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 ]

[789789789789p]

Methcalarjalope

A Confused Iguana

A problem when it comes to discrediting evolutionary theory is the number of different components it has. You have the actual principle of evolution, that gene frequencies change over time as populations breed. Then you have the selection principles like natural selection, sexual selection, gene selection, kin selection that assert how these gene frequencies change with time and for what reason. You have how fast these changes occurs: gradualism versus punctuated equilibria. Then you have the idea of common descent that suggests that the changing gene frequencies leads to populations diverging into different species.

There is no one single "evolutionary theory" to be tested. There are multiple aspects that exist independently of one another but work as a whole to be what we call "evolutionary theory". To show them all to be in error would take a tremendous amount of contradictory evidence.

Thank you Iguana. I knew I could count on you to sort this all out for me. ID as a theory for a dynamic within the cell itself that appears to be self guided for mutations ... can you think of a way to make this theory testable and falsifiable?

You can't falsify ID because it is based on an idea rooted in thelogy.

Something powerful and invisible is responsible for the genetic makeup of all life, whether it came from evolution or creationalism.

In order to prove/disprove ID you need to prove/disprove the idea of an intelligent designer. So unless aliens land on earth with video footage of them evolving s**t, or Jesus rises again and says God did it, you can't prove the theory. Therefore, it isn't science.

[A Confused Iguana]

Methcalarjalope

Thank you Iguana. I knew I could count on you to sort this all out for me. ID as a theory for a dynamic within the cell itself that appears to be self guided for mutations ... can you think of a way to make this theory testable and falsifiable?

No; I honestly cannot think of a way to make ID testable. To me it appears to be fundamentally unscientific at its core. However, I may have missed a trick somewhere but I am not an ID proponent so it is not my burden to think of how a test may be constructed.

[Lord Setar]

Methcalarjalope

Feyre

Methcalarjalope

Feyre

Methcalarjalope

How can there be research when it is denied funding and acceptance in the academy?

Creationism existed long before evolution, Darwinism had no official support, just a really damn good theory. And Creationism can count on the support of the Templeton Foundation.

Does the Templeton foundation support ID also?

ID = Creationism.

I am not going to respond to your posts if you equate the two. They are quite different as one is based on mythos and the other on a scientific theory. If there are lunatics interested in ID they will be severely disappointed if they think it is going to prove the Bible to be accurate. Sorry, but a court case does not convince me that ID = creationism. Please respect this difference for the sake of the discussion.

Intelligent design theory is not scientific.

[Methcalarjalope]

Feyre

Methcalarjalope

Feyre

Methcalarjalope

Feyre

Methcalarjalope

How can there be research when it is denied funding and acceptance in the academy?

Creationism existed long before evolution, Darwinism had no official support, just a really damn good theory. And Creationism can count on the support of the Templeton Foundation.

Does the Templeton foundation support ID also?

ID = Creationism.

I am not going to respond to your posts if you equate the two. They are quite different as one is based on mythos and the other on a scientific theory. If there are lunatics interested in ID they will be severely disappointed if they think it is going to prove the Bible to be accurate. Sorry, but a court case does not convince me that ID = creationism. Please respect this difference for the sake of the discussion.

It's not a scientific theory, for god's sake.
It's a hypothesis, nothing more.
And the idea about ID and creationism is the same, they both state that something or someone created animals and humans out of thin air.

Creationism states that God created everything from nothing. ID is looking for evidence of life coordinating and designing itself. It is not apart from evolution it is on track with evolution.

[789789789789p]

Methcalarjalope

Feyre

Methcalarjalope

Feyre

Methcalarjalope

Does the Templeton foundation support ID also?

ID = Creationism.

I am not going to respond to your posts if you equate the two. They are quite different as one is based on mythos and the other on a scientific theory. If there are lunatics interested in ID they will be severely disappointed if they think it is going to prove the Bible to be accurate. Sorry, but a court case does not convince me that ID = creationism. Please respect this difference for the sake of the discussion.

