I saw the film EXPELLED today and it was interesting ...

Select poll option that suits you most closely:

I am with Ben Stein who is a genius.	12.7%	[ 40 ]
I am with Dawkins who is brilliant!	28.3%	[ 89 ]
Darwinism is a foggy working hypothesis.	6.4%	[ 20 ]
There is no academic freedom anymore.	14.6%	[ 46 ]
I evolved from a cluster of cells that emerged from a pokey-ball.	37.9%	[ 119 ]
Total Votes:			[ 314 ]

[A Confused Iguana]

pockybot

My God, what did people believe before Chucky Darwin? People act if the Messiah Lord and Savior Charles Darwin didnt appear on the scene, we'd be living in a theocracy dictated scientific world.

The simple answer is that Intelligent Design is simply not scientific and would required a foolish redefinition of science to admit it as such. This redefinition is bad news and teaching ID in classrooms is bad news.

For many years creationists waged a campaign to get their ideas into the classroom. Then the US courts ruled that creationism was not science. Within months the now important creationist text, Of Pandas and People, was redrafted and Intelligent Design was born [this was revealed in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case when the publishers were subpoenaed to produce the original drafts of the book]. They are still at it, attempting to shoehorn this hypothesis into the mind of the public rather than the normal research route. For all the talk of scientific elitism — for ID is not scientific and, in my opinion, unworthy of funding — there are routes to obtain grant money for origins research to answer the "Big Questions" that have been ignored by ID proponents.

Yet they claim they are being shut down when they are unwilling to play scientist like everyone else. Claims that have been shown to be distortions of the actual events: Dr Richard Sternberg, Professor Guillermo Gonzalez, Dr Caroline Crocker, Professor Robert Marks, Pamela Winnick and Dr Michael Egnor; all these stories were spun to blame it purely on their support of Intelligent Design when that was not the case.

Stop looking for conspiracies where none exist.

Or do I have to I have to repost my apologia again so that you actually understand the arguments being put forward?

[Emperor Fluffzorz]

A Confused Iguana

pockybot

My God, what did people believe before Chucky Darwin? People act if the Messiah Lord and Savior Charles Darwin didnt appear on the scene, we'd be living in a theocracy dictated scientific world.

The simple answer is that Intelligent Design is simply not scientific and would required a foolish redefinition of science to admit it as such. This redefinition is bad news and teaching ID in classrooms is bad news.

For many years creationists waged a campaign to get their ideas into the classroom. Then the US courts ruled that creationism was not science. Within months the now important creationist text, Of Pandas and People, was redrafted and Intelligent Design was born [this was revealed in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case when the publishers were subpoenaed to produce the original drafts of the book]. They are still at it, attempting to shoehorn this hypothesis into the mind of the public rather than the normal research route. For all the talk of scientific elitism — for ID is not scientific and, in my opinion, unworthy of funding — there are routes to obtain grant money for origins research to answer the "Big Questions" that have been ignored by ID proponents.

Yet they claim they are being shut down when they are unwilling to play scientist like everyone else.

Stop looking for conspiracies where none exist.

Or do I have to I have to repost my apologia again?

As I stated earlier, there is no "scientific elite" shooting down ID and blocking its every attempt to go anywhere. The scientific community openly invites intelligent design advocates to do more thorough research and testing (which, with grant money, isn't that difficult) and develop a full and complete scientific hypothesis.

There is no "shutting out" of the theory - the scientific community justs wants ID advocates to do their homework in full like they do. An "evolutionist" can't just walk into a room, give two or three pieces of evidence that life evolved on Earth, then leap to the conclusion that God doesn't exist. That's not how it works. As I said - you don't get marked for half-finished work, and at this moment, intelligent design is not a whole theory. They're got a lot of gaps to bridge to reach their conclusions, and until they do, there is an obligation to keep it from public schools - otherwise, we would literally be filling children's heads with unfinished work and telling them to figure it out. How is that teaching?

"This is true." "Why?" "... we don't know yet. Figure it out. Class dismissed."

In case you haven't noticed, people, that's not how education works.

