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 ]

[Methcalarjalope]

Quote:

Irreducible complexity essentially says that, if you have a system that is very complex, and you can't break it apart into smaller functional systems that each work independently, then you have no successive steps by which to go from no system to the complex system via the gradual building up required by evolution. If evolution is insufficient, then design is the only alternative (fallacy of bifurcation). The problem with this (aside from the bifurcation fallacy) is that it seeks to prove a negative. In other words, it seeks to prove that something can't arise by evolution. This is obviously a logical impossibility.

Because you cannot prove a negative. Amirite? blaugh

[VoijaRisa]

Methcalarjalope

Because you cannot prove a negative. Amirite? blaugh

I see what you did there....

[pockybot]

Methcalarjalope

I just find it interesting, that of all the hot button topics: war, religion, abortion, gay marriage, etc...its "Darwinism vs ID" that get people the most upset and passionate. My God I sometimes think, should one man have so much power even centuries after his passing on scientific thought? I don't believe Darwinism is this be all end all, and it sickens me the level of elitest loathing toward anyone who doesn't 100% buy the kool aid.

To me it's the same thought control of the reverse; the days of the influence of the 'church' in 16th century scientific Europe.

I find that abortion causes more flames. This topic has been civil, in my opinion. Also, as you see by the poll there is more of a 50/50 split tipping to the side of conservativism on this issue than on abortion.

I debate abortion all the time. Not because I wish to change laws, but because I think the subject requires debate. There is a lot of misinformation on both sides of this issue.

I would have predicted that far more gaians would be aligning themselves against the film than the poll indicates. I am very surprised.

Well as much as many of us support a woman's right to choose, I think Expelled! does a good job exposing the racial social Darwinist eugenics origin of the "abortion movement", something the right wing "pro life" camp doesnt seem to even realize. (the majority of abortions are by non white mothers, so its interesting the elite politicians in Washington DC would be against it)

[Methcalarjalope]

VoijaRisa

Methcalarjalope

I would have predicted that far more gaians would be aligning themselves against the film than the poll indicates. I am very surprised.

I think most people that would visit this thread have seen these threads before and been spanked by myself and other evolution thread regulars to buy into Creationist propaganda.

Meanwhile, I still haven't voted because none of those statements is anywhere near my position. The Dawkins one would be the closest, but I don't really follow him or think he's a genius in any way. Hell, he's not even that great of a spokesperson for science or atheism very often.

I know about Dawkins from school, when he wrote the Selfish Gene, he was scorned by the sociobiologists who reviewed him at the time. He was accused of being simplistic and a popularizer. Sorry, I made the poll for Gaia teens not for intellectuals, Voija, but your voice speaks loader than any vote.

Spanking is inappropriate.

Quote:

As a teacher, I must say that there most certainly is such thing as a stupid question. I can't count how many times my students have asked a question of me when, if they'd only bothered to read the paragraph, would have been blatantly obvious. Such questions, when answers are obvious and easily gotten are stupid since they need not be asked. But for such a large and complex topic as this, it's likely that no question will be stupid, although they may be ignorant.

It is annoying for you, and for me, to repeat information that we think people should already know by reviewing our previous writing. But that is in "wonder world" or at University, not here on Gaia.

Since you exercises your keyboarding skills here, please try to also use this opportunity to grow in patience as we cannot grade people for their lack of reading, even when it is on the same page!

Please just do your best, Voija. That is all we can do. You will be a greater man for it. I am sure you don't like me mothering you, but there it is. Just try. When I have to repeat myself it is also irritating to me. You have a fiance and someday your practice in patience, like building up a muscle, will give you some strength you need in a moment of crisis. neutral This is my serious face.

[VoijaRisa]

Methcalarjalope

I know about Dawkins from school, when he wrote the Selfish Gene, he was scorned by the sociobiologists who reviewed him at the time. He was accused of being simplistic and a popularizer.

Yet it's amazing how much the gene centered idea of evolution he promotes has taken hold in the biological community. So yet again, you provide another example of how science does accept radical notions.

Methcalarjalope

Since you exercises your keyboarding skills here, please try to also use this opportunity to grow in patience

Hun, I've been fighting this fight for 6 years. It's failed to produce anything novel in a good 2 years now. It's all the same rehashed BS. I've even decided to go into public education of science instead of research and to continue to fight this battle against pseudoscience. I'm already patient, even if it's due to necessity rather than nature. I'll be here to help as long as you need. smile

Methcalarjalope

You have a fiance and someday your practice in patience, like building up a muscle, will give you some strength you need in a moment of crisis.

