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 ... 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ... 56 57 58 > >>
mrsculedhel

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.


1. A court case can very well define ID as creationism.
2. IDers are creationists. Have you not even read the Wedge document?
3. ID and creation are the same thing. Hell, even the Discovery Institute admits as such (see: Wedge document).
4. ID has no scientific hypotheses or working research about biology.
mrsculedhel
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.

It would be analogous to ID if she said God some higher power wills 2 and 2 to be 5.

mrsculedhel
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.

Just like teaching Intelligent Design would mess with their ability to understand science.
Katherine1
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.


She's not very interested in backing up her claims. She even thinks ID and creationism are different - which, of course, they are not.
Jaaten Syric's avatar

Liberal Zealot

mrsculedhel


You have been mislead if you think that a court case can define ID as creationism.



Is there a particularly compelling reason why you're ignoring that that is what ID proponents themselves have said? Is there a reason you keep brushing aside 'Pandas', despite the fact that it shows an amazingly clear trend from 'creationism/ creation science' to 'Intelligent design'?

Quote:
There are creationists mascarading as ID enthusiasts but none of the people interviewed in the film were creationist.


Stop lying.

Quote:
ID is quite different, no matter how many courts pronounce it creationism. Court get it wrong sometimes.


Name one fundamental difference between Intelligent Design and Christian Creationism, other than the terms used.

Quote:
Clarence Darrow didn't win his case. The creationists had a temporary victory.


Actually, yeah, he did. Scopes, Darrow, and the ACLU knew they'd lose the case, the idea was that they would appeal it all the way up to the supreme court to get creationism banished from public schools. They 'lost' the case, but they won the battle for public opinion, and made Tennessee look like such a laughingstock that the government refused to retry the case after the verdict was overturned on a technicality. Believe me, Darrow walked into that courtroom knowing there was no possible way he was walking out with a 'not guilty' verdict, and that is exactly what the defendants wanted.

Quote:
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.


I'm really getting tired of this bullshit. Cite a source that shows ID is anything other than repackaged creationism, or concede. In my five years in this debate, I have never seen ID defined as, what amounts to genetic inheritance, a well established part of evolutionary biology. Support that this is what is meant by the term 'Intelligent design', refute all the people (including the founders of the movement), or stop talking. Simple as that.
Time for a repost as no one has convinced me that ID should be considered as scientific and worthy of funding. Well, none one has even tried, which is a little sad. Apologies to the choir.

A Confused Iguana
When preparing something like this I always wonder exactly where to start in this argument. Do we start with an apologia of the scientific method? Perhaps I should list the errors in thinking of the unscientific hypotheses. I could begin with how science and religion should not be incompatible with one another. Yet, I think I will start at the very beginning with logic.

A very amusing aspect of lurking and posting in the ED is the number of times that I see the statement "prove this", demanding that it — proof, undeniable proof — must be done or the idea be discarded as useless. If we have a situation described by deductive logic then this is the way to go about matters: we construct the premises of our argument, we then apply whichever logical arguments and we come up with our conclusion.

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Thus, Socrates is mortal.

Perfect.

Alas, as is always the case in life, it is not as simple when we start to talk about the world around us. The problem is that we no longer are in the realm of deductive logic but inductive. We are not able to introduce principles that exist universally, we have to infer things on the basis of what has happened before. For example, I have seen many swans in my life and they have all been white.

All the swans I have seen are white.
Thus, all swans are white.

Yay. We have a solution. Only not all swans are white, sadly — or perhaps happily, learning new things that advance understanding is good — there is a species of black swans in Australia. That is the problem with inductive logic: we have to be very careful about going from limited observations to a universal rule.

This is not the only problem on the horizon, we should consider the question about whether we are justified to believe that our inferences are correct. Why should we trust induction? I have already shown how induction can lead to wrong results, what if it entailed a more dangerous and life-threatening situation? How can we support the use of inductive logic? We are worried about it failing us and leading us to the wrong conclusion, we must justify our use of it. Perhaps we should argue that inductive reasoning about the world is justified because it works and leads to beneficial outcomes in general. On the surface this appears to be satisfactory but there is an insidious problem lurking in the shadows. We have stated that induction should be used for future reasoning because it has worked in the past: we trying to infer a universal statement from a limited observation. In a nutshell, we have to assume inductive reasoning is correct to justify the use of inductive reasoning! At this point the "circular reasoning" and "begging the question" alarms and sirens are wailing. Quite a little problem we have. Of course I cannot claim credit for this cute little insight, I have to give thanks to David Hume, the first to highlight the so-called "Problem of Induction". The shockingly scary thing about the Problem of Induction is that it means we have no rational basis for any of our action because we are forever making inferences about how events are going to unfold!

