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 ]

[Lady_Imrahil]

Azazen

It was the late 70's I believe that "Creation Science" started being pushed towards being taught in schools, it was a big thing back then and it was in the Supreme Court I believe that it took just a matter of minutes for the judge to see that it was not science in any way, shape or form and rule against teaching it in schools. Now these Creation Science books have been reintroduced as "Intelligent Design", they replaced the word God for the phrase Intelligent Designer and the word create/creation with Intelligent Design. They are literally using the exact same books with these few words changed and trying to force it into schools today.

If you believe that evolution is just a theory then you need to go back to school. They have done experiments in which RNA was created from nothing but a few chemicals. They have done experiments showing that RNA can turn into DNA under the correct conditions, conditions that were believed to be the way the world was long ago. They've also done experiments in which these things come together to form primitive living cells. So to sum it up, they've already proven in labs that non-living chemicals can create life. Science wins, god fails again.

Please don't make me dredge up all the proof there is that intelligent design can't even be considered elementary school science.

We're not debating about teaching it in schools, public or otherwise. We're talking about whether adult scientists can try it as a working hypothesis.

Creationism still exists, and it is not the same as Intelligent Design. That was one of the distinctions that Stein is careful to make. We all know Creationists are silly billy badgers, and I don't think that Creationism should be taught either.

One of the benfits of presupposing Intelligent Design rather than Darwinism is that you seek reasons for everything that exists, you don't assume its random, you assume it has a purpose. It can only further science. You can even still be an atheist but just decide aliens are responsible or something. 3nodding

Something I learned in my university biology class (and was reminded of when watching the documentary) is that those experiments didn't get further than that. We don't get to the single-celled organism that Darwin assumes exists as the basis for his On the Origin of Species. That's why scientists are now trying to come up with alternatives, like the crystal piggy-back method (not its real name) or seeding.

Why can't people hold an alternative viewpoint if they want? Why don't you demonstrate to me how that would damage science? Why can't Americans be free to live under the First Amendment?

[EsgarBlackpoxs]

White Wolf of Nebu

Lady_Imrahil

I Director

I saw it an hour ago or so, mainly because my dad wanted me to see it.

And I... just can't seem to care about our origins at this point. Some would call me extremely dense for asking this, most likely, but I never understood why our origins were so critical.

Maybe someone would like to explain it to me. Because I've yet to find any significance with regards to life today.

The movie wasn't about our origins -- it is about having the academic freedom to search scientifically any theory you want to explore. Remember the people he interviewed at the beginning who were fired? Or the comparison to the Berlin Wall?

If I remeber correctly, that was already addressed as bullshit. They wern't fired because of their beliefs, they were fired because they wern't being competent.

You'd be correct. There was far more at play than the movie discussed.

[Lady_Imrahil]

Katherine1

Lady_Imrahil

The Final Plantagenet

SUCK_I crying REBEK

I lost a lot of respect for stein for this film. I do think that Creationism should be taught in science (maybe) but saying that it's the soul reason of life is (to quote Penn & Teller) BULLSHIT. After learning that Stein was a speech writer for Nixon and that he is a Nixon sympathizer, I now don't care what he says EVER.

Yes, a speech writer for the president of the United States. Meaning, he's a hell of a lot smarter than you are. Who cares if he sympathized with Nixon? I'm seriously doubting you were even alive when Nixon was president, so really all you know about Nixon is whatever you learned in a general history book.

Not to mention Stein is NOT advocating Creationism. He's just saying the academic community needs to be a little more open-minded when it comes to their beloved Darwin. 3nodding

Once again, science is open to anything with EVIDENCE

Please, give positive empirical evidence for ID, or any other competing theory. This is the point. Science doesn't accept claims, only evidence.

Then go watch the film. But keep in mind that when no one allows a thing to be studied, its kind of hard to build up evidence for or against it.

[Katherine1]

Lady_Imrahil

We're not debating about teaching it in schools, public or otherwise. We're talking about whether adult scientists can try it as a working hypothesis

Scientists can only use it as a working hypothesis if it is testable and falsifiable. Prove that it is both, or concede that it can't be used by scientists.

