Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (ID propaganda)

[Blind Guardian the 2nd]

A Confused Iguana

Harvested Sorrow

A Confused Iguana

The problem is not the religion, the problem is certain believers. Professor Dawkins is right to point out that anti-rational and uncritical thought is dangerous, he is wrong to think it would just go away if we simply removed religion.

I don't believe he thinks it would just go away if we removed religion; he's been questioned on this before and admits that no, the end of religion is not the end of irrationality. He views religion as a problem since the tenets of many religions support being anti-rational and not using critical thinking by telling people that they must take various things to be ultimate truth on faith alone with no evidence to back it up, which makes them a breeding ground for irrational thought, and thus, removing it would be a step in the right direction. I have trouble disagreeing with him on this matter, beyond thinking that he has the tendency to conflate religion with theism, like most people seem to.

He is very cumbersome and heavy handed in his prose. A philosopher he is not. Still, he makes for interesting reading.

I'd like to know what is wrong with being a reductionist? Essentially, if reductionism is false then there must exist some dualistic property in the universe. Which is the bigger leap?

He's reductionist when it comes to human behaviour, I meant. To say human behaviour all boils down to the passing on of one's genes (which is a stance he takes) is horribly reductionist and doesn't account for the majority of our behaviour.

[VoijaRisa]

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Except that Richard Dawkins is blatantly against intelligent design

More like pseudoscience in general.

Blind Guardian the 2nd

I hardly see how they were misleading him at all, as, given the chance, he'd insult anyone for believing in something remotely religious.

The reasoning here is a sad non sequitor.

kimgofelements

Don't be unfair to another person.For god's sake's.

I'm not. I gave creationists the benefit of the doubt. It's their own lies that are getting them into trouble.

ParsonCollins

VoijaRisa

Let's also not forget to mention that the practitioners of ID/creationism are some of the biggest frauds and scam artists the world has ever seen.

Are you sure they don't honestly believe in it? This claim is a little over the top.

I'm quite sure that they do believe it. But I'm also quite sure that they're aware that the arguments they're using it have been discredited. There's no way Behe can't have realized how badly his pathetic flagellum has failed to be IC, but I doubt that makes him change his mind that there's some IC system out there somewhere and if he just moves the goalpost enough, he'll eventually find it. Regardless, he'll just keep on flogging the flagellum.

ParsonCollins

What would be the motive behind Ben Stein making this film other than that he really and truly believes it?

Remember the explicit statement in the Wedge Document? The bit where they say the intent is to, "replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan[sic] beings are created by God"

They're concerned more about the goal. To them, the ends justify the means. Lying (and stealing as this film has done) for Jesus is perfectly legit to them.

[A Confused Iguana]

Blind Guardian the 2nd

He's reductionist when it comes to human behaviour, I meant. To say human behaviour all boils down to the passing on of one's genes (which is a stance he takes) is horribly reductionist and doesn't account for the majority of our behaviour.

Then whence does it come? If you think Richard Dawkins's reductionism is inappropriate then that is where we are in human understanding. To approach this matter from a perspective where I am on surer footing, the chemical interactions between molecules must, if we are to maintain our methodological naturalism, arise from the interactions between subatomic particles. I say must because the same objects are involved so the same rules must apply, only they are many more objects and far more complicated combinations of interactions. Now, we cannot model chemical interactions in terms of particle physics but the principles that govern chemistry should be epiphenomenal terms popping out of the physics. In a similar way, is it that much of a leap to suggest that all of human behaviour is encoded in our — and others, as I'm sure behaviour is influenced by other humans and animals — genes and that the more sophisticated models of human interaction describe the epiphenomena that emerge when you have multiple humans?

If this is rejected then from where does our behaviour come? The physical? Some new domain? Professor Dawkins does overstep his field of expertise but I would not chastise him for reductionism in itself. If the genes cannot explain current behaviour the there is still more for us to learn, that the application of reductionism is too greedy for our level of sophistication, but I do not see the crime in the idea behind it.

[Shokushu]

DeeFarnham

Shokushu

Isn't there some way we can encourage these things to blow up in their supporters' faces bigger and bigger each time? I'm pretty used to the giant web of lies you can always find behind these things but people like my mother or sister could very well be tricked into thinking this was legitimate.