Now, David Hume was an 18th century Scottish philosopher but as he was born after the 1709 Act of Union we should really consider him to be a British philosopher, something that causes much distress to modern Scots who always appear to be referred to as "British" in the British media when they succeed but are most definitely "Scottish" when they fail. I wonder if the same would have been said of Sir Karl Popper, the famous British philosopher who was really Austrian by birth, had he not been as successful?

Sir Karl, like David Hume, also has a tale to tell about inductive logic. Sir Karl recognised the Problem of Induction and how much it destroys the rational basis we use to make predictions about how the universe operates. He proposed that rather than make some observations and attempt to infer a universal rule, for that was how scientists were operating, we should revert to using hypothetico-deductive logic as a way of checking our ideas.

It works like this: if we have a hypothesis about the universe, H, then we state that if this hypothesis is correct it will entail some observation, O. Sir Karl realised that if we apply modus tollens then we can come to a conclusion.

If H then O.
Not O.
Therefore, not H.

There we have it, falsification. We should demand that our hypothesis lead to some observations we can make about the world. We then test to see if the observed effect is not there, if it is not there then we can rule out the hypothesis.

With this one vastly important cornerstone of the modern scientific method was put down: the ability to test and show a hypothesis to be false. We cannot prove that the hypothesis is true, that should be apparent because to infer that would making a universal claim from a limited set of observations — the problems with inductive logic strike — but we can rule out the chaff and remain with the wheat of ideas. We cannot ever prove that the hypothesis is correct, all we can ever do is continually check to see if the observed effects are what we expect. If they are not then we have a problem and we must reject the original hypothesis.

If we cannot find a way to show an idea to be false then we have a problem: how can we evaluate whether it is a good idea? Certain ideas simply cannot be checked, a very popular one is string "theory". The string hypothesis suggests that all matter and forces can be represented as a more fundamental layer of matter know as strings. These strings can vibrate at different rates and give rise to all of physics as we understand it. Or that is the idea. A huge gaping, bleeding, mortal wound in the case for strings is that we simply cannot test for them, we cannot formulate a scenario where we would be able to check the universe as say: "yes, this is compatible with strings because if we did not see this then it must surely be false." At this time, strings are not scientific and no one would countenance teaching the hypotheses in a science class to children: it simply does not have the evidence to support it. Lots of pretty mathematics with people — namely string theorists with intravenous coffee drips to keep the caffeine levels high — saying "it makes so much sense" is fine and dandy but it is not science. Perhaps in the future when we have more powerful particle accelerators we will be able to reach the energies where strings would begin to have a noticeable effect on the world. As it stands strings are an exercise in mathematical research with new avenues in mathematics being discovered and keeping people partially happy. "People" being the funding bodies who are the lifeblood of academic research. It is still not science. Protoscience if we are to be generous, it could be scientific at a later date with more powerful testing machines.

String theories could open up a complete restructuring of how we understand the universe if we can find the evidence to support their existence. This is a Good Thing in science, breaking down old models and establishing a new paradigm has rewards. If you are really good then you get an all-expenses paid trip to Stockholm and a nice fat cheque. Lots of money could be a good motivator for people to get their ideas tested so they can cross their fingers and hope they are nominated; thus, I would expect that people who really could reshape the scientific landscape, the Intelligent Design crowd, are paying attention and are reading their pencils, computer simulations, chemical equations and all else for the race to this Prize.

So what about Intelligent Design? Can it be tested? That is the important question. We need to be able to construct a way where, should Intelligent Design be correct, something must be observed. For if it is not then Intelligent Design simply does not describe the universe. People may point to instances of irreducible complexity but that is a devious argument. Irreducibly complexity argues that, while undesigned evolutionary theory can propose how many systems develop, there remain some systems that simply could not have developed without the aid of design. This is really an argument from ignorance, it presupposes that undesigned evolutionary theory cannot be responsible for this process because we currently cannot explain it: we may be able to do so in the future. Simply because undesigned evolutionary theory is not able to explain it does not imply that design was responsible. We could find an undesigned method in the future and the supposedly irreducibly complex system would no longer be so. Thus, irreducible complexity is not a test of design. Nay, even if we found no instances of irreducible complexity it would not imply that design was not responsible.