I swear if you try to avoid the testability and falsifiability issue any longer I will pull out the big red font.

[Lady_Imrahil]

White Wolf of Nebu

Lady_Imrahil

I Director

I saw it an hour ago or so, mainly because my dad wanted me to see it.

And I... just can't seem to care about our origins at this point. Some would call me extremely dense for asking this, most likely, but I never understood why our origins were so critical.

Maybe someone would like to explain it to me. Because I've yet to find any significance with regards to life today.

The movie wasn't about our origins -- it is about having the academic freedom to search scientifically any theory you want to explore. Remember the people he interviewed at the beginning who were fired? Or the comparison to the Berlin Wall?

If I remeber correctly, that was already addressed as bullshit. They wern't fired because of their beliefs, they were fired because they wern't being competent.

Not true. There were several former employers who admitted in the documentary that they fired those guys for supporting Intelligent Design, and for one boss who claimed a contract issue (none of the main scientists were fired for being bad workers) they found an email from him that proved he lied.

Just go watch the darn movie you guys! Jeez Louise. How can you talk about something youdon't know anything about except hearsay? That's a great way to remain ignorant, like the Dutch who thought the world was flat. sweatdrop

[Feyre]

Lady_Imrahil

We're not debating about teaching it in schools, public or otherwise. We're talking about whether adult scientists can try it as a working hypothesis.
It breaches several laws of physics, and there is no evidence to support it, so NO.

Creationism still exists, and it is not the same as Intelligent Design. That was one of the distinctions that Stein is careful to make. We all know Creationists are silly billy badgers, and I don't think that Creationism should be taught either.
Actually it is, ID is just a new name giving to it by staunch supporters of creationism to make it sound new and sciency.

One of the benfits of presupposing Intelligent Design rather than Darwinism is that you seek reasons for everything that exists, you don't assume its random, you assume it has a purpose. It can only further science. You can even still be an atheist but just decide aliens are responsible or something. 3nodding
That's a benefit? Last time I checked science was about the truth, not was is morally appealing to you.

Something I learned in my university biology class (and was reminded of when watching the documentary) is that those experiments didn't get further than that. We don't get to the single-celled organism that Darwin assumes exists as the basis for his On the Origin of Species. That's why scientists are now trying to come up with alternatives, like the crystal piggy-back method (not its real name) or seeding.
We do get to the single celled organism, I don't know if Darwin did, but he didn't have to do everything, he laid the foundation of evolution. Hell, we even get way back down to amino acids who are formed from CO2 and H2O through high energy discharges (lightning). If you did university biology, you should know that.

Why can't people hold an alternative viewpoint if they want? Why don't you demonstrate to me how that would damage science? Why can't Americans be free to live under the First Amendment?
Because it is not based on an objective search for the truth.

[Trorbes]

Lady_Imrahil

Azazen

It was the late 70's I believe that "Creation Science" started being pushed towards being taught in schools, it was a big thing back then and it was in the Supreme Court I believe that it took just a matter of minutes for the judge to see that it was not science in any way, shape or form and rule against teaching it in schools. Now these Creation Science books have been reintroduced as "Intelligent Design", they replaced the word God for the phrase Intelligent Designer and the word create/creation with Intelligent Design. They are literally using the exact same books with these few words changed and trying to force it into schools today.

If you believe that evolution is just a theory then you need to go back to school. They have done experiments in which RNA was created from nothing but a few chemicals. They have done experiments showing that RNA can turn into DNA under the correct conditions, conditions that were believed to be the way the world was long ago. They've also done experiments in which these things come together to form primitive living cells. So to sum it up, they've already proven in labs that non-living chemicals can create life. Science wins, god fails again.

Please don't make me dredge up all the proof there is that intelligent design can't even be considered elementary school science.

We're not debating about teaching it in schools, public or otherwise. We're talking about whether adult scientists can try it as a working hypothesis.

