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 ]

[GunsmithKitten]

Quote:

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 same way you sum it up; God did it.

And we DID live in one, ace. You got a better way to describe a world where MONKS were the ones in charge of such knowledge and research, or a world where archbishops could kick kings out of their own keeps?

It didn't even die with Darwin. Remember the Tennessee laws that actually landed you in the slammer if you taught evolution?

[mrsculedhel]

GunsmithKitten

Quote:

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 same way you sum it up; God did it.

May I point out that those of us who accept evolutionary theory and who are Catholic also believe that God did it. We are interested in the natural world and how it works, but it does not detract in anyway from our faith that God did it. Or are you saying that to study evolution is to become athiest?

[GunsmithKitten]

Quote:

May I point out that those of us who accept evolutionary theory and who are Catholic also believe that God did it. We are interested in the natural world and how it works, but it does not detract in anyway from our faith that God did it. Or are you saying that to study evolution is to become athiest?

I wouldn't know. Ask an evolutionist or atheist. I'm a creationist, but I maintain that it is a BELIEF, and not a SCIENCE.

And yes, I know full well about the Church's stance of evolution by design.

[mrsculedhel]

GunsmithKitten

Quote:

May I point out that those of us who accept evolutionary theory and who are Catholic also believe that God did it. We are interested in the natural world and how it works, but it does not detract in anyway from our faith that God did it. Or are you saying that to study evolution is to become athiest?

I wouldn't know. Ask an evolutionist or atheist. I'm a creationist, but I maintain that it is a BELIEF, and not a SCIENCE.

And yes, I know full well about the Church's stance of evolution by design.

*gulp* You are a creationist? confused Very well then, it is good you recognize it as a belief and not a science. My original position is that ID is a philosophy and not a science. The film persuaded me to reconsider my position. Let Voija and Iguana and Electric Terra help me to understand where I am going wrong here. Thanks! wink I am getting on it right now! pirate

[GunsmithKitten]

Quote:

gulp* You are a creationist? confused

I thought you knew that.....

Quote:

Very well then, it is good you recognize it as a belief and not a science. My original position is that ID is a philosophy and not a science. The film persuaded me to reconsider my position. Let Voija and Iguana and Electric Terra help me to understand where I am going wrong here. Thanks! wink I am getting on it right now! pirate

*SIGH* They can do it better than I can, likely; biology was never my strong suit, and I realize now why I usually stay out of these arguments....

[ElectricTerra]

mrsculedhel

GunsmithKitten

Quote:

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 same way you sum it up; God did it.

May I point out that those of us who accept evolutionary theory and who are Catholic also believe that God did it. We are interested in the natural world and how it works, but it does not detract in anyway from our faith that God did it. Or are you saying that to study evolution is to become athiest?

Heh, certainly one can believe in theistic evolution (which, basically, is the notion that god/s was/were the orchestrators of evolution). But ID doesn't really propose this theistic evolution, rather, it keeps the theistic notion and rejects most or all of the evolutionary part of it.

[murphyad]

hmmm really all of you?? haha kidding anyone read Incarnations of Immortality series? The last one is about God

And Eternity

[A Confused Iguana]

pockybot

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

There have been numerous examples of people trying to get unscientific ideas parachuted straight into the classroom without going through the process of research and testing. That is political shenanigans and should be resisted. Thankfully, the courts are headed up by intelligent judges who see through the bullshit and bluster.

pockybot

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.

No one is denying that ID may be correct, it is just not a scientific idea because it is untestable in its current guise and requires a redefinition of science. If ID proponents were to formulate Intelligent Design in a way that was not "evolutionary theory cannot explain this therefore design" then perhaps the so-called "academic élite" would grant more time and patience. As it currently stands, ID is not a scientific pursuit. The argument that ID supporters are being hounded out of their positions is a gross exaggeration, the bare facts are that ID's core "scientific" arguments have been taken apart in scientific and legal circles and that ID supporters are not doing the research.

Science is not an "easy" disciple. All ideas have to fight to survive because funding and resources are limited.