LOL. I can't say she doesn't test that more than enough already at times. But I love her none the less.

[Methcalarjalope]

pockybot

Methcalarjalope

I just find it interesting, that of all the hot button topics: war, religion, abortion, gay marriage, etc...its "Darwinism vs ID" that get people the most upset and passionate. My God I sometimes think, should one man have so much power even centuries after his passing on scientific thought? I don't believe Darwinism is this be all end all, and it sickens me the level of elitest loathing toward anyone who doesn't 100% buy the kool aid.

To me it's the same thought control of the reverse; the days of the influence of the 'church' in 16th century scientific Europe.

I find that abortion causes more flames. This topic has been civil, in my opinion. Also, as you see by the poll there is more of a 50/50 split tipping to the side of conservativism on this issue than on abortion.

I debate abortion all the time. Not because I wish to change laws, but because I think the subject requires debate. There is a lot of misinformation on both sides of this issue.

I would have predicted that far more gaians would be aligning themselves against the film than the poll indicates. I am very surprised.

Pockybot

Well as much as many of us support a woman's right to choose, I think Expelled! does a good job exposing the racial social Darwinist eugenics origin of the "abortion movement", something the right wing "pro life" camp doesnt seem to even realize. (the majority of abortions are by non white mothers, so its interesting the elite politicians in Washington DC would be against it)

What makes you suppose that we are not aware of it? Catholics are aware of it. There were a couple million Catholics killed by Nazi's, too you know. They didn't like Priests and religious. Hitler rejected Catholicism in favor of a interest in Wagnerian Opera and the occult. Germany was Lutheran, predominantly at the time, too, if I am not mistaken.

I learned about the American Eugenics movement by accident from a post-doc in chemistry who turned me a book his friend wrote. I am sorry, but I cannot recall the name of it! They were not right wingers either. When I met him we were working against military meddling in central America especially against the Sandinista movement.

That is when I learned about pellagra, eugenics, Margaret Sanger and the racist intentions of the Planned Parenthood movement. I've practically grown up knowing and learning about these issues.

Ben Stein got that part right in his film. The film is not a one-hundred percent loser, even if what Voija is explaining is accurate. There are still a number of good reasons for viewing this film and being respectful.

[Methcalarjalope]

VoijaRisa

Methcalarjalope

I know about Dawkins from school, when he wrote the Selfish Gene, he was scorned by the sociobiologists who reviewed him at the time. He was accused of being simplistic and a popularizer.

Yet it's amazing how much the gene centered idea of evolution he promotes has taken hold in the biological community. So yet again, you provide another example of how science does accept radical notions.

Methcalarjalope

Since you exercises your keyboarding skills here, please try to also use this opportunity to grow in patience

Hun, I've been fighting this fight for 6 years. It's failed to produce anything novel in a good 2 years now. It's all the same rehashed BS. I've even decided to go into public education of science instead of research and to continue to fight this battle against pseudoscience. I'm already patient, even if it's due to necessity rather than nature. I'll be here to help as long as you need. smile

Methcalarjalope

You have a fiance and someday your practice in patience, like building up a muscle, will give you some strength you need in a moment of crisis.

LOL. I can't say she doesn't test that more than enough already at times. But I love her none the less.

I love you. This post did a lot of good for me, I cannot explain.

[A Confused Iguana]

VoijaRisa

Meanwhile, I still haven't voted because none of those statements is anywhere near my position. The Dawkins one would be the closest, but I don't really follow him or think he's a genius in any way. Hell, he's not even that great of a spokesperson for science or atheism very often.

Ah, he's fine. [I wanted to go to New College on the basis that it was his college; then again, perhaps I am biased.]

Anyway, the furore over the Selfish Gene was in in fields where their arguments could hardly be called a better descriptor of evidence. Gene selection may be overly simplistic by the the likes of naive group selection has been shown to be wrong. [Though more sophisticated selection models can go better but even these are hotly disputed. Such is the way of science. It's such a cabal of group think.] The problem is that many critics attack Richard Dawkins by misunderstanding his actual position. Steven Pinker has written a few books on related matters.

As for people looking down on him, ha! All "professional researchers" would never do anything as lowbrow as write a book on popular science. Heavens, no; they have far more important "serious" work to do. Now, that is where the elitism in science is killing the field: too many arrogant fools who are unwilling to engage the public.