It's not a scientific theory, for god's sake.
It's a hypothesis, nothing more.
And the idea about ID and creationism is the same, they both state that something or someone created animals and humans out of thin air.

Creationism states that God created everything from nothing. ID is looking for evidence of life coordinating and designing itself. It is not apart from evolution it is on track with evolution.

Actually, it goes with both theories. You can use it in tangent with either evolution or creationalism.

[GunsmithKitten]

Methcalarjalope

GunsmithKitten

Looks like Noora isn't going to answer me.....guess i"m on her s**t list again....

No way!!! Never ever never! What did I miss? biggrin

I asked this...

If I were a math teacher, I suddenly tell my students during lessons "2+2=5" and "the number 9 does not exist". I am reprimanded and threatened to be removed from my teaching position from various directions. I coutner by saying that my first amendment rights allow it, and I ask why they want to restrain mathematical science by preventing me from teaching alternate theories. Would you back me?

[vipr230]

Methcalarjalope

Jaaten Syric

Methcalarjalope

his was addressed by Voija and also addressed on the film. In each case where the person had been fired, Ben Stein interviewed the person in charge. Each time that person stated that they had not fired the individual for their ID interest, just as you and Voija stated, however Ben Stein then produced documentation in writing of the reason for their termination being directly related to their involvement in in ID. It was really very persuasive.

Not when you dig deeper it http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/egnor]isn't

All it shows (again) is just how far IDiots are willing to lie in order to make their absurd persecution complex palatable to a captive audience.

It is very difficult for you to persuade me to trust these dot com sources when you present the individuals I saw in the film as "idiots." They were far from it. Ben Stein also addressed the issue of ID scientists as being stupid. Far, far from it. This was covered to my satisfaction in the film. It seems that Ben Stein was one jump ahead of all his critics. It is almost like he made the film AFTER he read the critique rather than the other way around. eek

National center for scientific education is a hard source to trust? Whereas "scientists" who want to violate the scientific method by supporting untestable unfalsifiable hypothesis are easy to trust? They're IDiots because they're trying to skirt science, and supporting blatant creationism...

[Feyre]

Methcalarjalope

Feyre

Methcalarjalope

Feyre

Methcalarjalope

Does the Templeton foundation support ID also?

ID = Creationism.

I am not going to respond to your posts if you equate the two. They are quite different as one is based on mythos and the other on a scientific theory. If there are lunatics interested in ID they will be severely disappointed if they think it is going to prove the Bible to be accurate. Sorry, but a court case does not convince me that ID = creationism. Please respect this difference for the sake of the discussion.

It's not a scientific theory, for god's sake.
It's a hypothesis, nothing more.
And the idea about ID and creationism is the same, they both state that something or someone created animals and humans out of thin air.

Creationism states that God created everything from nothing. ID is looking for evidence of life coordinating and designing itself. It is not apart from evolution it is on track with evolution.

Intelligent design requires a designer, evolution excludes a designer.

[Jaaten Syric]

Methcalarjalope

How can there be research when it is denied funding and acceptance in the academy?

The Templeton Foundation and (shudder) The Discovery Institute alone make several million dollars worth of research and writing grants available per year. To argue that there is a lack of potential funding venues is simply a lie. Not to mention this sets an atrocious precedent: 'Hey Kids, lets funnel millions of dollars into a 'theory' that even the architects admit is not scientific, and requires a radical redefinition of the word to qualify! Oh, and did I mention that it isn't in any way testable, and that all arguments produced by supporters have never ever been published in a peer reviewed journal and have been repeatedly sht down? Great! Who wants to write out the astrology grant?'

Quote:

It will come along, however. If it is truly about creationism, then it won't go anywhere.

Guess what?

Quote:

If it actually produces new information by looking at cell life in a new way, then it will proceed. I am quite intrigued.