Basically, the message is this - want to be treated like a scientist? Do a scientist's job first. There's no "Darwinian elite" trying to crush intelligent design where it stands whilst cackling evilly and twirling mustachios. Dawkins is not sitting in the shadows petting a white Persian cat and saying "Good... good... soon, intelligent design will be no more, and I, Dawkins, shall reign supreme over the world! Muahahahahahaha!"

We simply want to treat the ID theory fairly and equally, and that means NO preferential treatment and NO skipping the work involved. Those who claim that there's some ruling caste trying to destroy their ideas are just lazy jackasses who don't want to do the work involved in scientific research.

[linaloki]

Emperor Fluffzorz

"This is true." "Why?" "... we don't know yet. Figure it out. Class dismissed."

In case you haven't noticed, people, that's not how education works.

And yet, where I'm from in the depths of Alabama, that's dangerously close.

"This is true." "Why?" "...because I said so, you idiot, and I'm a teacher! STFU!"

[Emperor Fluffzorz]

linaloki

Emperor Fluffzorz

"This is true." "Why?" "... we don't know yet. Figure it out. Class dismissed."

In case you haven't noticed, people, that's not how education works.

And yet, where I'm from in the depths of Alabama, that's dangerously close.

"This is true." "Why?" "...because I said so, you idiot, and I'm a teacher! STFU!"

Huh. I was wondering if you were still kicking around somewhere. This calls for a celebration!

[Emperor Fluffzorz]

Lord Setar

pockybot

vipr230

pockybot

vipr230

pockybot

There's the snarky impersonation of someone who is espousing ID.

"Omg, the world is too complex...therefore God must have made it all!"

There's the very much God believing, religious scientist who feels that ID has no purpose in scientific rigor nor the classroom.

I just myself find it interesting that IN THE PAST, sometimes you were condemned FOR taking religion or God out of science(you know, back in the 16th century) within some circles.
Now it's turned the other way, and that's of course not a bad thing...

I just don't feel people should be shouted down for exploring or entertaining the ideas of some sort of intentional design...that's not pushing Christian theology, since you don't have to believe in any religion to explore such things. Comparing this to flat earthism is grossly inaccurate.

No, it's really not, both flat earthism and ID or creationism have the same amount of supporting evidence. Or rather, both have absolutely no supporting evidence and both fail to present experiments that can provide falsifiable evidence.

Well, given roughly zero humans on the planet believe in flat earth; and then what...how many of the Earth's population is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc(ie: believe in a God, Gods or spiritual beings?) I guess billions of people on the planet are idiots? I don't know, I don't have a stake in any belief.

Oddly enough, there is a flat earth society, but truth and science isn't a consensus, it's what the evidence supports, and because neither creationism, ID, nor flat earthism have any support, they are all exactly the same. It doesn't matter how many people believe any of them, it matters how much evidence they have to back themselves up with, and if you've got none, and it contradicts the evidence, they're no different.

Well yes, there are people who think the holocaust is a hoax.

There's fundie Christians who think human beings are literally 6000 years old and the earth was created in "7 days"...oh and dinosaur bones are here to test us

There's scientists paid to say oil is running out, the sky is falling, global warming will kill us all, bird flu and sars is going to get us if mad cow disease doesnt, etc.
Scientists from NIST paid to say "jet fuel can bring down a building", scientists who claim
that mercury and aspartame is good for you, and all kinds of junk science that passes as official doctrine.

My God, what did people believe before Chucky Darwin? People act if the Messiah Lord and Savior Charles Darwin didnt appear on the scene, we'd be living in a theocracy dictated scientific world.

No, you're just extremely stupid.

Possibly the most useful site currently in existence.

[Lord Setar]

Emperor Fluffzorz

Lord Setar

pockybot

vipr230

pockybot

Well, given roughly zero humans on the planet believe in flat earth; and then what...how many of the Earth's population is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc(ie: believe in a God, Gods or spiritual beings?) I guess billions of people on the planet are idiots? I don't know, I don't have a stake in any belief.

Oddly enough, there is a flat earth society, but truth and science isn't a consensus, it's what the evidence supports, and because neither creationism, ID, nor flat earthism have any support, they are all exactly the same. It doesn't matter how many people believe any of them, it matters how much evidence they have to back themselves up with, and if you've got none, and it contradicts the evidence, they're no different.