Then we wonder why things like ID catch hold so well! rolleyes

[ElectricTerra]

mrsculedhel

Smokey MacBlunt

Yeah, one-sided documentries which have cleverly edited interviews certainly are compelling, aren't they?

Regarding the interview of Dawkins, he repeated the question put to him and answered it. There was no clever editing, only clever posing to get that interview. I doubt the other interviews were shopped either because there were no suprises there. People who speak of anything based on second hand sources are douchebags.

The problem with the interviews is that out-of-context quotations were used - in a clip I saw for Expelled, Dawkins was saying something like, "As a scientist, I am hostile toward a rival doctrine," and then it immediately cuts to something else, but you can hear Dawkins pausing for a breath, indicating that he is about to continue with an explanation. Another problem, present even when they use quotations that are left in their proper context, is that after they show the interview clips, they proceed to "explain" them in their own words - but their own words are basically a mockery of the original statements. If a scientist mentions the hypothesis that life originated from inorganic compounds (which, by the way, is actively being researched and tested), Ben Stein follows up the clip showing that by saying, "X person says we came from mud!" It's an appeal to ignorance, and someone who really is ignorant of the principles and evidence behind the hypothesis might fall for it, thinking that this oversimplified explanation is accurate.

[Lord Setar]

pockybot

Methcalarjalope

I just find it interesting, that of all the hot button topics: war, religion, abortion, gay marriage, etc...its "Darwinism vs ID" that get people the most upset and passionate. My God I sometimes think, should one man have so much power even centuries after his passing on scientific thought? I don't believe Darwinism is this be all end all, and it sickens me the level of elitest loathing toward anyone who doesn't 100% buy the kool aid.

To me it's the same thought control of the reverse; the days of the influence of the 'church' in 16th century scientific Europe.

I find that abortion causes more flames. This topic has been civil, in my opinion. Also, as you see by the poll there is more of a 50/50 split tipping to the side of conservativism on this issue than on abortion.

I debate abortion all the time. Not because I wish to change laws, but because I think the subject requires debate. There is a lot of misinformation on both sides of this issue.

I would have predicted that far more gaians would be aligning themselves against the film than the poll indicates. I am very surprised.

Well as much as many of us support a woman's right to choose, I think Expelled! does a good job exposing the racial social Darwinist eugenics origin of the "abortion movement", something the right wing "pro life" camp doesnt seem to even realize. (the majority of abortions are by non white mothers, so its interesting the elite politicians in Washington DC would be against it)

Correlation does not imply causation.

Wait, the whole post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc is the reasoning by...every conspiracy theory ever?

[ElectricTerra]

Dr_Congressman

soviet_commando

on headline news on may 2 watch glen beck for an hour interview with ben stine and his new movie just to let you know

Glen Becks is a backwards right-wing conservative, so I could most likely predict how that will go.

(lol at the truther sig)

I'd love to see Stein do an interview with someone who disagrees with his position. Perhaps one exists currently, but all the ones I've seen so far are nothing but Ben sitting with a religious leader of some sort or an extreme conservative, and all they do is exchange ridicule of science. I watched an interview earlier today where Stein said that science's attempts to explore the origin of life are comically pathetic - even though the current hypotheses are testable and falsifiable, something which ID is not. Not only that, but many, if not all, of the hypotheses in question are being tested right now.

The big problem with Stein's portrayal of science is that he oversimplifies it. Does the movie discuss scientific evidence for the theories it ridicules? Not having seen the movie in its entirety (only the clips I've been able to find online), I can't be sure, but I am sure that it's probably safe to say that it doesn't. It oversimplifies the concepts without explaining why they work, which sets them up perfectly to make a mockery of it that will easily dupe the uninformed. "LOL they say we came from mud, how stupid" is basically the idea that Ben gives about abiogenesis. Never have I heard him admit that there is evidence and a much more in-depth explanation of this. It really makes it sound like he just doesn't understand it (or doesn't want to understand it).

[pockybot]

Methcalarjalope

What makes you suppose that we are not aware of it? Catholics are aware of it. There were a couple million Catholics killed by Nazi's, too you know. They didn't like Priests and religious. Hitler rejected Catholicism in favor of a interest in Wagnerian Opera and the occult. Germany was Lutheran, predominantly at the time, too, if I am not mistaken.

Haha, I like ya! Yeah as sad as it was that some Catholic leaders were seig heil saluting to
Hitler, some(like the late Pope John Paul II) were starting resistance movements.

