think

On Friday, I took my son to see EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed.

Before the movie was released I wrote a post about it. Unfortunately, my first post about the movie, was slightly off the mark. In that post, I incorrectly asserted the movie dealt with the issue "of atheists' ongoing battle to prevent the academic debate of the theory of evolution."

I will correct that statement now. While the movie did touch to a degree on the overall "theory of evolution," the more specific issue it addressed from the scientific or academic freedom perspective were evolutionary scientists' hypotheses about the origin of life. Neither Stein nor any of the ID scientists in the movie argued against Darwin's micro-evolutionary theory of "natural selection." However, Stein did take aim at evolution to the extent it encompasses the origin of life, or the idea that species evolved from a single common ancestor or cell. As stated in my first post, the movie also addressed the establishment's ongoing effort to stifle scientists and academics who dissent against atheistic Darwinism by advocating the intelligent design hypothisis about the origin of life.

Stein took on the problem of academic freedom. He interviewed four or five scientists who were fired from their jobs because they mentioned favorably the possibility that intelligent design might explain the origins of life. That argument got several people fired and blackballed.

One of the interesting parts of the movie was Stein's interview of noted athiest Richard Dawkins. In the interview, Dawkins totally denied the existance of a creator god, be the god Hindu, Hebrew, Muslim or Christian. Suprisingly, Dawkins conceded intelligent design was a reasonable possibility to explain the origin of life. Dawkins argued that he believed the most probable explanation for life on earth was a visiting, advanced, alien civilization that seeded life here.

Expelled noted the hypocracy of scientists who willingly accepted origins of life hypothesis such as the possibility life on earth was seeded by an advanced alien culture. Or, that life sparked from primordial stew that was hit by a prehistoric lightning bolt. The latter hypothesis, however, could not be reproduced by scientists despite numerous experiments. It has now been abandoned as without scientific basis. Still, it is acceptable to discuss those origins hypotheses in mainstream scientific publications. You just cannot mention ID.

How can those hypotheses about the origin of life be permissible in the scientific community, while the alternative (and more likely) hypothesis that life is the product of an intelligent designer is excluded?

But besides the restrictions on academic freedom that Expelled exposed, I was thrilled even more when the movie effectively developed issues of metaphysics and morality. It did a great job of exposing the rampantly evil policies that tend to arise when a society adopts atheistic Darwinism as its dominant worldview.

Ben Stein, who is Jewish, linked social Darwinism to 1920s American eugenics policies. About a century ago, eugenics proponents advocated using Darwin's ideas on "natural selection" to improve the human race by eliminating flawed human specimens (social Darwinism). According to Expelled, eugenics disciples caused the involuntary sterilization of over 5000 Americans in the 1920s.

Using an expert in the field, Stein also linked Hitler's Mein Kampf (My Struggle) to social Darwinism. The movie argued persuasively that the Nazi's "super-race" policies arose from Darwinistic thinking. It showed that Nazi death camps were used to kill "unproductive" or "disabled" members of Nazi society for the purpose of improving the quality of human beings in German society. The attempted genocide of the Jews arose, in part, from these evil policies.

Stein's movie showed that if you follow the logic of Darwin's idea that all life evolved from a single source, then you necessarily must conclude that the value of human life is no greater than that of any other species. Thus, Darwinism tends to cheapen human life, forcing us to admit (if we subscribe) that we live, and we die, and that there is nothing else--no God, no after-life, no purpose, no free will, no hope.

Stein's experts stated that the Nazis, and the American advocates of eugenics policies, actually thought they were doing "good," i.e., improving the human race, when they were instead perpetrating great evil.

Just this week, there were news stories about African Americans protesting the frequent placement of Planned Parenthood facilities in their minority neighborhoods. The protesters objected and asserted that Planned Parenthood was racially targeting black Americans and attempting to exterminate black children.

Ironically, Expelled contained a bit about the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger. Sanger was a leading proponent of negative eugenics--exactly the same objection made by the contemporaneous black protesters.

Stein's Expelled showed how America's acceptance of Darwinism as gospel, parallels the growth of her immoral policies favoring abortion and euthanasia.

The movie revealed the immorality of the path America is following. America is plunging through iceberg filled waters of radical Darwinism. Voices of the scientists trying to persuade the captain slow the ship are being stifled by the scientific establishment and even the United States government. It is only a matter of time before the ship of American society impacts the Darwinism/Atheism model.

Technorati Tags: Apologetics, cosmology, Genesis, metaphysics, Philosophy, Expelled

[Hagbard Celine]

How can those hypotheses about the origin of life be permissible in the scientific community, while the alternative (and more likely) hypothesis that life is the product of an intelligent designer is excluded?

