Welcome to Gaia! ::

Select poll option that suits you most closely:

I am with Ben Stein who is a genius. 0.12738853503185 12.7% [ 40 ]
I am with Dawkins who is brilliant! 0.28343949044586 28.3% [ 89 ]
Darwinism is a foggy working hypothesis. 0.063694267515924 6.4% [ 20 ]
There is no academic freedom anymore. 0.14649681528662 14.6% [ 46 ]
I evolved from a cluster of cells that emerged from a pokey-ball. 0.37898089171975 37.9% [ 119 ]
Total Votes:[ 314 ]
<< < 1 2 ... 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ... 56 57 58 > >>
I haven't seen Expelled, but I saw an interview with Stein. I didn't get much from it, except a good laugh, when he complained about how, if you were a professor and went, "We have no explanation for how life began. A perfectly reasonable hypothesis would be that it was created by an intelligent designer who always has existed, and always will." ( paraphrasing, of course ), you would "lose your job so fast it'd be insane".

If a serious scientist in some important position were to suggest that, I'd be all for firing him, because he's clearly lost it.

I'm sorry that didn't contribute much.

Please, someone, if what I saw was .. I don't know, chopped up to give a wrong impression, if you're familiar with it, please, correct me.

I don't want to believe people with this sort of influence are allowed to say things like that.
Cayton
I haven't seen Expelled, but I saw an interview with Stein. I didn't get much from it, except a good laugh, when he complained about how, if you were a professor and went, "We have no explanation for how life began. A perfectly reasonable hypothesis would be that it was created by an intelligent designer who always has existed, and always will." ( paraphrasing, of course ), you would "lose your job so fast it'd be insane".

If a serious scientist in some important position were to suggest that, I'd be all for firing him, because he's clearly lost it.

I'm sorry that didn't contribute much.

Please, someone, if what I saw was .. I don't know, chopped up to give a wrong impression, if you're familiar with it, please, correct me.

I don't want to believe people with this sort of influence are allowed to say things like that.


Oh, Ben Stein's that crazy now. The film in question is nothing more than an exercise in dishonesty.
mrsculedhel
Redem
mrsculedhel
But there are anomolous finds that would refute evolution but they are called anomolous and tossed by the wayside.

What anomalous finds? Be careful to check them, please, creationists are notorious for lying about these things.

mrsculedhel

How do these disprove evolution? The theory would just be changed to include different evolutionary sequences in different time periods. One could say that there were different evolutionary "attempts" that got pushed back or cut off by some unknown force or pressure and that these resumed again at a later period. Evolutionary theory can be jiggled around in the same way and has been.

I cannot imagine any way in which it could be "jiggled around" to satisfy such an occurrence. Modern rabbits in rocks from hundreds of millions of years ago?

Of course there would still be a theory of evolution, which explains the observed evolution of creatures, but it would not be the same one.

mrsculedhel
Cranial capacity used to be considered to be linked to intelligence as oldschool Darwinians looked for racial types.

Nothing to do with "darwinians", just a base assumption that brain size was directly linked to mental abilities...because big brains equalling smart brains is an easy inference to make. It has nothing to do with evolution though, just basic anatomy.

Not sure how that relates to anything we were discussing though.


Honey, I am a good Catholic and I don't believe in Creationism!!!! I was raised in a scientific community and have an advanced degree in Anthroplogy! I have never questioned evolution in my life. eek The film convinced me that there is a reason to make way for ID. That's all.

For a compedium of anomolous finds try the book, Forbidden Archaeology. I am going to log out for wee rest and a nice shot of rum with a lime on the side. It is 9:45 PM here! 4laugh I will let you speak to my buxom daughter, Lady Imrahil. I think people are getting tired of me. wink

I will be back however. Take care! I enjoyed this lively debate!!!


Yes, apparently in the 19th and early twentieth centuries there were tool kits being discovered in the miocene around Europe such as the Abbe Bourgeois at Thenay in France, the finds of Carlos Ribeiro in Portugal, and those of several prehistorians including Verworn in Aurillac, France.
Westenblum
Cayton
I haven't seen Expelled, but I saw an interview with Stein. I didn't get much from it, except a good laugh, when he complained about how, if you were a professor and went, "We have no explanation for how life began. A perfectly reasonable hypothesis would be that it was created by an intelligent designer who always has existed, and always will." ( paraphrasing, of course ), you would "lose your job so fast it'd be insane".