It's interesting, people think Hitler, Himmler and the Nazis were "Christians", but they were more fueled by a bizarre occult cocktail of the Thule society, and this post theosophic Blavatsky belief that "Aryan race Gods over Tibet" created the master race.(Hence the Nazis obsession with Tibet) In my view Hitler was nothing more than a puppet of the British/American banking, corporations and occult secret societies behind the seat of the Fabian Socialists/Fascist factions.

Methcalarjalope

I learned about the American Eugenics movement by accident from a post-doc in chemistry who turned me a book his friend wrote. I am sorry, but I cannot recall the name of it! They were not right wingers either. When I met him we were working against military meddling in central America especially against the Sandinista movement.

Well I wish there were MORE people like you. I recently read this devestating new book called "Medical Apartheid", which goes into meticulous detail on the medical establishment's use of blacks in America as guinea pigs, from 'reproductive surgery experiments' to Tuskegee and modern eugenic like sterilization programs of "crack mothers".

I am completely blown away by the complete evil mindset of the American, German and British elite's obsession with eugenics, social Darwinism, skull measuring, racial traits, breeding, etc.
So much of this and the medical experimentation of blacks seeped into the American medical establishment, as well as the backbone of Nazi germany.

(that also rocks you were aware of CIA contra black ops way back when, another example of targetting inner city blacks through the devestating introduction of crack cocaine)

Methcalarjalope

That is when I learned about pellagra, eugenics, Margaret Sanger and the racist intentions of the Planned Parenthood movement. I've practically grown up knowing and learning about these issues.

Ben Stein got that part right in his film. The film is not a one-hundred percent loser, even if what Voija is explaining is accurate. There are still a number of good reasons for viewing this film and being respectful.

I trust youre aware of all the secret US government/medical experiments on blacks, medical patients, soldiers, etc all throughout the 20th century then smile

Anyways, I loved Expelled!, and I love seeing so many get all upset about it...sometimes, we need to be challened and our mental paradigm challenged

[gothicgummybear]

A Confused Iguana

VoijaRisa

Meanwhile, I still haven't voted because none of those statements is anywhere near my position. The Dawkins one would be the closest, but I don't really follow him or think he's a genius in any way. Hell, he's not even that great of a spokesperson for science or atheism very often.

Ah, he's fine. [I wanted to go to New College on the basis that it was his college; then again, perhaps I am biased.]

Anyway, the furore over the Selfish Gene was in in fields where their arguments could hardly be called a better descriptor of evidence. Gene selection may be overly simplistic by the the likes of naive group selection has been shown to be wrong. [Though more sophisticated selection models can go better but even these are hotly disputed. Such is the way of science. It's such a cabal of group think.] The problem is that many critics attack Richard Dawkins by misunderstanding his actual position. Steven Pinker has written a few books on related matters.

As for people looking down on him, ha! All "professional researchers" would never do anything as lowbrow as write a book on popular science. Heavens, no; they have far more important "serious" work to do. Now, that is where the elitism in science is killing the field: too many arrogant fools who are unwilling to engage the public.

Then we wonder why things like ID catch hold so well! rolleyes

I agree. ID is catching hold because "professional researchers" are refusing to play the game that is set before them. They believe that science holds truth, and that truth will eventually conquer all, but this is obviously not the case. There are so many instances where people believe totally illogical things for various reasons. Religion, superstition, politics, etc.

Writing a book that appeals to the general public and also explains science (in perhaps a simplified form, but who cares?) is beneficial to us. Giving interviews, discussing and debating the issue at hand, rather than ignoring it, will break down the idea that scientists are an elite, bent on corrupting society to their own will. But they want to take the moral high road. They avoid debates because they don't want to make it appear that religion and science are diametrically opposed, because of course they aren't. However, their method makes it seem like they're avoiding the issue for other reasons, especially when ID people put so much effort into coercing the general public.

I just found out that my boyfriend is vacationing with the enemy; he's staying in Kentucky at the home of a woman who is a substitute teacher. When she does science class, she will stop the tape/lesson/whatever when it reaches the point where it says "and this is evidence of evolution" says that she doesn't believe in it and that ID is right, and refuses to complete the student's education.

AND SHE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND WHY SHE GETS IN TROUBLE FOR IT!

