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 ]

[Redem]

mrsculedhel

I retrieved this from the weblink to Science and Culture that Voija gave us in his post above:

Quote:

Falsifiability

Is intelligent design falsifiable? Is Darwinism falsifiable? Yes to the first question, no to the second. Intelligent design is eminently falsifiable. Specified complexity in general and irreducible complexity in biology are within the theory of intelligent design the key markers of intelligent agency. If it could be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesn’t invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes will do. In that case Occam’s razor finishes off intelligent design quite nicely.

Everyone is throwing out "Occam's Razor" as their own defense. eek

Yet the bacterial flagellum has been shown to be easily generated via evolutionary mechanisms.
Irreducible complexity is basically "I can't imagine how this is possible, so I will assume it isn't".
There is no way in which such an idea can be tested, because it is a negative argument.
Their example has been proven wrong, yet the ID activists simply ignore it and trot out their claims again.

The quote also suggests that evolution cannot be falsified, and leaves it at that. I believe we have given sufficient examples already in this thread to discount that.

Quote:

Yes, sorry. I am a hyperbole Queen. whee I am just making the point that his statements were musings and fantasy and I never took it to mean that this is what he truly believes. He was adorable when he said it. He repeated the question, blinked quite a bit and then as a good sport gave his imagination a chance to roam free. T'wasn't any indication that he he believed what he stated. The funny part was that his imagination could go so wild in speculating intelligent life from another world that also evolved by the same mechanisms, but had seeded life on this world. For deists, that is funny. He could imagine anything but first cause/unconditioned reality. cool

He was asked as a scientist, any explanation that is untestable cannot be accepted. The only testable designer would be aliens.

Quote:

There are problems with the fossil record.

Fossilisation is a rare process.
There are gaps in the record, but there is abundant examples to prove the point beyond reasonable doubt. Individual species are often not represented by a large number of fossils, but the trail of fossils for large changes is excellent.
Check the videos I linked to recently, on youtube for a brief look at the mamallian lineage. There is no honest doubt left in the scientific community that the principle is demonstrated.

Quote:

All of these are from the same dot org site and appear to be apologea. I am aware of the fossil record, unless something has happened since 1989 of which I am unaware.

The talk.origins newsgroup archives cumulated into a single place. All articles are sources at the bottom of them, feel free to check up on them.
And many of those are written decades ago, so they are missing out on the most recent developments.

Yes, a lot has happened since 1989. That's nearly 20 years!

[mrsculedhel]

VoijaRisa

mrsculedhel

I retrieved this from the weblink to Science and Culture that Voija gave us in his post above

That's the exact same part I quoted and already showed why it's wrong.

I will postpone debating the problems with the fossil record for now.

I am more interested in the denials of ontological claims by evolutionary biologists. Of course, if no claims are made, then this is why it is not a problem for Catholics to accept it. It is science and we stopped interferring in what science is okayed for the great unwashed masses after Galileo! 3nodding Still there is a problem with ontology and the assumption that people of faith are "blind" and somewhat stupid. Perhaps this is why Stein is pushing back; perhaps he thinks he is using the same tactics as many atheists in the classrooms who do not hesitate to inject their bias into their focus and assumptions.

There is a need for a head on discussion of the metaphysics of paleontological presumptions, perhaps?

[jkdhg94t noah ougb]

logic is not science.

[Redem]

mrsculedhel

I am more interested in the denials of ontological claims by evolutionary biologists. Of course, if no claims are made, then this is why it is not a problem for Catholics to accept it. It is science and we stopped interferring in what science is okayed for the great unwashed masses after Galileo! 3nodding Still there is a problem with ontology and the assumption that people of faith are "blind" and somewhat stupid. Perhaps this is why Stein is pushing back; perhaps he thinks he is using the same tactics as many atheists in the classrooms who do not hesitate to inject their bias into their focus and assumptions.

A lot of people cannot tell the difference between secularism and atheism, it seems.

mrsculedhel

There is a need for a head on discussion of the metaphysics of paleontological presumptions, perhaps?

Presumptions such as...?

[Piltdown]

mrsculedhel

I will postpone debating the problems with the fossil record for now.

Well, as I stated before the fossil record is really not the key note in evolution, genetics is (even though I love bones). Chromosome 2, Endogenous Retroviruses, and throw-back genes are very strong ways of testing evolutionary theory that have all coincided with it, which has validated the fossil record we do have.

Quote:

I am more interested in the denials of ontological claims by evolutionary biologists. Of course, if no claims are made, then this is why it is not a problem for Catholics to accept it. It is science and we stopped interferring in what science is okayed for the great unwashed masses after Galileo! 3nodding Still there is a problem with ontology and the assumption that people of faith are "blind" and somewhat stupid.