As for ID being a "Christian Right" push. Whatever you think of the political alignment a direct link can be drawn between the rise of Intelligent Design and the decline of creationism and the Discovery Institute's role in this. The major proponents, Johnson, Behe and Dembski are Christian and have openly stated that the intelligent designer is the Christian God. Now, ID can be supported by other theists like Ben Stein, but to suggest that it has not been pushed by those with a Christian agenda is to miss the forest for the trees. This is happening and the policy but forward by the Discovery Institute was to do this by appealing to the public rather than through scientific channels.

ID just is not science. The best resource would be to look at the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial where ID was found to be unscientific. The ruling was not made by a "liberal activist judge", it was made by a conservative judge who was appointed to his position by President Bush. The "deck was stacked" in ID's favour to win its case but the judge listened to the evidence and ruled against it. To permit ID as science would require a loosening of the definition of science to the extent that would permit astrology to also be scientific.

That is the bottom line. I'm now convinced I need to repost my statement on why ID is not science [reposting in this thread for the second time].

[A Confused Iguana]

Again, I feel this needs to be restated.

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 more 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.

[SUPERSQUIRRELX]

Haha, I posted a thread on the same subject.
I agree... it was a very compelling film despite what many Evolutionists say about how Ben Stien duped everyone XD.
+1 for truthiness ^_^.

[A Confused Iguana]

SUPERSQUIRRELX

Haha, I posted a thread on the same subject.
I agree... it was a very compelling film despite what many Evolutionists say about how Ben Stien duped everyone XD.
+1 for truthiness ^_^.

Michael Moore is compelling.

[mrsculedhel]

VoijaRisa

Responses to pages 5-11. I'll continue in the morning.

mrsculedhel

Intelligent design does not hypothesize "who or what" the creator is, it is only looking for evidence of an intelligent designer.

But it posits that the designer was supernatural. Thus, it's identical to the watered down forms of creationism that don't directly rely on the bible. So it's certainly not science and does mesh with Creationism.
Creationism is a "just so" story. ID looks the same as evolution at first glance. But I haven't read the Discovery Institute website yet.

Lady_Imrahil

The question is, is Darwinism testable?

I dunno. Mostly because I don't know what "Darwinism" is. If it's the mashup of completely unrelated topics, then no. It's complete bullshit and no one actually believes it. If you want to ask if Darwinian evolution is testable, then yes, it is.

Lady_Imrahil

Expelled shows that science is not open. Watch the documentary for the evidence.

But science is open. I just went to a conference two weeks ago (I'm an astronomer btw) and we even allow advanced amateurs to present work and ideas. What we're not open to is nonsense that doesn't follow the scientific method. And we've already addressed the "evidence". It's beside the point given that ID isn't science in the first place to be silenced.

mrsculedhel

If he was misquoted or if the film was clipped to make it look like he was saying this unusual hypothesis then Dawkins will be able to bring a lawsuit against the film and its makers.

I'm willing to bet he had to sign a release saying he can't.

If it was a case of Fraud then he can sue. This is speculation, Voija!

mrsculedhel

I don't think Dawkins felt as if he were being ridiculed at the time of the interview as he spoke with much candor with Stein.

You're right. Because he was told he was being interviewed for a different film. Oh... that was a lie too....

There, see he has recourse to claims of fraud. However, if you see the film it is cute and candid. There is no reason to hate Dawkins for his fantasies.

mrsculedhel

On the one hand people are saying that no one has lost their jobs for proposing ID as a working hypothesis, but on the other hand people seem to be saying that people SHOULD lose their jobs and be repressed from exploring ID as a working hypothesis. So which is it?

The question, as I've stated before, is if scientists should lose their jobs if they abandon the scientific method (as supporting ID does). This is much like asking if an airline pilot should lose his jobs for abandoning FAA regulations. The answer is obvious: YES!

But the amazing thing I've repeatedly pointed out now, is that not a single one has!

Repetition of denial are not as persuasive as the film, Voija. I am sorry. I am not basing my interest on someone being canned over this. My focal point is how ID is different from evolution.

mrsculedhel

[Expelled] ... provides a good vehicle for discussing science with people who are not normally aware of this.