I'm confused as to how you've arrived at the conclusion that an "intelligent designer" designing life on Earth is "more probable" when there is absolutely no evidence of such other than the religious text of the Jews.
The scientific process relies on testable data. There is absolutely zero, null, nothing, nada, zippo, zip, NOTHING to support the idea of ID other than the Bible. It's not scientific. That's why no scientist takes it seriously. It's not an insidious plot to foil the truth, no matter how much you'd like it to be. Even if you were talking about an advanced race of aliens being the "seeder" or "designer," we'd still have to use science to get to the bottom of what they used and how they designed the life in question and there'd still be no way of testing for their presence in the end anyway. The debate is over. ID is bupkis.
If you want a real conspiracy, how about you look into how Creationists changed the name of their "theory" to ID so that they could circumvent the law and sneak their religious nonsense into public school science curricula.

[glockmail]

... There is absolutely zero, null, nothing, nada, zippo, zip, NOTHING to support the idea of ID other than the Bible. It's not scientific. That's why no scientist takes it seriously..... Lots of scientists take it seriously, myself included.


Robert Jastrow (b. 1925) PhD Theoretical Physics recipient of NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement Amazon LoC GP

At present, science has no satisfactory answer to the question of the origin of life on the earth. Perhaps the appearance of life on the earth is a miracle. Scientists are reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited; either life was created on the earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in nonliving matter lying on the surface of the planet. The first theory places the question of the origin of life beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. It is a statement of faith in the power of a Supreme Being not subject to the laws of science. The second theory is also an act of faith. The act of faith consists in assuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief. Until the Sun Dies (1977) pp. 62-63

The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy ... For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. God and the Astronomers (1992) pp.106-107
http://bevets.com/equotesj.htm

[Hagbard Celine]

Lots of scientists take it seriously, myself included.


http://bevets.com/equotesj.htm

Once a "scientist" takes this crap seriously, he loses his status as "scientist" and he becomes "philosopher."

[glockmail]

Once a "scientist" takes this crap seriously, he loses his status as "scientist" and he becomes "philosopher." Too bad you're so closed minded about this.

[Hagbard Celine]

Too bad you're so closed minded about this.

By "closed minded" I guess you mean "takes the definition of science literally." (shrug)

[glockmail]

By "closed minded" I guess you mean "takes the definition of science literally." (shrug)
So you're an absolutist then?

[stang56k]

So.... Was the movie good?

[dan]

So.... Was the movie good?

My guess is, as long as you agree with what it's saying going in.

[glockmail]

My guess is, as long as you agree with what it's saying going in. Which is what exactly? :poke:

[stang56k]

There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live. :wink2::wink2:

[dan]

Which is what exactly? :poke:

That ID should be considered just as reasonable an explanation as evolution, as presented in an unapologetically biased manner.

I haven't seen anything about this movie that shows that it's an objective look at all sides of the issue.

[glockmail]

That ID should be considered just as reasonable an explanation as evolution, as presented in an unapologetically biased manner.

I haven't seen anything about this movie that shows that it's an objective look at all sides of the issue.

I thought the premise of the movie was that the evolutionists insist that the debate is over, and have squelched the opposition by kicking them out of acedemia. It sounds like fascism, doesn't it?

By the way I see many of the same tactics used here.

[dan]

I thought the premise of the movie was that the evolutionists insist that the debate is over, and have squelched the opposition by kicking them out of acedemia. It sounds like fascism, doesn't it?


When presented in that way, yes.

Just like Michael Moore's arguments, when presented the right way, sound pretty believable.

[glockmail]

When presented in that way, yes.

Just like Michael Moore's arguments, when presented the right way, sound pretty believable.

I don't think Stein is comparable to Moore, do you?

[dan]

I don't think Stein is comparable to Moore, do you?

I do.

[glockmail]

I do.
:lol: You're entitled to your opinion!

[Hobbit]

I do.

I've seen a couple of Moore documentaries (not by my own will, either, Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11) and the two are not at all comparable. Yes, both have a view and use the documentary as a tool of persuasion rather than solely as information, however, here are the 2 PRIMARY differences.

1) Moore claims to be presenting nothing but facts and that the reason the movie makes things look a certain way is because they are. Stein comes out at the very beginning and says that he has a certain view, and that if you think differently, that's ok. He makes no claims of total impartiality (thought he tries to be fair, which leads me to number 2).

2) Moore took clips from various interviews, photo ops, and his own footage, and chopped it together, often sans context, to paint whatever kind of picture he wanted. For a good example, in 'Mike and Me,' he claimed throughout the movie to be seeking an interview with what's-his-face when, in actuality, he had already been granted said interview before they even started filming the movie. He just left that part out. On the other hand, in Expelled, Stein gives at least some context to all of the quotes from his opponents, and if it is a hatchet job, then it's the most beautiful hatchet job I've ever seen and I'll readily admit to being taken in by it. In all of the interviews with his opponents, he gave ample opportunity for them to clarify anything that sounded implausible or just plain stupid, while he challenged many of the claims of those he agreed with. As I said, he makes no claims at impartiality, but he does TRY quite hard to be very even handed. If anything, I'd say he was nicer to the Darwinists than he was to the IDers.