Science makes no ontological claims as science only deals with the physical, not the metaphysical, the natural, not the supernatural. Science makes no claim as to the metaphysical's/supernatural's existence except that if it exists, it cannot be tested by natural means and as such nothing scientific can be said about it. Some evolutionary biologists are atheists, but this has nothing to do with their job any more than one can say "He is a plumber, he must be a Christian." That is just nonsense. Evolutionary theory makes no ontological claims and AS SUCH can be accepted by Catholics.

"I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called 'creationism' and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: Those who believe in the creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God...This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favor of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: Where does everything come from? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man?"-The Pope

By nature, science cannot make any ontological claims, and as such, neither can evolutionary theory. This is why many people pair evolutionary theory (Catholics included) with something that can answer the philisophical question (religion). Others may choose not to answer the philisophical question, some may simply answer it with "it is all natural." However, this choice is an individual one. There are religious evolutionary biologists/ scientists that accept the theory of evolution, and there are agnostic/ atheistic scientists who accept the theory of evolution.

Quote:

Perhaps this is why Stein is pushing back; perhaps he thinks he is using the same tactics as many atheists in the classrooms who do not hesitate to inject their bias into their focus and assumptions.

Most teachers are christian, not atheists. Keep in mind, around 90% of the American populus is christian. Are the max 10-12% of atheistis/agnostics/other all of the teachers in all of the country? Hardly. It is more likely a child will have a christian teacher than anything else. Again, just teaching the science has no ontological standpoint. You are making blanet statements that are unessisary and unjustified.

Quote:

There is a need for a head on discussion of the metaphysics of paleontological presumptions, perhaps?

Metaphysics and science are completely seperate....and what presumptions?

[Westenblum]

mrsculedhel

I will postpone debating the problems with the fossil record for now.

What could be so important, that it would make you postpone discussing fossils? Let's see what we have.

Quote:

I am more interested in the denials of ontological claims by evolutionary biologists. Of course, if no claims are made, then this is why it is not a problem for Catholics to accept it. It is science and we stopped interferring in what science is okayed for the great unwashed masses after Galileo! 3nodding Still there is a problem with ontology and the assumption that people of faith are "blind" and somewhat stupid. Perhaps this is why Stein is pushing back; perhaps he thinks he is using the same tactics as many atheists in the classrooms who do not hesitate to inject their bias into their focus and assumptions.

1. Ontological claims? Now that's quite a stretch. Evolution makes no religious claims whatsoever - don't saddle the theory with it. Science in general deals with the natural world, not the supernatural; people have pointed this out to you already.
2. Hmmm, painting atheists with the same brush, are we? Many people in the biological sciences are religious - it's not some grand atheistic/agnostic cabal out to marginalize religion.

Quote:

There is a need for a head on discussion of the metaphysics of paleontological presumptions, perhaps?

. . . What presumptions? Do you have any particular examples?

[Shokushu]

mrsculedhel

VoijaRisa

mrsculedhel

I retrieved this from the weblink to Science and Culture that Voija gave us in his post above

That's the exact same part I quoted and already showed why it's wrong.

I will postpone debating the problems with the fossil record for now.

I am more interested in the denials of ontological claims by evolutionary biologists. Of course, if no claims are made, then this is why it is not a problem for Catholics to accept it. It is science and we stopped interferring in what science is okayed for the great unwashed masses after Galileo! 3nodding Still there is a problem with ontology and the assumption that people of faith are "blind" and somewhat stupid. Perhaps this is why Stein is pushing back; perhaps he thinks he is using the same tactics as many atheists in the classrooms who do not hesitate to inject their bias into their focus and assumptions.

There is a need for a head on discussion of the metaphysics of paleontological presumptions, perhaps?

Who exactly are you saying has made that assumption? A lot of us assume that people who reject every presented fact and say "I believe in God so you must be wrong" are "blind" and somewhat stupid but that's because you don't need to reject reality to believe in God. You only need to reject reality if you believe you know how God works, and even by their own doctrines they're not supposed to.
You should really learn to recognize when we are berating those individuals and that it has nothing to do with you if you don't make the claims they do~

[mrsculedhel]

Shokushu

mrsculedhel

VoijaRisa

mrsculedhel

I retrieved this from the weblink to Science and Culture that Voija gave us in his post above

That's the exact same part I quoted and already showed why it's wrong.

I will postpone debating the problems with the fossil record for now.