Creationism still exists, and it is not the same as Intelligent Design. That was one of the distinctions that Stein is careful to make. We all know Creationists are silly billy badgers, and I don't think that Creationism should be taught either.

One of the benfits of presupposing Intelligent Design rather than Darwinism is that you seek reasons for everything that exists, you don't assume its random, you assume it has a purpose. It can only further science. You can even still be an atheist but just decide aliens are responsible or something. 3nodding

Saying "God did it" furthers science?

Lady_Imrahil

Something I learned in my university biology class (and was reminded of when watching the documentary) is that those experiments didn't get further than that. We don't get to the single-celled organism that Darwin assumes exists as the basis for his On the Origin of Species. That's why scientists are now trying to come up with alternatives, like the crystal piggy-back method (not its real name) or seeding.

None of which has anything to do with Evolution.

Lady_Imrahil

Why can't people hold an alternative viewpoint if they want? Why don't you demonstrate to me how that would damage science? Why can't Americans be free to live under the First Amendment?

Because Science isn't about believing what you want or making sure everyone is happy; it's about discovering the truth. Intelligent Design has no truth to it, it's just a way to appease people like you who can't handle the fact that life and its origins have nothing to do with an "intelligent designer."

[N3bu]

Lady_Imrahil

Katherine1

Lady_Imrahil

The Final Plantagenet

SUCK_I crying REBEK

I lost a lot of respect for stein for this film. I do think that Creationism should be taught in science (maybe) but saying that it's the soul reason of life is (to quote Penn & Teller) BULLSHIT. After learning that Stein was a speech writer for Nixon and that he is a Nixon sympathizer, I now don't care what he says EVER.

Yes, a speech writer for the president of the United States. Meaning, he's a hell of a lot smarter than you are. Who cares if he sympathized with Nixon? I'm seriously doubting you were even alive when Nixon was president, so really all you know about Nixon is whatever you learned in a general history book.

Not to mention Stein is NOT advocating Creationism. He's just saying the academic community needs to be a little more open-minded when it comes to their beloved Darwin. 3nodding

Once again, science is open to anything with EVIDENCE

Please, give positive empirical evidence for ID, or any other competing theory. This is the point. Science doesn't accept claims, only evidence.

Then go watch the film. But keep in mind that when no one allows a thing to be studied, its kind of hard to build up evidence for or against it.

I remember a small Cartoon strip fromaround here somewhere which actually summerises the whole thing quite well. Basically Science is about Scientific Fact (obesevation), and Scientific Theory (Explination).

For example Gravity: Its is scientific Fact that things are attracted to other things with mass.
The theory of gravity attempts to explain this phenomena given evidence gathered.

Evolution: Its is scientific Fact that organisms change biologically over time.
The theory of evolution attempts to explain why this happens with given evidence.

ID (Which essentially is just a sad attempt at scientific Creationism) asserts that the universe has a creator, and attempts to find evidence which supports the claim, Ignoring the fact that the complexity argument is scientifically bullshit anyway...

[AquaRegia]

Lady_Imrahil

Azazen

It was the late 70's I believe that "Creation Science" started being pushed towards being taught in schools, it was a big thing back then and it was in the Supreme Court I believe that it took just a matter of minutes for the judge to see that it was not science in any way, shape or form and rule against teaching it in schools. Now these Creation Science books have been reintroduced as "Intelligent Design", they replaced the word God for the phrase Intelligent Designer and the word create/creation with Intelligent Design. They are literally using the exact same books with these few words changed and trying to force it into schools today.

If you believe that evolution is just a theory then you need to go back to school. They have done experiments in which RNA was created from nothing but a few chemicals. They have done experiments showing that RNA can turn into DNA under the correct conditions, conditions that were believed to be the way the world was long ago. They've also done experiments in which these things come together to form primitive living cells. So to sum it up, they've already proven in labs that non-living chemicals can create life. Science wins, god fails again.

Please don't make me dredge up all the proof there is that intelligent design can't even be considered elementary school science.