No. I don't think it provides a good vehicle at all since the very first thing that must be done with people who have seen it, is to disabuse all the lies and logical fallacies it has introduced. As a scientist and a science educator, I'd much rather work with someone who had a solid foundation in the scientific method than someone who was completely confused on the issues thanks to a propaganda piece.

That is your opinion. I see it as an engaging way of bringing people out of the creationist mindset. I did not know that some of my opponents here, (GunsmithKitten) are creationists. I don't think that a belief in creationism facilitates a healthy voting populace. But that is my personal bias. I don't think creationism facilitates good theology either. If this film helps people to think more critically about their own beliefs, that is not a problem. Here on Gaia we are learning more. I am learning more and I wager there are many reading these posts that are also learning ... even by my mistakes!

mrsculedhel

It is science not philosophy as I had once believed and as I have frequently posted on other threads. I learned something new today.

Did you really "learn" this? Or did you just swallow it wholesale? If it really is science, then you should be able to explain what sort of testable predictions ID makes. I've seen several people ask for this already, and you've yet to do so. Thus, I think you're overstating your case more than a little.

You have definitely "got" me on this one, Voija. The film as far as I remember it, didn't bring this information regarding hypotheses to the fore. I think they are saying that evolution lacks this as well. Thank you for posting the link to the information about falsifiable hypotheses for evolution. I will get to that link as soon as I finish answering this post.

mrsculedhel

I didn't know that it is as valid a working hypothesis as evolutionary theory.

Again, how can this "hypothesis" be tested? If it can't, it's not a hypothesis.

under consideration

mrsculedhel

It doesn't pose that Abraham's God created the universe or life on this planet. It is hypothesizing that there is an intelligent designer.

Who even the chief advocates admit is God and ID is just a sham to "introduce students to the Gospel."

Evangelists mascarading as ID proponents. Why would Ben Stein get behind "the gospel?" confused That's pretty weird.

mrsculedhel

No one is saying who/what an intelligent designer might be.

Except every single ID proponent....

under consideration ... may it is I who does not know what ID means! eek

mrsculedhel

Maybe there is some information coming from DNA.

Define "information" in a useful and quantifiable way please.

This would be the burden of the ID proponents to define. I am not an ID proponent only an ethusiast of the movie who is interested in learning more about ID. You are helping me with this.

mrsculedhel

I learned more about cell biology today than I learned in college

Really? What did you learn? From what you've said, it sounds like all you picked up on was "Wow! It's really complex!"

Yes, That's what I learned. It is much more complex that I realized. It was chilling actually in a good way. It was exciting to my mind. I am sure that before you became and astronomer you were also thrilled by the cosmos. This is usually the seduction point that leads younger people to study more deeply. I am old, but even I am not too old to be intrigued by this and desire more information.

Did they bother teaching you about how many different evolutionary pathways have been discovered to develop those systems? Did they bother teaching you how similar those systems are to species evolution predicts we are related to?

Didn't think so. sad

mrsculedhel

You pose it and then try to disprove it.

And how do you disprove it? The quintessential argument is the argument from ignorance. You can't disprove a logical fallacy. Nor can you prove a negative (ie, evolution couldn't have created this). Thus, it's still a non-testable position unless you managed to pick up on something I haven't in the 6 years I've been debating this. If so, would you care to tell me what it is?

mrsculedhel

Creationists want to believe in a limited earth age and dinosaurs being on the arc or something like this.

That's only a particular form of creationism known as "Young Earth Creationism". However, Creationism is a much broader term which just means that a supernatural designer created and that there is evidence for it. Taken in that context, ID is exactly the same as Creationism.

mrsculedhel

So far the academy of sciences is nixing research utilizing this hypothesis.

No. You have to presented a course of study to have written a research proposal. ID has never done this.

In fact, when the Templeton Foundation offered ID supporters money to do research, they were not taken up on the offer. Did you get that? They were offered money to do research!!!

So why didn't they take it? Because ID is not a position that does any real science.

mrsculedhel

If you cannot get funding then it is virtually impossible to do research.

It's also impossible to do research if you make no testable predictions.

mrsculedhel

I think this propaganda movie is going to have a huge impact.