I am more interested in the denials of ontological claims by evolutionary biologists. Of course, if no claims are made, then this is why it is not a problem for Catholics to accept it. It is science and we stopped interferring in what science is okayed for the great unwashed masses after Galileo! 3nodding Still there is a problem with ontology and the assumption that people of faith are "blind" and somewhat stupid. Perhaps this is why Stein is pushing back; perhaps he thinks he is using the same tactics as many atheists in the classrooms who do not hesitate to inject their bias into their focus and assumptions.

There is a need for a head on discussion of the metaphysics of paleontological presumptions, perhaps?

Who exactly are you saying has made that assumption? A lot of us assume that people who reject every presented fact and say "I believe in God so you must be wrong" are "blind" and somewhat stupid but that's because you don't need to reject reality to believe in God. You only need to reject reality if you believe you know how God works, and even by their own doctrines they're not supposed to.
You should really learn to recognize when we are berating those individuals and that it has nothing to do with you if you don't make the claims they do~

I can tell by the debate I am receiving that you are nt berating me. May I point out however, that when I first joined Gaia simply based on my signature, containing of St. Brigid many many people made assumptions about me and disliked me before they even found out what I think. The assumption, as you can see by Oni no Tenshi's post is that I am "blind."

Someone posted that "Logic is not science." The defintion of science has become the definition of hypothesis and falsifiable testing. Has science always meant this? We make our hypotheses from logic and then we test for empirical evidence, is this not so?

Our debate is taking two forms: 1. Does ID state that it rejects naturalistic explanations and the "god of the gaps?" and 2. Do evolutionists have metaphysical "givens?"

Thank you for your thoughtful posts and continued discussion with me.

[mrsculedhel]

Westenblum

mrsculedhel

I will postpone debating the problems with the fossil record for now.

What could be so important, that it would make you postpone discussing fossils? Let's see what we have. I would like to suspend this portion of the discussion for now. Do you have any objection to pursuing the two focal points I have described in my post to Shokusku above?

Quote:

I am more interested in the denials of ontological claims by evolutionary biologists. Of course, if no claims are made, then this is why it is not a problem for Catholics to accept it. It is science and we stopped interferring in what science is okayed for the great unwashed masses after Galileo! 3nodding Still there is a problem with ontology and the assumption that people of faith are "blind" and somewhat stupid. Perhaps this is why Stein is pushing back; perhaps he thinks he is using the same tactics as many atheists in the classrooms who do not hesitate to inject their bias into their focus and assumptions.

1. Ontological claims? Now that's quite a stretch. Evolution makes no religious claims whatsoever - don't saddle the theory with it. Science in general deals with the natural world, not the supernatural; people have pointed this out to you already.

No, I don't think it is a stretch. I think that evolutionists and behavioral scientists are linking evolution to atheism. Not all, but this is the tendency. There is a tendency of people to assume that evolutionary theory means atheism because atheism is a superior metaphysic to deism.

To the posts regarding supernaturalism, I have already responded to each of these, as far as possible to state that I agree that science is about naturalistic information not supernaturalism. Why don't you get me? I am not stretching and I am not making this up. Please refer to my post to Shokusku above. There have been a few guesses as to why Ben Stein made his film and now I am making my speculations. Fair?


2. Hmmm, painting atheists with the same brush, are we? Many people in the biological sciences are religious - it's not some grand atheistic/agnostic cabal out to marginalize religion. I am speculating about the purpose of Ben Stein's film. I am not one for conspiracy theories. (at least not when I am on my meds. j/k xd ) In fact, if you have read my posts I stated that this sort of accusation goes on both sides. On the one side we have deists who are feeling something like this, yes. On the other side, there is paranoia about fundamentalists taking over the public school systems and meddling with the definition of science. There is some merit to each's claims.

Quote:

There is a need for a head on discussion of the metaphysics of paleontological presumptions, perhaps?

. . . What presumptions? Do you have any particular examples?

As described above. That most scientists presume randomness of the universe whereas there are but few who believe in order. I have been debating on Gaia for closing in on one year now and I have been a witness to a high number of claims by fellow Gaians to this belief. At University, there was one anthropologist who was a deist with tenure; a Jewish Cantor who was head of the department. His intro to cultural anthroplogy was about how apes mourn their dead by beating branches on the ground as evidence of the beginnings of religion. rolleyes He was a great lecturer and I enjoyed his courses very much.

[mrsculedhel]

Redem

mrsculedhel

I am more interested in the denials of ontological claims by evolutionary biologists. Of course, if no claims are made, then this is why it is not a problem for Catholics to accept it. It is science and we stopped interferring in what science is okayed for the great unwashed masses after Galileo! 3nodding Still there is a problem with ontology and the assumption that people of faith are "blind" and somewhat stupid. Perhaps this is why Stein is pushing back; perhaps he thinks he is using the same tactics as many atheists in the classrooms who do not hesitate to inject their bias into their focus and assumptions.