The trouble is, when you get right down to it, this is not really very exciting news. NO one died, no one went to jail, there was no long, exciting trial with people trying on gloves, so it doesn't make the local evening news.

Even when Ken Hovind went to jail for - what was it, fraud? tax evsaion? you only heard about it on page 35 of the newspaper. Now, if the makers of Expelled were caught fondling altar boys or patronizing male prostitutes, we might see some headlines and their credibility might go down with your mom and sister.

I've got an idea-
how about "fanatical religious extremists plotting to undermine our constitution and the foundation of our economy"?

Blind Guardian the 2nd

A Confused Iguana

Harvested Sorrow

A Confused Iguana

The problem is not the religion, the problem is certain believers. Professor Dawkins is right to point out that anti-rational and uncritical thought is dangerous, he is wrong to think it would just go away if we simply removed religion.

I don't believe he thinks it would just go away if we removed religion; he's been questioned on this before and admits that no, the end of religion is not the end of irrationality. He views religion as a problem since the tenets of many religions support being anti-rational and not using critical thinking by telling people that they must take various things to be ultimate truth on faith alone with no evidence to back it up, which makes them a breeding ground for irrational thought, and thus, removing it would be a step in the right direction. I have trouble disagreeing with him on this matter, beyond thinking that he has the tendency to conflate religion with theism, like most people seem to.

He is very cumbersome and heavy handed in his prose. A philosopher he is not. Still, he makes for interesting reading.

I'd like to know what is wrong with being a reductionist? Essentially, if reductionism is false then there must exist some dualistic property in the universe. Which is the bigger leap?

He's reductionist when it comes to human behaviour, I meant. To say human behaviour all boils down to the passing on of one's genes (which is a stance he takes) is horribly reductionist and doesn't account for the majority of our behaviour.

To be fair any behavior that doesn't improve the fitness of your genes can only stick around by chance. Without selective pressure it does pretty much come down to flipping coins.

Most of our time isn't spent actively makin teh babies but our niche basically requires all this time spent growing to maturity and long breaks in between the mating acts so we fill it up with spending time giving ourselves security and acting raising the little rascals.

*I'd be happy to go into more depth about the effects of our various behaviors should anyone ask- or at least give a sketchy scenario where it kinds sorta makes sense (though I don't expect to have to resort to that much so long as people don't specifically try to stump me.)

[Rock_hard_yo]

Blind Guardian the 2nd

He's reductionist when it comes to human behaviour, I meant. To say human behaviour all boils down to the passing on of one's genes (which is a stance he takes) is horribly reductionist and doesn't account for the majority of our behaviour.

I must disagree; It's like saying you couldn't get a painting by only mixing reds, blues, and yellows --a feat which in truth is quite easy, if you have any artistic skill. If you look closely, you'll notice most everything in the universe is based off of simple components. All matter follows a basic matter in which it boils down to more and more basic compounds.

In another example, matter is a collection of molecules, which in turn is compounded of atoms, which is made of protons and neutrons, going on to quarks and leptons.

If a computer can run and process a countless amount of data, using a code consisting of only one's and zero's, than is it too hard to imagine that we do the same? The only difference is, our code has four components instead of two; Thymine, Cytosine, Adenine, and Guanine.

This, of course, gives the chemical make-up of our brain. The transformation from the primitive brain, to the advanced one's of today is a long combination of psychology, and mostly reflects on the progression of our reactions to the environment, and application of problem solving skills. The smarter we are, the more likely our survival, and the more likely we are to pass on our genes. So eventually, we just grow more and more intelligent until we become the highly complex creatures we are today. The idea isn't that hard to grap, really.

[Brenlvln]

why is there such a ******** ruckus over creationism vs evolution? seriously, people can belive whatever they want, you douches have no right to limit that.

Also, a tidbit:

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Creationists may not be able to prove it did happen, but evolutionists can not prove it did not.

[Rock_hard_yo]

GDs Bisexual Catboy

why is there such a ******** ruckus over creationism vs evolution? seriously, people can belive whatever they want, you douches have no right to limit that.

Also, a tidbit:

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Creationists may not be able to prove it did happen, but evolutionists can not prove it did not.

We're not saying that there should be a limit on beleif.

However, evolution has more facts in it's favour, than intelligent design. I could believe the sky was a pale shade of lavender all I wanted, and while this could not technically be disproven, the facts point to a far different conclusion.