Doesn't look like it. The earnings have been lackluster. Critics responses have panned it. Those that are seeing it though are being loaded with misinformation. Sadly, it's so many lies packed into a short time, it takes a long time to rebut. It's a classic Gish Gallop.

mrsculedhel

The fossil record doesn't falsify it although it has falsified the Dawinian claim that change occurs gradually very slowly over time.

Which is not an integral part of evolution. Evolution just says that there are small changes that are compounded. Not that the accumulation is constant over time.

mrsculedhel

I suppose it would be falsifiable if there was no evidence of a designer

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Thus again, not falsifiable.

mrsculedhel

A rabbit in the Cambrian or a human in the Jurassic could be anomolous finds. These also occur. They do not disprove evolution.

Yes. They do. If you found a fossil rabbit in the Cambrian, it would destroy the entire phylogenic tree. Rabbits should not be found until much further up. That branching out of species is the heart of Darwinian evolution.

mrsculedhel

Can you define species for us?

Two populations that cannot interbreed.

mrsculedhel

I don't think Voija knows that much about religion, actually or theology in particular.

Well, I grew up Christian, so I'm pretty familiar with that. I've looked into many other religions along the way so I'm not nearly as ignorant as most Americans.

mrsculedhel

When do court cases define science? Answer: Never. Science is outside the jurisdiction of Science.

I think you mean outside the jurisdiction of the courts. And yes, that's true. But still, ID has been rejected by the scientific community as well. And not just evil atheists, but the religious as well.

mrsculedhel

Have you ever read On Origin of Species?

Yes. In fact, I have a copy sitting on my shelf in my apartment.

mrsculedhel

But there are anomolous finds that would refute evolution but they are called anomolous and tossed by the wayside.

Such as?

I know the Piltdown man (a famous hoax) was an anomalous find and was very difficult to try to fit into the phylogenic tree. Fortunately, it was shown to be a hoax.

I have mentioned tool kits in the miocene.

mrsculedhel

The theory would just be changed to include different evolutionary sequences in different time periods.

No. It can't without collapsing the entire tree. We know when rabbits and many other species made their split from other species. Finding one millions of years off, when there shouldn't even have been mammals would ******** things up a bit.

Not as much as finding a line of speciation of rabbits in the same stratum. It would waver the idea of natural selection and change over time. It would only make scientists a bit more cautious about drawing lines of distinction.

mrsculedhel

Evolutionary theory can be jiggled around in the same way and has been.

To a certain extent, yes. But not millions of year tears like that.

I cannot respond to this. Maybe as I said there could have been a few attempts that were pushed back or cut off by special pressures. I do think life is itself intelligent and that it is possible that life evolves in an ordered fashion yielding only to adaptation and pressure.

mrsculedhel

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

Non sequitor much?

Sorry. There are boo-boos. There were the eugenicists and Spencer, you know. As you say, science is self correcting.

Lady_Imrahil

But that is not the point of Expelled. The documentary shows that academic freedom is very limited, it is not arguing the case for intelligent design.

Nor should "academic freedom" mean you can pretend that anything you pull out of your a** is valid. Especially not in the scientific community. This redefinition of academic freedom is just as dishonest as the rest of the film.

I am not convinved that ID is pulled out of my a** yet. But thank you for the lovely metaphor. I don't think that one was worth making your fiance wait, darling man!

Lady_Imrahil

He's just saying the academic community needs to be a little more open-minded when it comes to their beloved Darwin. 3nodding

And the scientific community is. Which is where people like Gould fit in. What we're not open-minded about is letting pseudoscience get a free pass.

[VoijaRisa]

pockybot

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.

Again, we've already aptly demonstrated that they aren't being kept out of academia. Thus, this statement is nonsense.

pockybot

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.

You're conflating a belief in a higher power with trying to pretend that belief = science. Major difference there. The former is completely fine and I've never seen anyone try to stop that. The latter is completely unacceptable.

mrsculedhel

ID looks the same as evolution at first glance.

Basic statement of evolution: Species formed naturally through the mechanism of random mutation + natural selection.
Basic statement of ID: Species were designed by God an Intelligent Designer because evolution is insufficient to account for how complex life is.