[dan]

I've seen a couple of Moore documentaries (not by my own will, either, Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11) and the two are not at all comparable. Yes, both have a view and use the documentary as a tool of persuasion rather than solely as information, however, here are the 2 PRIMARY differences.

1) Moore claims to be presenting nothing but facts and that the reason the movie makes things look a certain way is because they are. Stein comes out at the very beginning and says that he has a certain view, and that if you think differently, that's ok. He makes no claims of total impartiality (thought he tries to be fair, which leads me to number 2).

2) Moore took clips from various interviews, photo ops, and his own footage, and chopped it together, often sans context, to paint whatever kind of picture he wanted. For a good example, in 'Mike and Me,' he claimed throughout the movie to be seeking an interview with what's-his-face when, in actuality, he had already been granted said interview before they even started filming the movie. He just left that part out. On the other hand, in Expelled, Stein gives at least some context to all of the quotes from his opponents, and if it is a hatchet job, then it's the most beautiful hatchet job I've ever seen and I'll readily admit to being taken in by it. In all of the interviews with his opponents, he gave ample opportunity for them to clarify anything that sounded implausible or just plain stupid, while he challenged many of the claims of those he agreed with. As I said, he makes no claims at impartiality, but he does TRY quite hard to be very even handed. If anything, I'd say he was nicer to the Darwinists than he was to the IDers.

OK, let me modify my statement a little. Well, first of all, making a direct link between Moore and Stein is a mistake, Stein didn't direct Expelled, and he's one of three writers, so it's not like it's entirely his project, he's just the most easily recognizable creative force behind it.

Moore is, indeed, more deceptive than Stein appears to be, though I haven't researched Expelled as much as Bowling... or F9/11. What I was trying to say, which I worded poorly, is that this is a strongly opinionated piece, using facts that have been assembled to support the filmmakers' agenda, and disregards facts that might not support them, much like a Michael Moore film.

[dan]

Also, Hobbit, the movie you're thinking of is Roger & Me, and yeah, if I had to pinpoint a single moment when I decided I was done with Michael Moore, it was finding out that he had done the interview, thus negating the entire point of the movie.

[Hagbard Celine]

I've seen a couple of Moore documentaries (not by my own will, either, Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11) and the two are not at all comparable. Yes, both have a view and use the documentary as a tool of persuasion rather than solely as information, however, here are the 2 PRIMARY differences.

1) Moore claims to be presenting nothing but facts and that the reason the movie makes things look a certain way is because they are. Stein comes out at the very beginning and says that he has a certain view, and that if you think differently, that's ok. He makes no claims of total impartiality (thought he tries to be fair, which leads me to number 2).

2) Moore took clips from various interviews, photo ops, and his own footage, and chopped it together, often sans context, to paint whatever kind of picture he wanted. For a good example, in 'Mike and Me,' he claimed throughout the movie to be seeking an interview with what's-his-face when, in actuality, he had already been granted said interview before they even started filming the movie. He just left that part out. On the other hand, in Expelled, Stein gives at least some context to all of the quotes from his opponents, and if it is a hatchet job, then it's the most beautiful hatchet job I've ever seen and I'll readily admit to being taken in by it. In all of the interviews with his opponents, he gave ample opportunity for them to clarify anything that sounded implausible or just plain stupid, while he challenged many of the claims of those he agreed with. As I said, he makes no claims at impartiality, but he does TRY quite hard to be very even handed. If anything, I'd say he was nicer to the Darwinists than he was to the IDers.

...

[Hobbit]

OK, let me modify my statement a little. Well, first of all, making a direct link between Moore and Stein is a mistake, Stein didn't direct Expelled, and he's one of three writers, so it's not like it's entirely his project, he's just the most easily recognizable creative force behind it.

Moore is, indeed, more deceptive than Stein appears to be, though I haven't researched Expelled as much as Bowling... or F9/11. What I was trying to say, which I worded poorly, is that this is a strongly opinionated piece, using facts that have been assembled to support the filmmakers' agenda, and disregards facts that might not support them, much like a Michael Moore film.

Yeah, I never claimed it's unbiased. It is, however, revealing, and since the things said against the movie are the same things Darwinists say IN the movie, I tend to agree with the conclusion of the movie, namely, that ID is as valid a theory for the origin of life as any other, and its downright demonization in mainstream academia is wrong.