Well yes, there are people who think the holocaust is a hoax.

There's fundie Christians who think human beings are literally 6000 years old and the earth was created in "7 days"...oh and dinosaur bones are here to test us

There's scientists paid to say oil is running out, the sky is falling, global warming will kill us all, bird flu and sars is going to get us if mad cow disease doesnt, etc.
Scientists from NIST paid to say "jet fuel can bring down a building", scientists who claim
that mercury and aspartame is good for you, and all kinds of junk science that passes as official doctrine.

My God, what did people believe before Chucky Darwin? People act if the Messiah Lord and Savior Charles Darwin didnt appear on the scene, we'd be living in a theocracy dictated scientific world.

No, you're just extremely stupid.

Possibly the most useful site currently in existence.

Yes, it is.

And apparently Noora has claimed that evolution cannot be falsified. Wrong.

However, all my posts citing how ID is not scientific have gone ignored by Noora...can you make sure she sees them?

[Jaaten Syric]

Lord Setar

Emperor Fluffzorz

Lord Setar

pockybot

vipr230

pockybot

Well, given roughly zero humans on the planet believe in flat earth; and then what...how many of the Earth's population is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc(ie: believe in a God, Gods or spiritual beings?) I guess billions of people on the planet are idiots? I don't know, I don't have a stake in any belief.

Oddly enough, there is a flat earth society, but truth and science isn't a consensus, it's what the evidence supports, and because neither creationism, ID, nor flat earthism have any support, they are all exactly the same. It doesn't matter how many people believe any of them, it matters how much evidence they have to back themselves up with, and if you've got none, and it contradicts the evidence, they're no different.

Well yes, there are people who think the holocaust is a hoax.

There's fundie Christians who think human beings are literally 6000 years old and the earth was created in "7 days"...oh and dinosaur bones are here to test us

There's scientists paid to say oil is running out, the sky is falling, global warming will kill us all, bird flu and sars is going to get us if mad cow disease doesnt, etc.
Scientists from NIST paid to say "jet fuel can bring down a building", scientists who claim
that mercury and aspartame is good for you, and all kinds of junk science that passes as official doctrine.

My God, what did people believe before Chucky Darwin? People act if the Messiah Lord and Savior Charles Darwin didnt appear on the scene, we'd be living in a theocracy dictated scientific world.

No, you're just extremely stupid.

Possibly the most useful site currently in existence.

Yes, it is.

And apparently Noora has claimed that evolution cannot be falsified. Wrong.

However, all my posts citing how ID is not scientific have gone ignored by Noora...can you make sure she sees them?

I'm not sure even the Emperor's powers extend that far, Setar. I know for a fact that at least five of us have asked her to show how ID is distinct from 'big tent' creationism, and for any source from an ID proponent (doing original research, not simply bastardizing real scientists') which would support her 'cellular intelligence' hypothesis/definition. It doesn't look terribly like either is going to happen in the foreseeable future...

[Emperor Fluffzorz]

Jaaten Syric

Lord Setar

Emperor Fluffzorz

Lord Setar

pockybot

Well yes, there are people who think the holocaust is a hoax.

There's fundie Christians who think human beings are literally 6000 years old and the earth was created in "7 days"...oh and dinosaur bones are here to test us

There's scientists paid to say oil is running out, the sky is falling, global warming will kill us all, bird flu and sars is going to get us if mad cow disease doesnt, etc.
Scientists from NIST paid to say "jet fuel can bring down a building", scientists who claim
that mercury and aspartame is good for you, and all kinds of junk science that passes as official doctrine.

My God, what did people believe before Chucky Darwin? People act if the Messiah Lord and Savior Charles Darwin didnt appear on the scene, we'd be living in a theocracy dictated scientific world.

No, you're just extremely stupid.

Possibly the most useful site currently in existence.

Yes, it is.

And apparently Noora has claimed that evolution cannot be falsified. Wrong.

However, all my posts citing how ID is not scientific have gone ignored by Noora...can you make sure she sees them?

