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 ]

[Jaaten Syric]

pockybot

Darwin was simply trying to look at that which we see around us in a new light, breaking away from traditional dogma...my argument is that his name seems to be used as a be all end all,

But it isn't. I've already cited the research of two very prominent, well respected biologists whose theories are incompatible with the original, gradualistic model of Darwinian evolution. They're not sunned for this, at all. Their research has been scrutinized and modified based on new observations , but Gould's Punctuated equilibria and Margulis' symbiogenesis are (or at least appear to be) in conflict with classic 'Darwinian' models of evolution, and actually have corroborating evidence to support then. Hell, the very fact that they've challenged such long-established norms through legitimate research brought them to prominence, not to a blacklisting. To argue that Darwin is regarded as gospel is absurd, and at this point, you damn well know it.

Quote:

and while I don't feel comfortable in the slightest with Christian or religious creationism...people need not get all upset when the lay or scientific mind explores the idea of spiritual design.

Unless its in a lab, as that would undermine the entire methodology of science. Honestly, I couldn't care less what scientist X's religious convictions are, but as soon as he abandons the scientific method in favor of them, I see a slight issue.

This is exactly why I have so much respect for Francis Collins. In any other context, he and I are pretty well diametrically opposed in our thinking and world-view, but he's able to set his theistic beliefs aside when he dons the labcoat and is unafraid to come down on those who dare call themselves his 'brothers' for trying to force their bullshit into the classroom, not by merit of research, but by legislative fiat.

[Redem]

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)

Poverty is probably the biggest factor. Noting a correlation does not prove a causation.

[Jaaten Syric]

Redem

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)

Poverty is probably the biggest factor. Noting a correlation does not prove a causation.

It is almost certainly the biggest factor (according to the Guttmacher Institute, 57% are described as 'Economically disadvantaged" wink , and was (despite her admitted racialist streak) Margaret Sanger's primary motivation for introducing and distributing information on contraceptive and abortion procedures. Not to mention, Pocky is dead wrong in his statistics, again. Caucasian women account for roughly 60% of the abortions performed in the USA, according to the CDC. While the number of minority women are vastly overrepresented, they are not in the majority.

And so ends my segue. I think I've wasted quite enough time on this...

Anyway, Noora, have you come up with a way of showing how ID is distinct from creationism, or how it can reasonably be expected to extricate itself from the religious and fundamentally unscientific, politically driven circumstances of its birth?

[pockybot]

Jaaten Syric

Redem

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)

Poverty is probably the biggest factor. Noting a correlation does not prove a causation.

It is almost certainly the biggest factor (according to the Guttmacher Institute, 57% are described as 'Economically disadvantaged), and was (despite her admitted racialist streak) Margaret Sanger's primary motivation for introducing and distributing information on contraceptive and abortion procedures. Not to mention; Pocky is dead wrong in his statistics, again. Caucasian women account for roughly 60% of the abortions performed in the USA, according to the CDC. While the number of minority women are vastly overrepresented, they are not in the majority.

A disproportionately high number are black or Hispanic
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22689931/

look at this graph of which women get abortions:
http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/ArtAndPhoto-Fronts/HEALTH/080117/AP_AbortionRate.gif

52.6% white women, 47.1% non white, which inclues 35.3% black. Sounds like a racial eugenicists wet dream, as well as sterilization.

Do I want to live in a world where abortion is not an option? Hell no, there's countries like that...and it aint pretty. But Planned Parenthood cannot do away with the very real racist eugenicist origins of their movement and organization.

VoijaRisa

pockybot

people need not get all upset when the lay or scientific mind explores the idea of spiritual design.

And no one is..... until they start pretending that's honest science.

Ok, I will concede that point. It definately would be a slippery slope if that were to be the precedent.

[hfhhjdsjkdkjdas]

pockybot

Jaaten Syric

Redem

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)

Poverty is probably the biggest factor. Noting a correlation does not prove a causation.

It is almost certainly the biggest factor (according to the Guttmacher Institute, 57% are described as 'Economically disadvantaged), and was (despite her admitted racialist streak) Margaret Sanger's primary motivation for introducing and distributing information on contraceptive and abortion procedures. Not to mention; Pocky is dead wrong in his statistics, again. Caucasian women account for roughly 60% of the abortions performed in the USA, according to the CDC. While the number of minority women are vastly overrepresented, they are not in the majority.

A disproportionately high number are black or Hispanic
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22689931/

look at this graph of which women get abortions:
http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/ArtAndPhoto-Fronts/HEALTH/080117/AP_AbortionRate.gif

52.6% white women, 47.1% non white, which inclues 35.3% black. Sounds like a racial eugenicists wet dream, as well as sterilization.

Do I want to live in a world where abortion is not an option? Hell no, there's countries like that...and it aint pretty. But Planned Parenthood cannot do away with the very real racist eugenicist origins of their movement and organization.