We're not debating about teaching it in schools, public or otherwise. We're talking about whether adult scientists can try it as a working hypothesis.

Creationism still exists, and it is not the same as Intelligent Design. That was one of the distinctions that Stein is careful to make. We all know Creationists are silly billy badgers, and I don't think that Creationism should be taught either.

One of the benfits of presupposing Intelligent Design rather than Darwinism is that you seek reasons for everything that exists, you don't assume its random, you assume it has a purpose. It can only further science. You can even still be an atheist but just decide aliens are responsible or something. 3nodding

Something I learned in my university biology class (and was reminded of when watching the documentary) is that those experiments didn't get further than that. We don't get to the single-celled organism that Darwin assumes exists as the basis for his On the Origin of Species. That's why scientists are now trying to come up with alternatives, like the crystal piggy-back method (not its real name) or seeding.

Why can't people hold an alternative viewpoint if they want? Why don't you demonstrate to me how that would damage science? Why can't Americans be free to live under the First Amendment?

I'm sorry, but what makes believing god vs aliens as responsible any different for athiests. I'm confused at how athiests would be able to accept id as a liable theory.

[CommandoDude]

The amount of actual lies that went into that film/documentary is astonishing.

Expelled is Creationist Propoganda.

[EsgarBlackpoxs]

Lady_Imrahil

One of the benfits of presupposing Intelligent Design rather than Darwinism is that you seek reasons for everything that exists, you don't assume its random, you assume it has a purpose. It can only further science.

In the case of ID, however, it cannot, because ID is impervious to testing. It can only hinder science if it is treated as scientific.

Lady_Imrahil

Something I learned in my university biology class (and was reminded of when watching the documentary) is that those experiments didn't get further than that. We don't get to the single-celled organism that Darwin assumes exists as the basis for his On the Origin of Species. That's why scientists are now trying to come up with alternatives, like the crystal piggy-back method (not its real name) or seeding.

Rather moot, because we know life got here. HOW it got here is irrelevant when discussing Evolution, because Evolution only deals with how life changes.

Lady_Imrahil

Why can't people hold an alternative viewpoint if they want? Why don't you demonstrate to me how that would damage science? Why can't Americans be free to live under the First Amendment?

They can hold that viewpoint, adn they cna express it. However, it's dishonest to claim that it is anything more than just that, a belief. It isn't scientific, and shouldn't be treated as such.

[N3bu]

Lady_Imrahil

White Wolf of Nebu

Lady_Imrahil

I Director

I saw it an hour ago or so, mainly because my dad wanted me to see it.

And I... just can't seem to care about our origins at this point. Some would call me extremely dense for asking this, most likely, but I never understood why our origins were so critical.

Maybe someone would like to explain it to me. Because I've yet to find any significance with regards to life today.

The movie wasn't about our origins -- it is about having the academic freedom to search scientifically any theory you want to explore. Remember the people he interviewed at the beginning who were fired? Or the comparison to the Berlin Wall?

If I remeber correctly, that was already addressed as bullshit. They wern't fired because of their beliefs, they were fired because they wern't being competent.

Not true. There were several former employers who admitted in the documentary that they fired those guys for supporting Intelligent Design, and for one boss who claimed a contract issue (none of the main scientists were fired for being bad workers) they found an email from him that proved he lied.

Just go watch the darn movie you guys! Jeez Louise. How can you talk about something youdon't know anything about except hearsay? That's a great way to remain ignorant, like the Dutch who thought the world was flat. sweatdrop

Because there is good chance it is yet again christian propaganda. As such anything I would watch in it could just be a spin on the truth. Not to mention they had to lie to get their interveiws..

[vipr230]

Lady_Imrahil

We're not debating about teaching it in schools, public or otherwise. We're talking about whether adult scientists can try it as a working hypothesis.

Uhh, no, they can't, because there's nothing testable and falsifiable about it. See, to be a hypothesis in science you need to satisfy the conditions of being testable, and falsifiable, ID has neither, ergo, it can't be considered a working hypothesis. If you believe it can, provide a hypothesis and a method of testing and falsification.