What is the test? That is what we are waiting for. If there was a way to test it and we simply had not been able to check then Intelligent Design would be worthy of scientific study but not the classroom. Alas, unless a means of testing is proposed then Intelligent Design fails a crucial aspect of modern science itself! How could it ask for scientific funding when it is not able to say how it is scientific? This is a question I would like answered. The thesis is that Intelligent Design supporters are being shut up or fired for their views. Along with this being a distortion of events — people should not be fired merely for considering design and that does not appear to be the case anyway — what basis is there for Intelligent Design to be given funding opportunities? It is not science! It does not qualify for limited resources designated for scientific study. I would not ask for money for scientific research from arts funding bodies. Or maybe scientists should run cap in hand to arts bodies given the 2008 Omnibus bill but that is another matter entirely.

Though, perhaps I am being harsh. No doubt there are some muttering about how I am a dirty materialist and that I am biased as result. My first response would be to point out that I have had a shower in the past 5 hours. The second would be to correct my critics and point out that I am a methodological naturalist: I assume naturalism purely for practical reasons, I am not saying that naturalism is ontologically true. I am not denying the supernatural, it could exist.

Methodological naturalist, mind you, not naturist; that would lead to some very awkward lab sessions. Why do we assume naturalism in science? The answer is quite simple, the supernatural cannot be subjected to testing. Above nature, how could we ever test it? Experimentation is the bread and butter of science so we only consider solutions that we can test.

You see, in order for Intelligent Design to be admitted as scientific we would have to rewrite what it means for something to be scientific, we would have to remove the restriction of methodological naturalism. "Good!" Some may proclaim, "because the truth of the matter may be that the supernatural explanations are the correct ones and keeping science restricted to the natural is myopic." I have some sympathy for this argument but it does not convince. Science is not about truth, science is about finding which models best describe the universe as we observe it and allow us to successfully predict the future with relative accuracy. We assume naturalism because we must be able to test, we must be able to test because we have to be able to side-step the fundamental problems with human inductive thinking. The price for this is truth. Science provides naturalistic models of the universe and only guarantees that they are the best models we have at this moment in time. It does not guarantee that the actors in the model ontologically corresponded to objects a mind-independent universe: the "true" state of affairs. Scientific realists may claim that science corresponds to this true state but that is a philosophical position and not a scientific one.

Why do this? Mainly because the truth may not be useful. Science has allowed amazing technological developments that have allowed humanity to improve itself. Modern medicine, increasingly advanced electronics and computers, Hello Kitty vibrators, the list goes on. If it really did all amount to a simple "we were designed" what benefit would this insight bring? If you are unable to say something new about the way the universe operates then how it can it be used to our gain? Nay, constraining scientists to the natural forces science to only accept models that provide a better description of the way the universe appears to function. With more successful ways to predict what happens we can develop more successful ways to manipulate the universe for our benefit.

As science does not purport to give a true description of the universe and merely a useful one, there is no basis for Intelligent Design to redefine it just in the possible event that design is correct. It may well be correct but until it becomes testable it just is not science. If it is not testable then it confers no demonstrable benefit and understanding to humanity as a species. Just not science. Things that are not science do not get scientific funding.

If you get this far then I congratulate you. I dearly hope that I did not ramble too much or become too pompous in tone. I also hope I have convinced some of the reasons why Intelligent Design should not be considered as scientific, why it should not expect scientific funding as it is not scientific, and why redefining the meaning of science to allow it is foolhardy.

One final point. Much has been made of academic freedom. I shall leave with the words of someone more intelligent than I am.

"I wish to reaffirm the great value of academic freedom. In virtue of this freedom you are called to search for the truth wherever careful analysis of evidence leads you. Yet it is also the case that any appeal to the principle of academic freedom in order to justify positions that contradict the faith and the teaching of the Church would obstruct or even betray the university's identity and mission".

Academics are free to research but they must always respect the fundamental philosophy underpinning their field. Science is no different. In this debate we would do well to remember this.
Jaaten Syric's avatar

Liberal Zealot

mrsculedhel


Yes, it is very succesful propaganda!


Do you know what propaganda actually means?

Wiki's got a pretty good definition:

Wiki on 'Propaganda'"
Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people. Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. The most effective propaganda is often completely truthful, but some propaganda presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience. Propaganda is most frequently employed in the service of political and military ends.