So what do you propose they do, exactly?

[Shokushu]

Redem

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)

Poverty is probably the biggest factor. Noting a correlation does not prove a causation.

scream this is unfair to conspiracy theories nonsense! gonk gonk gonk

[ice_demon_sasha]

pockybot

Darwin was simply trying to look at that which we see around us in a new light, breaking away from traditional dogma...my argument is that his name seems to be used as a be all end all,
and while I don't feel comfortable in the slightest with Christian or religious creationism...people need not get all upset when the lay or scientific mind explores the idea of spiritual design.

You have to remember, Darwin is a sort of battle cry now. The reality is that Darwin's ideas are not the be all end all of it. The anti-evolutionists are trying to make darwinian law sort of like the laws of physics. It is the establishment of a straw man that is easily confronted. The truth is there is no such thing as darwinian laws, and he was the first person to come up with an idea that has since been modified and changed by scientists with a lot more abilities than he had. The anti-evolutionists are trying to say that because darwin was wrong the entire idea is wrong, and that simply isn't true. That is sort of like saying because muslims are wrong about god there is no god. (That is just an example and I am not trying to say who is right or wrong about god)

You are right that there is evolutionary elitists. Ideas often have people who think they are the only right ones and they cannot see anything else. It is sort of like religious fanatics. However, at the base of science there is a principle that will eventually collapse all those false towers. It is the question of why? It is the basis of socratic method. It dismantles something down to a point where research must be done to find out the answer. I know you worry about many things, but that question will always drive true scientists to destroy false claims. The elitists can sit on their highy horses, but the why hammer can always knock the legs out from under them. This is of course why socrates was forced to kill himself because he pissed everyone off with his constant asking of why this and that. Or at least that is an amusing idea that I just thought up.

[Sum_Kinda_Thug13]

I dont believe in Creationism OR Intelligent Design because all that would mean that we [humans] have some higher purpose on this planet. My belief is that our purpose is the same as any other animal's purpose. [and yes, humans ARE animals, the only difference between us and a goat is that we're smarter in our own ways]
And that purpose is to live, ********, and die.

[Redem]

I don't know if anyone has posted this here yet, but the full and proper version of the "Inner life of a cell" video can be found here. That is the video the creationists ripped off for expelled, and for which they removed they replaced the science with "oooo lookit it, doesn't it really look designed? Hypothesis proven!"

[xxladycxx]

hi whee wink

[Jaaten Syric]

pockybot

A disproportionately high number are black or Hispanic
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22689931/

Oh look, exactly what I said from a site which uses the CDC's numbers, but forgets to mention the fact that they're based on 35 reporting districts, not the country as a whole. When the full total is calculated, the figures match my own, and which does not support your initial claim. Odd how that works.

Quote:

look at this graph of which women get abortions:
http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/ArtAndPhoto-Fronts/HEALTH/080117/AP_AbortionRate.gif

52.6% white women, 47.1% non white, which inclues 35.3% black. Sounds like a racial eugenicists wet dream, as well as sterilization.

What it sounds like, and what it is are vastly different things. As has already been said, correlation does not imply causation.

Quote:

Do I want to live in a world where abortion is not an option? Hell no, there's countries like that...and it aint pretty. But Planned Parenthood cannot do away with the very real racist eugenicist origins of their movement and organization.

Except Sanger herself stated that her (political) views were shaped by poverty and inherited ignorance, not race, and was routinely praised for her actions by civil rights activists, and her early (Harlem) facilities staffed entirely by minorities. I know you don't have an issue seeing vast conspiracies where none exist, but this is a tad much. Kindly stop conflating the personal beliefs of the founder with the demonstrated political goals of the organization she founded.

[ElectricTerra]

Legendary_Blade

I've yet to see the movie and, although I don't believe in ID as an applicable theory the movie seems to push the interest of fairness in the community rather then the idea of Intelligent Design itself. Should I take the time to watch it?

The community isn't being unfair to ID. Read the rest of the thread to find out why; as there are basically 42 pages saying the same thing about it. XD

[Calico Vass]

ID is a Hypothesis

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a THEORY.

Show me one peice of tangible evidence to prove your hypothesis and it might bring about my attention.
That is science, not grasping at strawmen to prove a hypothesis.

Learn the difference between the two before you start making statements.

[Chrono_Tata]

Calico Vass

ID is a Hypothesis

You're too kind. A hypothesis at least makes testable predictions. ID does not.

[A Confused Iguana]

Chrono_Tata

Calico Vass

ID is a Hypothesis

You're too kind. A hypothesis at least makes testable predictions. ID does not.

Eh, I hate that demarcation. A hypothesis is an idea, a scientific hypothesis requires that it be testable but I am not adverse to people using hypothesis in a more loose way. It is very petty to insist that ID be called conjecture and not hypothesis to the non-scientist.