Seems like a pretty major difference to me!

Quote:

If it was a case of Fraud then he can sue. This is speculation, Voija!

No. Typically, when you're interviewed, you sign released saying that you agree to allow your statements to be used however the producers would like.

Quote:

Why would Ben Stein get behind "the gospel?"

Perhaps becasue he's a theist too?

Quote:

[Life] is much more complex that I realized. It was chilling actually in a good way. It was exciting to my mind.

Wonderful! You're not scared by complexity. But so many people are! They look at it, decide it's too hard for them, and give up! If you ask people what the hardest subjects are, they will almost always tell you that it's science and math due to all the complexities. It's scary. But just because something's complex, that doesn't mean it can't be broken down into several simple processes.

An example: A year or so ago, I took a course that was an entire semester long that dealt with just one topic: The atmospheres of stars. Not even the interior workings. Not what happened after they died. Just the outer few percent! It's a damn complicated system! But when you really start breaking it down, you start realizing that much of it is a convolution of simpler laws that we do understand: Radiative transfer, ideal gas laws, geometry....

The same thing is true in biology. Cells are complex. No argument there. But ID doesn't go the extra mile. It doesn't say "Let's break this down and see if we can figure it out." ID simply says it's too complex. We can't figure it out. It's impossible to have arisen naturally. Thus, someone would have had to create it. That's intellectually cowardly. It stops real science in its tracks and disallows investigation.

Don't believe that that's what it really does? Then let's take a quote from ID proponent Michael Behe:

Michael Behe in Darwin's Black Box

As scientists, we yearn to understand how this magnificent mechanism came to be, but the complexity of the system dooms all Darwinian explanations to frustration. Sisyphus himself would pity us.

See that? He outright says, don't bother trying. It won't work. Your attempts are doomed to frustration.

Yet what happens when we actually do try to break down these complex machines? Well, Behe's pet favourite machine that he claims can't be broken down (the bacterial flagellum) breaks down nicely into the Type III Secretory System! Good thing that science isn't done the ID way!

Quote:

I have mentioned tool kits in the miocene.

I don't see how this is a huge leap. Hominids were already around then and we know today that many of our relatives in the great ape family can use tools. So I don't see how this presents any sort of major problem.

[Jaaten Syric]

mrsculedhel

Creationism is a "just so" story. ID looks the same as evolution at first glance.

Er...what? No, it doesn't. All they've done is add a (frequently rebutted) step. Instead of 'GOD DID IT!!!' it has become 'Evolution can't explain X (though it has always shown it can...) therefor GOD DESIGNER DID IT!' ID is adamant that evolution is not sufficient to explain the complexity of life, though it offers literally no reason why that must be the case.

mrsculedhel

But I haven't read the Discovery Institute website yet.

You have read the Wedge Document though, right? Please explain to me how the strategy outlined there even comes close to mimicing the scientific method.

mrsculedhel

If it was a case of Fraud then he can sue. This is speculation, Voija!

I doubt it. The waivers they bring forth are generally pretty airtight, not to mention the IDiots tend to have a lot of lawyers on their side. Then, what would be the purpose? Any cash settlement would be negligible, the film wouldn't be altered, and it would simply be spun as Dawkins (if not all scientists) are whiny bitches, and I'm quite certain as a fraudulent example showing how the big bad scientists don't want this 'information' getting out. No, Dawkins current solution looks much better than a civil suit.

mrsculedhel

There, see he has recourse to claims of fraud.

If that would aid him, and if he weren't (almost certainly) barred from doing so by contract. Again, suing the producers would just play into their hands, and Dawkins knows it.

mrsculedhel

However, if you see the film it is cute and candid.

Including the part where Stein asks leading questions, rips his statements out of context, and twists his words into something that Dawkins would never support in the actual context of the conversation? Sure sounds cute.

mrsculedhel

There is no reason to hate Dawkins for his fantasies.

Dare I ask what fantasies?

mrsculedhel

Repetition of denial are not as persuasive as the film, Voija.