[gothicgummybear]

pockybot

Methcalarjalope

What makes you suppose that we are not aware of it? Catholics are aware of it. There were a couple million Catholics killed by Nazi's, too you know. They didn't like Priests and religious. Hitler rejected Catholicism in favor of a interest in Wagnerian Opera and the occult. Germany was Lutheran, predominantly at the time, too, if I am not mistaken.

Haha, I like ya! Yeah as sad as it was that some Catholic leaders were seig heil saluting to
Hitler, some(like the late Pope John Paul II) were starting resistance movements.

It's interesting, people think Hitler, Himmler and the Nazis were "Christians", but they were more fueled by a bizarre occult cocktail of the Thule society, and this post theosophic Blavatsky belief that "Aryan race Gods over Tibet" created the master race.(Hence the Nazis obsession with Tibet) In my view Hitler was nothing more than a puppet of the British/American banking, corporations and occult secret societies behind the seat of the Fabian Socialists/Fascist factions.

Methcalarjalope

I learned about the American Eugenics movement by accident from a post-doc in chemistry who turned me a book his friend wrote. I am sorry, but I cannot recall the name of it! They were not right wingers either. When I met him we were working against military meddling in central America especially against the Sandinista movement.

Well I wish there were MORE people like you. I recently read this devestating new book called "Medical Apartheid", which goes into meticulous detail on the medical establishment's use of blacks in America as guinea pigs, from 'reproductive surgery experiments' to Tuskegee and modern eugenic like sterilization programs of "crack mothers".

I am completely blown away by the complete evil mindset of the American, German and British elite's obsession with eugenics, social Darwinism, skull measuring, racial traits, breeding, etc.
So much of this and the medical experimentation of blacks seeped into the American medical establishment, as well as the backbone of Nazi germany.

(that also rocks you were aware of CIA contra black ops way back when, another example of targetting inner city blacks through the devestating introduction of crack cocaine)

Methcalarjalope

That is when I learned about pellagra, eugenics, Margaret Sanger and the racist intentions of the Planned Parenthood movement. I've practically grown up knowing and learning about these issues.

Ben Stein got that part right in his film. The film is not a one-hundred percent loser, even if what Voija is explaining is accurate. There are still a number of good reasons for viewing this film and being respectful.

I trust youre aware of all the secret US government/medical experiments on blacks, medical patients, soldiers, etc all throughout the 20th century then smile

Anyways, I loved Expelled!, and I love seeing so many get all upset about it...sometimes, we need to be challened and our mental paradigm challenged

Agreed, this is our history. But the people who did these things were fueled by the science of the time, that thought that changing society was as simple as breeding the "right" humans together. We now have more research that says that human genetics are much more complicated, and the eugenics movement (for the most part) has died out. This is something that the movie doesn't cover. It makes people assume that the entire study of evolution is driven by the force of eugenics, which it is not.

This was actually taken from an Intelligent Design website, and while I disagree with it as a scientific theory, their blogger is rather intelligent, actually arguing against that part of Expelled.

taken from this

"A complete Darwin quote with a brief translation
DaveScot

Taken from Darwin’s “Descent of Man”

We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man itself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.

So what was Darwin saying here?

First of all we need to know that Darwin’s big idea is that man shares a common ancestor with other mammals. Anatomically, we’re animals, specifically mammals. I don’t really care to argue with anyone who won’t acknowledge that man is a mammal. You’re simply irrational in that case and not worth further consideration. Darwin wasn’t the first to notice that humans are mammals.

But was he saying that there’s no difference at all? Absolutely not. He lays out the case that humans are animal in body and that due to that if follows that we would, in theory, exhibit the same quality in regard to selective breeding - undesirable traits could be bred out and desirable traits bred in. But Darwin doesn’t stop there. Only those who wish to demonize Darwin stop there. He goes on to say that selective breeding of humans, or failure to lend care to the sick, disabled, and injured could only be done by sacrificing “the noblest part of our nature”. Darwin wasn’t arguing FOR eugenics. He was arguing that while eugenics would theoretically work it would require that we degrade the noblest part of our natures to do it, that part which DOES distinguish us from our non-human mammalian relatives.

If there’s any real case to be made for Darwin and the holocaust it’s the opposite of what’s messaged in Expelled. The holocaust resulted from a failure to heed Darwin’s warning that eugenics could only be practiced by sacrificing the noblest part of our nature, the very part and only part that separates us from other animals. Those responsible for the holocaust, beginning with the eugenics movement in America, were the true animals. Those opposed were nobler than the animals."