[Shokushu]

I'm all for limiting belief to pretty much anywhere before "my beliefs should be applied to those who do not share them in the legal sense."

[Blind Guardian the 2nd]

A Confused Iguana

Blind Guardian the 2nd

He's reductionist when it comes to human behaviour, I meant. To say human behaviour all boils down to the passing on of one's genes (which is a stance he takes) is horribly reductionist and doesn't account for the majority of our behaviour.

Then whence does it come? If you think Richard Dawkins's reductionism is inappropriate then that is where we are in human understanding. To approach this matter from a perspective where I am on surer footing, the chemical interactions between molecules must, if we are to maintain our methodological naturalism, arise from the interactions between subatomic particles. I say must because the same objects are involved so the same rules must apply, only they are many more objects and far more complicated combinations of interactions. Now, we cannot model chemical interactions in terms of particle physics but the principles that govern chemistry should be epiphenomenal terms popping out of the physics. In a similar way, is it that much of a leap to suggest that all of human behaviour is encoded in our — and others, as I'm sure behaviour is influenced by other humans and animals — genes and that the more sophisticated models of human interaction describe the epiphenomena that emerge when you have multiple humans?

If this is rejected then from where does our behaviour come? The physical? Some new domain? Professor Dawkins does overstep his field of expertise but I would not chastise him for reductionism in itself. If the genes cannot explain current behaviour the there is still more for us to learn, that the application of reductionism is too greedy for our level of sophistication, but I do not see the crime in the idea behind it.

Yes, because humans act in manners that would be considered irrational by evolutionary standards, in many, many ways. Simply maths, chemistry, biology and physics do not prove in any way how humans work. Even individual humans are not exempt from this. The Prisoner's Dilemma, a mathematical problem in game theory, shows that humans do not follow the logically correct course of action. Our illogical actions are in many cases what make us human. Or perhaps one should say that human logic and other logic are different.

Our behaviour is enabled by our biology, not formed by it. It is instead shaped and formed through the very social nature that our biology enables. Of course, if this is what you said above, I am terribly sorry but I feel you overworded it.

[Blind Guardian the 2nd]

Shokushu

To be fair any behavior that doesn't improve the fitness of your genes can only stick around by chance. Without selective pressure it does pretty much come down to flipping coins.

Most of our time isn't spent actively makin teh babies but our niche basically requires all this time spent growing to maturity and long breaks in between the mating acts so we fill it up with spending time giving ourselves security and acting raising the little rascals.

*I'd be happy to go into more depth about the effects of our various behaviors should anyone ask- or at least give a sketchy scenario where it kinds sorta makes sense (though I don't expect to have to resort to that much so long as people don't specifically try to stump me.)

Utter crap. This social Darwinism is disgusting.

Thank you pal, but I'll leave my University lecturers to go into social behaviours.

[Blind Guardian the 2nd]

Rock_hard_yo

Blind Guardian the 2nd

He's reductionist when it comes to human behaviour, I meant. To say human behaviour all boils down to the passing on of one's genes (which is a stance he takes) is horribly reductionist and doesn't account for the majority of our behaviour.

I must disagree; It's like saying you couldn't get a painting by only mixing reds, blues, and yellows --a feat which in truth is quite easy, if you have any artistic skill. If you look closely, you'll notice most everything in the universe is based off of simple components. All matter follows a basic matter in which it boils down to more and more basic compounds.

In another example, matter is a collection of molecules, which in turn is compounded of atoms, which is made of protons and neutrons, going on to quarks and leptons.

If a computer can run and process a countless amount of data, using a code consisting of only one's and zero's, than is it too hard to imagine that we do the same? The only difference is, our code has four components instead of two; Thymine, Cytosine, Adenine, and Guanine.

This, of course, gives the chemical make-up of our brain. The transformation from the primitive brain, to the advanced one's of today is a long combination of psychology, and mostly reflects on the progression of our reactions to the environment, and application of problem solving skills. The smarter we are, the more likely our survival, and the more likely we are to pass on our genes. So eventually, we just grow more and more intelligent until we become the highly complex creatures we are today. The idea isn't that hard to grap, really.

Except that the evolution of our species into what it is today isn't the argument. The argument is that human action is not driven by evolutionary urges completely. Some are, no dispute there, but most are not. Most human behaviours spring out of their SOCIAL environment, not their biological programming.