Despite the fact that we have all the evidence in the world that the film lied, and was busted on it before it was released? Noora, how much of this propaganda are you going to swallow before you realize its a sham?

mrsculedhel

I am sorry. I am not basing my interest on someone being canned over this. My focal point is how ID is different from evolution.

ID specifically denies that evolution could have produced a long list of structures, and has been shown, at great length, to be nothing more than repackaged creationism. One is science, the other requires a radical redefinition of the word, as admitted at Dover, to even be considered. The two as as close to diametrically opposed as you can honestly get.

Quote:

You have definitely "got" me on this one, Voija. The film as far as I remember it, didn't bring this information regarding hypotheses to the fore. I think they are saying that evolution lacks this as well.

But it doesn't. We've seen it, we've tested the hell out of it. We have evidence from all manner of different disciplines; geology, biology, chemistry, genetics, ontogeny, we have countless published, peer reviewed articles and a definite framework in which it can be falsified. To claim that ID and evolution are on equal footing when it comes to scientific standing or merit is simply a lie.

mrsculedhel

under consideration

That's not what the Templeton Foundation says...

mrsculedhel

Evangelists mascarading as ID proponents.

The difference being? No, really. I can think of two creationists/ID advocates active in the USA who are not evangelical Christians of some denomination.

mrsculedhel

Why would Ben Stein get behind "the gospel?" confused That's pretty weird.

Politics tends to make strange bedfellows.

mrsculedhel

under consideration ... may it is I who does not know what ID means

Seems likely...

mrsculedhel

]Yes, That's what I learned. It is much more complex that I realized.

Except you forgot, the animation they used was stolen (and gutted) from Harvard and that all the 'Irreducibly Complex' systems within them are anything but. That is the crux of ID, and it simply falls flat.

Quote:

It was chilling actually in a good way. It was exciting to my mind. I am sure that before you became and astronomer you were also thrilled by the cosmos. This is usually the seduction point that leads younger people to study more deeply. I am old, but even I am not too old to be intrigued by this and desire more information.

Sure, I know I was, thge difference her (and I'll go ahead and assume in Voija's case) is that my first thought when confronted with that complexity was not 'Hey, I don't understand all this stuff; ergo GODDIDIT!'. That is the difference between the two. ID relies, Hell, who am I kidding? IS an argument from ignorance and nothing else.

mrsculedhel

I have mentioned tool kits in the miocene.

Source? The closest thing I've been able to find is a few articles talking about stone core or obsidian 'toolkits' dating from the era, or a very, very easily disproven story about a single hammer that became encased in quick-forming calcium carbonate near a fossil bed composed of different rock types. Nothing at all about modern toolkits, even in creationist circles.

mrsculedhel

Not as much as finding a line of speciation of rabbits in the same stratum. It would waver the idea of natural selection and change over time. It would only make scientists a bit more cautious about drawing lines of distinction.

Er, no. If evidence similar to the hypothetic scenario Voija described ever came to light it would absolutely destroy the theory of common descent and drag evolution down with it. Barring a fraud, there is no way of explaining how two creatures separated by over half a billion years should be found in the same strata without shaking evolution to its very core.

mrsculedhel

I cannot respond to this. Maybe as I said there could have been a few attempts that were pushed back or cut off by special pressures. I do think life is itself intelligent and that it is possible that life evolves in an ordered fashion yielding only to adaptation and pressure.

So...selective pressure that relies not on proven mechanisms, but on a very, very vague notion of 'intelligent' genes? Explain.

mrsculedhel

I am not convinved that ID is pulled out of my a** yet.

Noora, for gods' sakes, we've given you statements from the movement's founders, what more do you need?

[Lord Setar]

SUPERSQUIRRELX

Haha, I posted a thread on the same subject.
I agree... it was a very compelling film despite what many Evolutionists say about how Ben Stien duped everyone XD.
+1 for truthiness ^_^.

Except that Stein did, and it's been shown and proven in this thread.

However, as an aside, I am currently attempting to speak to the person who once claimed that "secularism," despite the definition of "secular" is a religion and thus must not be included in the US government under the First Amendment, so as a replacement the US government should use Judeo-Christian values which are quite obviously religious.