I'm not sure even the Emperor's powers extend that far, Setar. I know for a fact that at least five of us have asked her to show how ID is distinct from 'big tent' creationism, and for any source from an ID proponent (doing original research, not simply bastardizing real scientists') which would support her 'cellular intelligence' hypothesis/definition. It doesn't look terribly like either is going to happen in the foreseeable future...

Sadly, my friends, my powers cannot reach some poor, lost souls. All I can do is brutally deface them for fleeing the scene when they're asked to prove whatever it is they're arguing.

Y'know, I still don't discount ID as a potential theory, myself. Quite frankly, nobody has an honest-to-goodness solid theory on how the universe was created. The big Bang/Big Crunch is great, but it leaves a bit of a hole in not explaining where the matter and energy contained in the primordial black hole came from in the first place. Ultimately, nobody's got a ******** clue. Thus, I'll more or less hear anyone who bothers to do some decent research about it - including ID advocates, if they'd actually get off their whiny asses and start acting like the scientists they want to be treated as.

[xshishix13]

You are aware that Expelled producers refused to allow critics, scientists, and anyone who might refute their information to preview the film, INCLUDING on of the scientists quoted in the film. See? I actually have a source this time.

[ElectricTerra]

I came across an interview from a few months ago between Ben Stein and R.C. Sproul, a Calvinist minister. It is, as can be expected, full of misconceptions and attempts to paraphrase facts into something that barely resembles reality. Stein refers to "God" many times in this interview, which I think removes any notion that the movie Expelled is possibly referring to anything non-theistic. The statements made by both men in this interview are phrased so that they are easy to believe if the viewer is not entirely informed about the issues discussed, so beware of propaganda!

It's really getting at the underlying issue of the ID movement - they claim that "Darwinists" or "evolutionists" are threatened by theists and their movements... when, in fact, it seems that they are the ones who are feeling threatened by what they perceive as the removal of their gods. It's yet another case of people who are convinced that deities and eternities are necessary in order for human life to have morality and purpose. This is entirely incorrect! Morality and altruism arise out of the evolution of societies; it's an adaptive mechanism that exists for the benefit of the entire population and can be seen in many other animal species as well.

[mrsculedhel]

VoijaRisa

You managed to entirely skip over the 3 responses I took several hours to type up on pages 17-18. My fiancee even got mad at me for ignoring her for so long. *sadface*

You melt my heart! 3nodding I actually teared up over this and I am not being sarcastic!

I will go there directly. I logged onto the discovery website and there is too much stuff for me to read before I telephone them. What I can get from an overview is that Evolution doesn't have any falsifiable hypothesis either.

Is this true, Voija? Perhaps you've answered this on those pages I skipped. I am going there now, but incase you did not, please share with us what the falsifiable hypothesis could be. It is already too accepted to be discounted. Isn't this so? Evolution makes sense to us and anything that is out of place will be churned into the theory until it we understand how nature/natural selection works.

Also does ID deny natural selection?

[pockybot]

A Confused Iguana

pockybot

My God, what did people believe before Chucky Darwin? People act if the Messiah Lord and Savior Charles Darwin didnt appear on the scene, we'd be living in a theocracy dictated scientific world.

The simple answer is that Intelligent Design is simply not scientific and would required a foolish redefinition of science to admit it as such. This redefinition is bad news and teaching ID in classrooms is bad news.

For many years creationists waged a campaign to get their ideas into the classroom. Then the US courts ruled that creationism was not science. Within months the now important creationist text, Of Pandas and People, was redrafted and Intelligent Design was born [this was revealed in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case when the publishers were subpoenaed to produce the original drafts of the book]. They are still at it, attempting to shoehorn this hypothesis into the mind of the public rather than the normal research route. For all the talk of scientific elitism — for ID is not scientific and, in my opinion, unworthy of funding — there are routes to obtain grant money for origins research to answer the "Big Questions" that have been ignored by ID proponents.