Emphasis added. That is litterally all 'Expelled' has done.

Quote:
I was completely diverted by it and I am quite sure that this film will have an impact on a number of people.


Like getting panned by critics and viewers alike and making less than a fifth of what was expected the opening day in the first week? Seriously, huge, costly bombs don't tend to win people over to your side.

Quote:
Ben Stein was amazing. I am not sure that ID is a "they" anymore than Sociobiologists are a "they."


Need we pull up the wedge again?

Quote:
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.


Christ, what is it with you and irrelevant tangents?

Quote:
Court cases and films do not make science and the numbers of people who side with either are not evidence of veracity.


What of the evidence showing exactly what ID is, including the fact that, by their own admission, the definition of science must be changed in order for ID to qualify? This was a major point that was hammered home in Dover. Behe, admitted that the changes necessary to make ID definable as 'science' would necessarily include such gems as astrology. ID cannot be science, they have said so themselves. Stop dancing around this point.
AquaRegia's avatar

Dapper Phantom

9,000 Points
  • Beta Treasure Hunter 0
  • Beta Consumer 0
  • Beta Explorer 0
mrsculedhel
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


Wow, I didn't put two and two together until you posted this. The poll is an example of the movie. The poll is biased and states things unclearly leaving room to be twisted into id. Much like I assume the interviewers did with their victims inerviewees.

Yes, I chose the pokeball answer. I'm a softy for pokemon. Yes, I admit that I could have been evolved from cells. I think when thinking of organisms from least complex to complex that we probably started out as single cell organisms and evovled into humans. But in no way does this mean that there is intellegence behind it. Sure I lack research on evolution and I lack in science. But when I think of intellegence I think of it as having a brain. This is why I believe plants have none and thus can not feel emotions and pain(I'm a vegetarian). And cells as far as I'm aware of have no brain. Why does such beauty have to have intellegence behind it? And why if there was intellegence behind creation, does that intellegent being take so much pleasure in creating people with disabilities. I may be straying away from the topic at hand.

I am sorry that you seem to be mislead due to an animation of cells. It often offends me when people take highly to animations just because they're pretty, move, and are shiny. Just because it's pretty doesn't mean it presents facts or wasn't taken out of context. And just because it's shiny doesn't make it the best animation in the world. Note: I have not seen the animation. I am not making judgement on the integrety of the animation or the animators. In fact I believe the animation was probably taken out of context. And I feel sad that the animators intentions and the intentions of the people who backed the animation project are being mishandled(if that is the case).
The movie really was different from what I was expecting. I never really thought about really the beginning of evolution or anything like that. This is a movie you watch to open your eyes to the actual societal and political works of science.
rstrous
The movie really was different from what I was expecting. I never really thought about really the beginning of evolution or anything like that. This is a movie you watch to open your eyes to the actual societal and political works of science.


We've already established that Ben Stein was dishonest when he produced this film. And the "beginning of evolution"? What does that mean?
mrsculedhel
Rao the Zen Android
Intelligent Design in terms of coming from supernatural entities does not belong in science class, period. That's what Theology is for.

Duh.

Intelligent Design in terms of scientific others designing is some Occam's Razor s**t.

Congrats on really thinking this through guyz.
Tell it to the mirror Rao. Your post makes no sense. ID is not about theology at all. I thought it was until I viewed the film. ID is not the same as creationism and is not proposing an Abrahamic God as the creator. Even Dawkins posited a designer for genetic earth life. But that would require that the person reading posts has learned to actually read.


Theos- of, or relating to a god or deity.

Intelligent design is VERY much relating to a deity. Science does not have proof of a god, so WHY should something science has no proof for be taught in a science lesson? If a reliable creator such as Yahweh gets into science, then why not a less reliable creator- the invisible pink unicorn or the flying spaghetti monster? Life is quite poorly designed, particularly the human body. THIS is evidence that a less intelligent, or intoxicated, deity helped design us.


And its logic is "it's too complex!". Well, maybe so. But irreducible complexity is in fact a prime example of a horrendous fallacy: the argument from ignorance.

Just because it's too complex and we can't fully understand it, doesn't mean it's false. Because that is from now. We may very well understand it 100% later on.
rstrous
The movie really was different from what I was expecting. I never really thought about really the beginning of evolution or anything like that. This is a movie you watch to open your eyes to the actual societal and political works of science.