Like...what? 'Oh, this looks too complex to have evolved! GID DID IT!'

'...er...Jim...you may want to take a look at this..."

Quote:

You have the right to reject it. However, I believe that in a few years, this will be cutting edge.

ID has had countless opportunities to demonstrate any scientific merit. Hell, even people like Johnson and Dembski admit that the debate hinges on philosophy, not science.

Quote:

But NOT if it is a creationists manipulation to get the Bible's foot in the door where it doesn't belong.

A pity that is what it has been shown to be, time and again.

Quote:

No, this is a new idea of evolutionary science that is based on the idea that life is self correcting and self designing in a manner that makes it appear to have its own intelligence.

No, really. its not. Find me one bonafide ID proponent who argues that the 'intelligence' is a metaphor for evolutionary information encoded in our genes, rather than the work of an omniscient deity intelligent craftsman.

Quote:

This really would have more impact on Theology than Theology would have on science.

If it were in any way similar to how you describe it, perhaps. As it stands, its just a brutish and clumsy attempt to wedge theology where it most certainly does not belong.

Quote:

I wish to point out that as a Catholic my faith does not deny evolution and I have never questioned evolution.

Did I claim you did? No? Okay, shall we skip the irrelevant anecdote I feel coming?

Quote:

What I am saying is that the form of investigation for evolution has hit a wall.

That wall being? No, seriously.

Quote:

When all you've got are bacteria and flies you really don't have much.

But we have so much more than that. Speciation and fossils and Genes (Oh my!)

T

Quote:

here should be a fossil record to back this theory and there isn't one.

I just ******** gave it to you, please stop lying.

Quote:

There is only evidence for change on earth and even a hoe-down hick from west Texas with a 3rd grade education knows that.

What that hick often fails to realize is just how much support that evidence lends to a real theory like evolution, and just how damning it is to Intelligent design and other pseudo scientific nonsense.

[vipr230]

Methcalarjalope

Creationism states that God created everything from nothing. ID is looking for evidence of life coordinating and designing itself. It is not apart from evolution it is on track with evolution.

No, ID isn't looking for evidence, it has not a single testable falsifiable hypothesis, thus it CANT look for evidence. If it had a single testable, falsifiable hypothesis then maybe you could claim it's looking for evidence but it doesn't and really fundamentally can't because it's creationism in a cheap tux.

[Methcalarjalope]

calamitynexus

Methcalarjalope

A Confused Iguana

A problem when it comes to discrediting evolutionary theory is the number of different components it has. You have the actual principle of evolution, that gene frequencies change over time as populations breed. Then you have the selection principles like natural selection, sexual selection, gene selection, kin selection that assert how these gene frequencies change with time and for what reason. You have how fast these changes occurs: gradualism versus punctuated equilibria. Then you have the idea of common descent that suggests that the changing gene frequencies leads to populations diverging into different species.

There is no one single "evolutionary theory" to be tested. There are multiple aspects that exist independently of one another but work as a whole to be what we call "evolutionary theory". To show them all to be in error would take a tremendous amount of contradictory evidence.

Thank you Iguana. I knew I could count on you to sort this all out for me. ID as a theory for a dynamic within the cell itself that appears to be self guided for mutations ... can you think of a way to make this theory testable and falsifiable?

You can't falsify ID because it is based on an idea rooted in thelogy.

Something powerful and invisible is responsible for the genetic makeup of all life, whether it came from evolution or creationalism.

In order to prove/disprove ID you need to prove/disprove the idea of an intelligent designer. So unless aliens land on earth with video footage of them evolving s**t, or Jesus rises again and says God did it, you can't prove the theory. Therefore, it isn't science.

Events powerful and invisable or unknown caused life on this planet. When we get to first cause we are all on equal footing. ID is not about "who" so much as does life itself drive it's on direction; make it's own mutations based on some designer element that has not been defined. It is not about theology. Theologians and religious nutters may hope it is, but it really is not.