Yet they claim they are being shut down when they are unwilling to play scientist like everyone else. Claims that have been shown to be distortions of the actual events: Dr Richard Sternberg, Professor Guillermo Gonzalez, Dr Caroline Crocker, Professor Robert Marks, Pamela Winnick and Dr Michael Egnor; all these stories were spun to blame it purely on their support of Intelligent Design when that was not the case.

Stop looking for conspiracies where none exist.

Or do I have to I have to repost my apologia again so that you actually understand the arguments being put forward?

Creationists trying to get their insanity into the classroom sounds like a conspiracy, actually. A real one, which is how conspiracies actually are.

Creationism abhors me, but so does the idea of shunning scientists and people of academia rigor from even entertaining the idea of intelligent design..somewhere. This idea that ID is somehow a "Christian right" agenda is laughable...as Im sure the Sikh, Hindu, Muslim,
Native American spiritualists, Wiccans, Pagans, Zorasthrans, Buddhists, etc who believe in spirituality might not take such a sterile view of life.

[mrsculedhel]

ElectricTerra

I came across an interview from a few months ago between Ben Stein and R.C. Sproul, a Calvinist minister. It is, as can be expected, full of misconceptions and attempts to paraphrase facts into something that barely resembles reality. Stein refers to "God" many times in this interview, which I think removes any notion that the movie Expelled is possibly referring to anything non-theistic. The statements made by both men in this interview are phrased so that they are easy to believe if the viewer is not entirely informed about the issues discussed, so beware of propaganda!

It's really getting at the underlying issue of the ID movement - they claim that "Darwinists" or "evolutionists" are threatened by theists and their movements... when, in fact, it seems that they are the ones who are feeling threatened by what they perceive as the removal of their gods. It's yet another case of people who are convinced that deities and eternities are necessary in order for human life to have morality and purpose. This is entirely incorrect! Morality and altruism arise out of the evolution of societies; it's an adaptive mechanism that exists for the benefit of the entire population and can be seen in many other animal species as well.

Calvinists are also determinists. I frequently compare their theology to the philosophy of genetic determinism. I will have a look at it. Thank you for posting this link Electric Terra! heart

[mrsculedhel]

pockybot

A Confused Iguana

pockybot

My God, what did people believe before Chucky Darwin? People act if the Messiah Lord and Savior Charles Darwin didnt appear on the scene, we'd be living in a theocracy dictated scientific world.

The simple answer is that Intelligent Design is simply not scientific and would required a foolish redefinition of science to admit it as such. This redefinition is bad news and teaching ID in classrooms is bad news.

For many years creationists waged a campaign to get their ideas into the classroom. Then the US courts ruled that creationism was not science. Within months the now important creationist text, Of Pandas and People, was redrafted and Intelligent Design was born [this was revealed in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case when the publishers were subpoenaed to produce the original drafts of the book]. They are still at it, attempting to shoehorn this hypothesis into the mind of the public rather than the normal research route. For all the talk of scientific elitism — for ID is not scientific and, in my opinion, unworthy of funding — there are routes to obtain grant money for origins research to answer the "Big Questions" that have been ignored by ID proponents.

Yet they claim they are being shut down when they are unwilling to play scientist like everyone else. Claims that have been shown to be distortions of the actual events: Dr Richard Sternberg, Professor Guillermo Gonzalez, Dr Caroline Crocker, Professor Robert Marks, Pamela Winnick and Dr Michael Egnor; all these stories were spun to blame it purely on their support of Intelligent Design when that was not the case.

Stop looking for conspiracies where none exist.

Or do I have to I have to repost my apologia again so that you actually understand the arguments being put forward?

Creationists trying to get their insanity into the classroom sounds like a conspiracy, actually. A real one, which is how conspiracies actually are.

Creationism abhors me, but so does the idea of shunning scientists and people of academia rigor from even entertaining the idea of intelligent design..somewhere. This idea that ID is somehow a "Christian right" agenda is laughable...as Im sure the Sikh, Hindu, Muslim,
Native American spiritualists, Wiccans, Pagans, Zorasthrans, Buddhists, etc who believe in spirituality might not take such a sterile view of life.

Thank you for hanging in on this discussion Pockybot. Without opposition there would be no discussion and you are bringing information to this discussion that others may consider but don't have the words to express.