Quote:

Creationism still exists, and it is not the same as Intelligent Design. That was one of the distinctions that Stein is careful to make. We all know Creationists are silly billy badgers, and I don't think that Creationism should be taught either.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xcO9cc_EXS4
Cdesign proponists, really? Creationism and ID are the same thing, one just replaces "creator" with "designer".

It's still totally non-testable in any way.

Quote:

One of the benfits of presupposing Intelligent Design rather than Darwinism is that you seek reasons for everything that exists, you don't assume its random, you assume it has a purpose. It can only further science. You can even still be an atheist but just decide aliens are responsible or something. 3nodding

FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT EXISTS THE WORD IS EVOLUTION! Really, why "darwinism"???
And evolution IS NOT RANDOM!!!!! You have to ignore natural selection to say that!!! GAHHHHHHDRGH$ESOYPJ$#AOIPYJ#OP$YJ432

*pants*
*calms*
Ok, I'm sorry, because ID is not testable, and non-falsifiable, it can't be classified as a hypothesis, let alone a scientific theory. Likewise, evolution doesn't function randomly, it's random mutations in the genome combined with selective pressures that select for mutations non-randomly. There is no merit to ID in science, it only hinders the process to take it seriously if they can't provide a testable hypothesis and some empirical evidence.

Quote:

Something I learned in my university biology class (and was reminded of when watching the documentary) is that those experiments didn't get further than that. We don't get to the single-celled organism that Darwin assumes exists as the basis for his On the Origin of Species. That's why scientists are now trying to come up with alternatives, like the crystal piggy-back method (not its real name) or seeding.

... You need to go back to your university biology class, actually, start with the high school bio. Evolution does not need for the theory of abiogenesis to be correct, if god did it, evolution is still valid. However, we are working on getting self-replicating RNA which would more or less validate the RNA world hypothesis of abiogenesis. God, a process of simple chemical interactions with known affinities, or aliens, all change abiogenesis, none change evolution.

Quote:

Why can't people hold an alternative viewpoint if they want? Why don't you demonstrate to me how that would damage science? Why can't Americans be free to live under the First Amendment?

Because what's the scientific merit of saying "maybe unicorns exist" or "maybe the universe was made by a flying spaghetti monster"? Without evidence, teaching ANYTHING seems absurd. Teaching people ID is science is dangerous because it promotes ignorance for science. It's like teaching that the sky is orange or that the moon is made of cheese.

[Trorbes]

Lady_Imrahil

White Wolf of Nebu

Lady_Imrahil

I Director

I saw it an hour ago or so, mainly because my dad wanted me to see it.

And I... just can't seem to care about our origins at this point. Some would call me extremely dense for asking this, most likely, but I never understood why our origins were so critical.

Maybe someone would like to explain it to me. Because I've yet to find any significance with regards to life today.

The movie wasn't about our origins -- it is about having the academic freedom to search scientifically any theory you want to explore. Remember the people he interviewed at the beginning who were fired? Or the comparison to the Berlin Wall?

If I remeber correctly, that was already addressed as bullshit. They wern't fired because of their beliefs, they were fired because they wern't being competent.

Not true. There were several former employers who admitted in the documentary that they fired those guys for supporting Intelligent Design, and for one boss who claimed a contract issue (none of the main scientists were fired for being bad workers) they found an email from him that proved he lied.

Just go watch the darn movie you guys! Jeez Louise. How can you talk about something youdon't know anything about except hearsay? That's a great way to remain ignorant, like the Dutch who thought the world was flat. sweatdrop

Then I suggest you read the facts from people who did watch the movie and saw through the bullshit.

[vipr230]

Lady_Imrahil

Then go watch the film. But keep in mind that when no one allows a thing to be studied, its kind of hard to build up evidence for or against it.

It's kind of hard to build up evidence for or against it if there isn't a testable empirical falsifiable hypothesis associated with it. No, really, provide us with a testable and falsifiable experiment.