If a serious scientist in some important position were to suggest that, I'd be all for firing him, because he's clearly lost it.

I'm sorry that didn't contribute much.

Please, someone, if what I saw was .. I don't know, chopped up to give a wrong impression, if you're familiar with it, please, correct me.

I don't want to believe people with this sort of influence are allowed to say things like that.


Oh, Ben Stein's that crazy now. The film in question is nothing more than an exercise in dishonesty.
Crazy like a Fox! He was hilarious. The film was most enjoyable!!! It is definitely worth the price of admission even for people who don't like ID.
mrsculedhel
Yes, apparently in the 19th and early twentieth centuries there were tool kits being discovered in the miocene around Europe such as the Abbe Bourgeois at Thenay in France, the finds of Carlos Ribeiro in Portugal, and those of several prehistorians including Verworn in Aurillac, France.



. . . And? Besides, how can Expelled convince you that's there's any reason to bring in ID? It's not science at all.
Intelligent design by Pokeballs are winning in the polls!

Look at it this way, I am a Catholic who has always believed in evolution and I have no problem with this film. If there were going to be a turn toward a protestant theology of creationism being pushed in favor of science I would not go for this ID thing at all. I am a Guy Fawlkes Catholic who doesn't believe in having some fundamentalist in charge of what I think! Not at all. ID is not creationism or I would have zero interest in it. The film is awesome propaganda and very persuasive. I was completely diverted by it and are give it my two thumbs up. 3nodding
Westenblum
mrsculedhel
Yes, apparently in the 19th and early twentieth centuries there were tool kits being discovered in the miocene around Europe such as the Abbe Bourgeois at Thenay in France, the finds of Carlos Ribeiro in Portugal, and those of several prehistorians including Verworn in Aurillac, France.



. . . And? Besides, how can Expelled convince you that's there's any reason to bring in ID? It's not science at all.
I am persuaded that it is science. I intend to contact the Discovery Institute, now that I know it is here in Seattle, to inquire more about how ID can be falsifiable. Right now Evolution is not falsifiable either. Any overwhelming evidence would not make anyone give up on the idea of change over time, they would just tweak the theory to make it fit the findings. ID is also looking for the same things as evolution with an interest in understanding how everything works; but in particular they are searching for evidence of intelligence within life itself; that there is a possibility that the huge changes we see in evolution via the fossil record could be programmed within the cell by it's own intelligence.
mrsculedhel
Westenblum
mrsculedhel
Yes, apparently in the 19th and early twentieth centuries there were tool kits being discovered in the miocene around Europe such as the Abbe Bourgeois at Thenay in France, the finds of Carlos Ribeiro in Portugal, and those of several prehistorians including Verworn in Aurillac, France.



. . . And? Besides, how can Expelled convince you that's there's any reason to bring in ID? It's not science at all.
I am persuaded that it is science. I intend to contact the Discovery Institute, now that I know it is here in Seattle, to inquire more about how ID can be falsifiable. Right now Evolution is not falsifiable either. Any overwhelming evidence would not make anyone give up on the idea of change over time, they would just tweak the theory to make it fit the findings. ID is also looking for the same things as evolution with an interest in understanding how everything works; but in particular they are searching for evidence of intelligence within life itself; that there is a possibility that the huge changes we see in evolution via the fossil record could be programmed within the cell by it's own intelligence.


ID is not science. It is creationism, nothing more. And evolution is quite falsifiable - what in the world are you talking about?
GunsmithKitten's avatar

Aged Lunatic

SO if a small group of math teachers started teaching "2+2=5", and when reprimanded or fired for it,and then fought the decision on the basis of "Why can't they tolerate other ideas if they're so open minded!? What are they afraid of?", would anyone support them?
Redem
mrsculedhel

Honey, I am a good Catholic and I don't believe in Creationism!!!!

Not trying to suggest you do, you've made that clear. But the only sources I have seen claiming things like that are creationist sources. Some obviously creationist, some pretending to be scientific.

mrsculedhel
I was raised in a scientific community and have an advanced degree in Anthroplogy! I have never questioned evolution in my life. eek The film convinced me that there is a reason to make way for ID. That's all.

It is successful propaganda, then.

I think it likes to confuse two things.