[Lord Setar]

Methcalarjalope

calamitynexus

Methcalarjalope

A Confused Iguana

A problem when it comes to discrediting evolutionary theory is the number of different components it has. You have the actual principle of evolution, that gene frequencies change over time as populations breed. Then you have the selection principles like natural selection, sexual selection, gene selection, kin selection that assert how these gene frequencies change with time and for what reason. You have how fast these changes occurs: gradualism versus punctuated equilibria. Then you have the idea of common descent that suggests that the changing gene frequencies leads to populations diverging into different species.

There is no one single "evolutionary theory" to be tested. There are multiple aspects that exist independently of one another but work as a whole to be what we call "evolutionary theory". To show them all to be in error would take a tremendous amount of contradictory evidence.

Thank you Iguana. I knew I could count on you to sort this all out for me. ID as a theory for a dynamic within the cell itself that appears to be self guided for mutations ... can you think of a way to make this theory testable and falsifiable?

You can't falsify ID because it is based on an idea rooted in thelogy.

Something powerful and invisible is responsible for the genetic makeup of all life, whether it came from evolution or creationalism.

In order to prove/disprove ID you need to prove/disprove the idea of an intelligent designer. So unless aliens land on earth with video footage of them evolving s**t, or Jesus rises again and says God did it, you can't prove the theory. Therefore, it isn't science.

Events powerful and invisable or unknown caused life on this planet. When we get to first cause we are all on equal footing. ID is not about "who" so much as does life itself drive it's on direction; make it's own mutations based on some designer element that has not been defined. It is not about theology. Theologians and religious nutters may hope it is, but it really is not.

First cause has also been trashed. Nice try though.

[789789789789p]

Feyre

Methcalarjalope

Feyre

Methcalarjalope

Feyre

Methcalarjalope

Does the Templeton foundation support ID also?

ID = Creationism.

I am not going to respond to your posts if you equate the two. They are quite different as one is based on mythos and the other on a scientific theory. If there are lunatics interested in ID they will be severely disappointed if they think it is going to prove the Bible to be accurate. Sorry, but a court case does not convince me that ID = creationism. Please respect this difference for the sake of the discussion.

It's not a scientific theory, for god's sake.
It's a hypothesis, nothing more.
And the idea about ID and creationism is the same, they both state that something or someone created animals and humans out of thin air.

Creationism states that God created everything from nothing. ID is looking for evidence of life coordinating and designing itself. It is not apart from evolution it is on track with evolution.

Intelligent design requires a designer, evolution excludes a designer.

Not necessarily. ID evolutionists believe that evolution happens in tangent with some master plan. Someone all powerful looks at the planet and says, "Hmmm, those horses need to be bigger." Then, over x number of years, horses evolve from being the size of a dog to the horses we know today because a great designer said so.

[vipr230]

Methcalarjalope

Events powerful and invisable or unknown caused life on this planet. When we get to first cause we are all on equal footing. ID is not about "who" so much as does life itself drive it's on direction; make it's own mutations based on some designer element that has not been defined. It is not about theology. Theologians and religious nutters may hope it is, but it really is not.

See, the problem is you can't test that, even if the "who" doesn't matter, it's untestable! It was created to get creationism taught in a classroom, cdesign proponists, and fails to actually provide a testable empirical hypothesis, let alone a shred of empirical evidence.

[Methcalarjalope]

Quote:

The Discovery Institute alone make several million dollars worth of research and writing grants available per year.

This was something I learned from the film today! eek The Discovery Institute is in downtown Seattle!!! I know exactly where Ben Stein was when he went to visit them. Also there is another well known ID person who lives in Redmond which is where Microsoft's Campus is located! I really need to view the film again with and take notes. Next time I will view it with a more skeptical eye to see if I spot any of the criticisms that I read about it here today.