[N3bu]

GDs Bisexual Catboy

why is there such a ******** ruckus over creationism vs evolution? seriously, people can belive whatever they want, you douches have no right to limit that.

Also, a tidbit:

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Creationists may not be able to prove it did happen, but evolutionists can not prove it did not.

Hence the belief is unneccersairy. Its like asserting a belief in mystical yellow flying Goblins. The only real difference between that and God, is that alot of people believe in God.

[N3bu]

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Rock_hard_yo

Blind Guardian the 2nd

He's reductionist when it comes to human behaviour, I meant. To say human behaviour all boils down to the passing on of one's genes (which is a stance he takes) is horribly reductionist and doesn't account for the majority of our behaviour.

I must disagree; It's like saying you couldn't get a painting by only mixing reds, blues, and yellows --a feat which in truth is quite easy, if you have any artistic skill. If you look closely, you'll notice most everything in the universe is based off of simple components. All matter follows a basic matter in which it boils down to more and more basic compounds.

In another example, matter is a collection of molecules, which in turn is compounded of atoms, which is made of protons and neutrons, going on to quarks and leptons.

If a computer can run and process a countless amount of data, using a code consisting of only one's and zero's, than is it too hard to imagine that we do the same? The only difference is, our code has four components instead of two; Thymine, Cytosine, Adenine, and Guanine.

This, of course, gives the chemical make-up of our brain. The transformation from the primitive brain, to the advanced one's of today is a long combination of psychology, and mostly reflects on the progression of our reactions to the environment, and application of problem solving skills. The smarter we are, the more likely our survival, and the more likely we are to pass on our genes. So eventually, we just grow more and more intelligent until we become the highly complex creatures we are today. The idea isn't that hard to grap, really.

Except that the evolution of our species into what it is today isn't the argument. The argument is that human action is not driven by evolutionary urges completely. Some are, no dispute there, but most are not. Most human behaviours spring out of their SOCIAL environment, not their biological programming.

Which is probably due to evolution. I mean initially as a species our primary drive would have been survival and pro-creation I would imagine. Increased interaction with out environment increases our level of 'perception' which would lead to more complex thinking. But essentially that doesn't change that our base bahavoirs are/were defined by survival - procreation.

[A Confused Iguana]

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Our behaviour is enabled by our biology, not formed by it. It is instead shaped and formed through the very social nature that our biology enables. Of course, if this is what you said above, I am terribly sorry but I feel you overworded it.

You are dodging the question. I say that a form reductionism should be theoretically possible because to suggest otherwise is to posit a form of dualism. If human social interaction is not "emergent", arising from the interaction of multiple organisms interacting, then where does the "social" reside in the universe? You say that it human behaviour is not explained by evolutionary considerations, I am not saying that current biology explains behaviour, I'm saying that biology must eventually drive behaviour, only that multiple humans interacting makes the situation so complicated that we cannot use our understanding of biology at this point in time. The alternative is dualism and that is a metaphysical leap I am not prepared to make.

Again, to show the same problem within physics itself where emotional special pleading cannot be defended. Fundamental physics, the quantum field theories (QFTs) that are amazing successful in describing how subatomic particles interact, allow time reversal. If you look at thermodynamics then time reversal is forbidden, there is a distinct arrow of time, and the systems are so complicated that you must abandon the QFT approach and model thermodynamics systems according to how we observe them to operate. How do we resolve the allowing of time reversal in the fundamental theories with "higher" level physics forbidding it? This is known as Loschmidt's paradox. What we have is a situation where we can describe what happens in the case of a few subatomic particles scattering off each other very well, but if we consider these subatomic particles as a very very large ensemble then we must "forget" what we understand about the individual objects. You cannot appeal to a glib "humans are special" argument when a similar situation occurs within a field like physics with "mindless" particles and atoms the objects causing the difficulty. We must "forget" what we know about the fundamental but the "higher" interactions are still driven and caused by the fundamental interactions.

Stop dodging the mind-body problem. Either the human mind can be found in the physical universe and must necessarily be a thrall to chemical and physical interactions within the brain, or it is not in the physical and we must explain where it is and what that means. And if the mind can be found in the physical then what is so special about social interaction apart from it being a very complicated problem of multiple humans interacting? Sure, we have to consider an aggregate model of interaction for pragmatic reasons but it is still driven by the more primitive interactions.