ID in the sense that all religious people believe there is an intelligent creator who made the universe and life, and endowed us with souls.

And the ID movement, a political movement headed by the Discovery Institute, and similar creationist think tanks, who's goal is to wedge open the science classrooms of the US and insert religion.

They're still trying to get the tip in, the Dover trial was their last attempt. Now it's "academic freedom" bills, and making movies about how "Big science" is suppressing them.

They don't do science, they don't research or test or gather evidence, they just do political advocacy.

mrsculedhel
For a compedium of anomolous finds try the book, Forbidden Archaeology.

Hmm, a web source would be easier to check, but I can find reviews of the book.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/groves.html


Yes, it is very succesful propaganda! I was completely diverted by it and I am quite sure that this film will have an impact on a number of people. Ben Stein was amazing. I am not sure that ID is a "they" anymore than Sociobiologists are a "they." If we start getting paranoid, this is not going to advance evidence either way. On the one hand are fundies who see the devil working in science and there is a kind of plot mentality that all the atheists are ganging up to rid the world of religion; and on the other hand are those people who think that religionists are ganging up on the atheists to make everyone live in a nasty world of Protestant nutter fundamentalism.

I sincerely doubt that either of these two cases are for real. This is paranoia and demonizing the other side. In the case of the protestants, they are demonizing with real demons, whereas the athiests are "demonizing" in the metaphorical sense.

Court cases and films do not make science and the numbers of people who side with either are not evidence of veracity.
GunsmithKitten
SO if a small group of math teachers started teaching "2+2=5", and when reprimanded or fired for it,and then fought the decision on the basis of "Why can't they tolerate other ideas if they're so open minded!? What are they afraid of?", would anyone support them?
You are starting ot SPAM. You've already posed this and I have already answered it. This is not analogous to ID. I am not a math theory person so I cannot see how or in what base or universe that 2+2=5 because I am that simple. I have already stated that teaching young pupils this would mess with their ability to memorize their math facts.

Also, where have I said on this thread that ID must be taught in public schools? I haven't.
GunsmithKitten's avatar

Aged Lunatic

Quote:
In the case of the protestants, they are demonizing with real demons,


I don't recall Protestants deploying Excorcist squads.
mrsculedhel
Yes, it is very succesful propaganda! I was completely diverted by it and I am quite sure that this film will have an impact on a number of people.


It's only successful if you think ID has any merit whatsoever.
But here is the thing, you claim that ID is real science. How is it? Support your assertion, or you fail from a mere assertion fallacy.

ID is not testable. (You can point and say something looks designed all you want, but that does not prove anything one way or the other)
ID is not falsifiable (no matter the results, it can be said the designer designed it to look that way)

Evolution is both testable and falsifiable. I pointed out various ways before.
Westenblum
mrsculedhel
Westenblum
mrsculedhel
Yes, apparently in the 19th and early twentieth centuries there were tool kits being discovered in the miocene around Europe such as the Abbe Bourgeois at Thenay in France, the finds of Carlos Ribeiro in Portugal, and those of several prehistorians including Verworn in Aurillac, France.



. . . And? Besides, how can Expelled convince you that's there's any reason to bring in ID? It's not science at all.
I am persuaded that it is science. I intend to contact the Discovery Institute, now that I know it is here in Seattle, to inquire more about how ID can be falsifiable. Right now Evolution is not falsifiable either. Any overwhelming evidence would not make anyone give up on the idea of change over time, they would just tweak the theory to make it fit the findings. ID is also looking for the same things as evolution with an interest in understanding how everything works; but in particular they are searching for evidence of intelligence within life itself; that there is a possibility that the huge changes we see in evolution via the fossil record could be programmed within the cell by it's own intelligence.


ID is not science. It is creationism, nothing more. And evolution is quite falsifiable - what in the world are you talking about?


You have been mislead if you think that a court case can define ID as creationism. There are creationists mascarading as ID enthusiasts but none of the people interviewed in the film were creationist. ID is quite different, no matter how many courts pronounce it creationism. Court get it wrong sometimes. Clarence Darrow didn't win his case. The creationists had a temporary victory. I do not support teaching creationism in the public school system during science class. I at first attribute ID to being a philosophy, but as a working hypothesis for understanding cell biology and organic evolution it apparently works just as well as old fashioned evolution.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games