Remember this. Science by concensus is not science. It is politics under the guise of science headed by political monkeys out to pelt anyone who disagrees.
Lets break down the salient points, which the evolutionist followers, who are pretty akin to a religious institution, in spite of their howls to the contrary, are.

Evolution: Random mutations caused the changes and evolution of all species. All life began with one single cell organism. Never mind the complexity, nor that Darwin himself said if it would take more than one change to facilitate evolution, his entire theory was useless.
There is not one missing link. There are tens of thousands.

Creationism: Some dude pulled everything out of his wazoo from nothing and bang!! Here we are.

Intelligent Design: Someone/thing took the available items and, using intelligence, designed all the lifeforms and things in existence and tuned it to work properly.
A better way to put this, so that the evo's can scream from their pews, is imagine someone has all the materials to build something. They forge, pound, sand and weld. In the end, five tons of material is now a Ferrarri GT.
That is intelligent design. Evolution is, well, two ******** monkeys who nail a goat and come up with a squirrel.
BlueCollarJoe

Remember this. Science by concensus is not science. It is politics under the guise of science headed by political monkeys out to pelt anyone who disagrees.
Lets break down the salient points, which the evolutionist followers, who are pretty akin to a religious institution, in spite of their howls to the contrary, are.

Evolution: Random mutations caused the changes and evolution of all species. All life began with one single cell organism. Never mind the complexity, nor that Darwin himself said if it would take more than one change to facilitate evolution, his entire theory was useless.
There is not one missing link. There are tens of thousands.

Creationism: Some dude pulled everything out of his wazoo from nothing and bang!! Here we are.

Intelligent Design: Someone/thing took the available items and, using intelligence, designed all the lifeforms and things in existence and tuned it to work properly.
A better way to put this, so that the evo's can scream from their pews, is imagine someone has all the materials to build something. They forge, pound, sand and weld. In the end, five tons of material is now a Ferrarri GT.
That is intelligent design. Evolution is, well, two ******** monkeys who nail a goat and come up with a squirrel.


This is definitely going to FSTDT. This is the world's largest strawman ever recorded in the history of Gaia.

1. Evolution does not state monkeys mating with goats to produce a squirrel.
2. Creationism and ID are the same thing.
3. ID masquerades as science, but it is not science.
4. Citation for the Darwin claim?
BlueCollarJoe
rstrous
The movie really was different from what I was expecting. I never really thought about really the beginning of evolution or anything like that. This is a movie you watch to open your eyes to the actual societal and political works of science.


Remember this. Science by concensus is not science. It is politics under the guise of science headed by political monkeys out to pelt anyone who disagrees.
Lets break down the salient points, which the evolutionist followers, who are pretty akin to a religious institution, in spite of their howls to the contrary, are.

Evolution: Random mutations caused the changes and evolution of all species. All life began with one single cell organism. Never mind the complexity, nor that Darwin himself said if it would take more than one change to facilitate evolution, his entire theory was useless.
There is not one missing link. There are tens of thousands.

Creationism: Some dude pulled everything out of his wazoo from nothing and bang!! Here we are.

Intelligent Design: Someone/thing took the available items and, using intelligence, designed all the lifeforms and things in existence and tuned it to work properly.
A better way to put this, so that the evo's can scream from their pews, is imagine someone has all the materials to build something. They forge, pound, sand and weld. In the end, five tons of material is now a Ferrarri GT.
That is intelligent design. Evolution is, well, two ******** monkeys who nail a goat and come up with a squirrel.


Yeah! Burn that strawman, biatch!

But seriously, until you can prove there is a god: ID holds no water.

Evolution has a mountain of proof behind it, and it's quite a difficult concept to get your head around- but there's proof all animals come from one universal ancestor. We all share at least 40% of our DNA with all animals and plants, we all have many of the same organelles, our cells are quite similar and expression of genes is done in the exact same way in all eukaryotes. The fact that we have many redundant and counter-productive features (we eat and breathe through the same hole, we waste a lot of energy and nutrients on stupid things, we have many parts of our body we just don't need and we age in a rather clunky and stupid way) is evidence that, if there was a creator, he wasn't the wisest of the elders.

"Wickedness is a myth invented by good people...


Sounds interesting... I only saw the trailer though, but now it's on my list of movies to see.

to account for the curious attractiveness of others." - Oscar Wilde

Quick Reply

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