[dan]

Yeah, I never claimed it's unbiased. It is, however, revealing, and since the things said against the movie are the same things Darwinists say IN the movie, I tend to agree with the conclusion of the movie, namely, that ID is as valid a theory for the origin of life as any other, and its downright demonization in mainstream academia is wrong.

Switch 'ID' with 'Bush started the Iraq war under false pretenses' and you've got every liberals' reaction to Farhenheit 9/11.

[diuretic]

Yeah, I never claimed it's unbiased. It is, however, revealing, and since the things said against the movie are the same things Darwinists say IN the movie, I tend to agree with the conclusion of the movie, namely, that ID is as valid a theory for the origin of life as any other, and its downright demonization in mainstream academia is wrong.

ID is as valid as any other creation myth throughout history. But it isn't science. That's the objection.

[Hagbard Celine]

ID is as valid as any other creation myth throughout history. But it isn't science. That's the objection.

Yay! You'd think we were trying to explain higher math concepts the way this fact is not understood.

[dan]

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWRmOTU2YzZlN2RhMzhjNzEwNzQ3MzFiZDE2NjM3NWE=


Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [i.e. biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you.

Crouch: That’s right.

Stein: …Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.

Crouch: Good word, good word.

Yeesh!

[Hagbard Celine]

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWRmOTU2YzZlN2RhMzhjNzEwNzQ3MzFiZDE2NjM3NWE=



Yeesh!

Are you surprised? That's typical troglodyte rubbish for you.

[glockmail]

Are you surprised? That's typical troglodyte rubbish for you.
In a world without ethics Stein's statement is completely true. And the foundation for ethics is Judaism-Christianity.

[dan]

In a world without ethics Stein's statement is completely true. And the foundation for ethics is Judaism-Christianity.

You seriously think that none of Ben Stein's relatives have come into contact with a scientist since the Holocaust? Really?

[glockmail]

You seriously think that none of Ben Stein's relatives have come into contact with a scientist since the Holocaust? Really? I think you missed Stein's point, which is that without ethics, science would be evil.

[dan]

I think you missed Stein's point, which is that without ethics, science would be evil.

But, the assumption there is that Hitler held no regard for Christianity at all, which is incorrect.

And, anyway, fine, Stein's immediate example of science is the Holocaust. Well, when I think of Christians, I think of the people that blow up abortion clinics. Is that an accurate representation of the ideology as a whole?

This statement....

…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.
Is just plain irresponsible in its narrow-mindedness.

[glockmail]

But, the assumption there is that Hitler held no regard for Christianity at all, which is incorrect.

And, anyway, fine, Stein's immediate example of science is the Holocaust. Well, when I think of Christians, I think of the people that blow up abortion clinics. Is that an accurate representation of the ideology as a whole?

This statement....

Is just plain irresponsible in its narrow-mindedness. Hitler had zero regard for Christianity. He took small portions of its history and bastardized it to suit his agenda. Same as clinic bombers do in more modern times.

I think what Stein is doing is demonstration the absurd by being absurd. He is using the same type of logic that the anti ID groups are doing.

[Hagbard Celine]

Science has nothing to do with the holocaust. Stein's comment is asinine.

[Hagbard Celine]

Hitler had zero regard for Christianity. He took small portions of its history and bastardized it to suit his agenda. Same as clinic bombers do in more modern times.

I think what Stein is doing is demonstration the absurd by being absurd. He is using the same type of logic that the anti ID groups are doing.

What is so hard to understand? In order to be "scientific," one must meet certain parameters. ID does not meet those parameters therefore it is not scientific and it will never be taken seriously by any serious scientist. It has nothing to do with being "anti" ID. People are perfectly free to imagine whatever they want in their imaginations. We don't teach these imaginings in science class though.

[glockmail]

What is so hard to understand? In order to be "scientific," one must meet certain parameters. ID does not meet those parameters therefore it is not scientific and it will never be taken seriously by any serious scientist. It has nothing to do with being "anti" ID. People are perfectly free to imagine whatever they want in their imaginations. We don't teach these imaginings in science class though. I'm a scientist and I take it very seriously.

[diuretic]

In a world without ethics Stein's statement is completely true. And the foundation for ethics is Judaism-Christianity.

No it's not. The foundation of Christian ethics is found in the gospels. The foundation for ethics is much broader and older.

[diuretic]

I'm a scientist and I take it very seriously.

You can do your science and believe personally whatever you wish as long as you use proper scientific method in your scientific work, the two can co-exist. IDers have a twisted view of that relationship.

[glockmail]

No it's not. The foundation of Christian ethics is found in the gospels. The foundation for ethics is much broader and older.
Older than Judaism?

[glockmail]

You can do your science and believe personally whatever you wish as long as you use proper scientific method in your scientific work, the two can co-exist. IDers have a twisted view of that relationship.
I have found the Bible to be an excellent "road map" to scientific work. God's also there to give me guidance in so many ways.