A lot of people cannot tell the difference between secularism and atheism, it seems.

Good point.

mrsculedhel

There is a need for a head on discussion of the metaphysics of paleontological presumptions, perhaps?

Presumptions such as...?

We are debating about the film, not my personal beliefs. The film as you know presents a number of outspoken atheists who believe that evolutionary theory supports their metaphysic ... or lack of metaphysic. The film ends with Stein mentioning metaphysics and science. I don't dare quote it because it has been over a week since I viewed the film. I need to see it again now that I have more background from you all. I will be able to look at the film with more skepticism than before.

[Redem]

mrsculedhel

We are debating about the film, not my personal beliefs. The film as you know presents a number of outspoken atheists who believe that evolutionary theory supports their metaphysic ... or lack of metaphysic. The film ends with Stein mentioning metaphysics and science. I don't dare quote it because it has been over a week since I viewed the film. I need to see it again now that I have more background from you all. I will be able to look at the film with more skepticism than before.

I believe the point that was made (basing this of other interviews with Dawkins and similarly minded people) is that science removes their need for the supernatural answers to questions, by filling in the blanks in our knowledge. In that way it supports their atheism, but does not lead to it.

It is not the science itself, it is how they integrate it's findings into their personal philosophies. Much like theistic scientists integrate it into their personal philosophies as the methods by which their deities worked.

The science supports both viewpoints equally well, and leads to neither as the science itself is secular.

Life sciences in particular have a great resonance in the human psyche, answering some basic questions most people think about at some point. This is probably why creationists focus on evolution so much, when they really disagree with essentially everything, and why many atheists point to it as one of the things that persuaded them that a deity was an unnecessary addition to the universe.

A little rambly, but my point is that the science has no inherent metaphysics, it simply discovers how reality appears to be. People then integrate that understanding of reality into their philosophies, whether by denial or acceptance.

[A Bemused Iguana]

Redem

A little rambly, but my point is that the science has no inherent metaphysics, it simply discovers how reality is appears to be. People then integrate that understanding of reality into their philosophies, whether by denial or acceptance.

If science described how reality is then it would be making metaphysical claims. What is is an ontological matter; with science we see what appears to be.

[Redem]

A Bemused Iguana

Redem

A little rambly, but my point is that the science has no inherent metaphysics, it simply discovers how reality is appears to be. People then integrate that understanding of reality into their philosophies, whether by denial or acceptance.

If science described how reality is then it would be making metaphysical claims. What is is an ontological matter; with science we see what appears to be.

A fair distinction.

[mrsculedhel]

Redem

mrsculedhel

We are debating about the film, not my personal beliefs. The film as you know presents a number of outspoken atheists who believe that evolutionary theory supports their metaphysic ... or lack of metaphysic. The film ends with Stein mentioning metaphysics and science. I don't dare quote it because it has been over a week since I viewed the film. I need to see it again now that I have more background from you all. I will be able to look at the film with more skepticism than before.

I believe the point that was made (basing this of other interviews with Dawkins and similarly minded people) is that science removes their need for the supernatural answers to questions, by filling in the blanks in our knowledge. In that way it supports their atheism, but does not lead to it.

It is not the science itself, it is how they integrate it's findings into their personal philosophies. Much like theistic scientists integrate it into their personal philosophies as the methods by which their deities worked.

The science supports both viewpoints equally well, and leads to neither as the science itself is secular.

Life sciences in particular have a great resonance in the human psyche, answering some basic questions most people think about at some point. This is probably why creationists focus on evolution so much, when they really disagree with essentially everything, and why many atheists point to it as one of the things that persuaded them that a deity was an unnecessary addition to the universe.

A little rambly, but my point is that the science has no inherent metaphysics, it simply discovers how reality appears to be. People then integrate that understanding of reality into their philosophies, whether by denial or acceptance.

Not at all, this post is very good. Perhaps you are correct about why evolution is such a difficulty for believers. However, I think there is a particular problem with evolution in certain Protestant theologies. Which is not something I wish to attack them for, just pointing out why the extreme hard headedness.

I would like to continue discussing this further. Your points and Bemused Iguana's are significant and merit further attention. I thank you both. Truly.

[Piltdown]

mrsculedhel

No, I don't think it is a stretch. I think that evolutionists and behavioral scientists are linking evolution to atheism. Not all, but this is the tendency. There is a tendency of people to assume that evolutionary theory means atheism because atheism is a superior metaphysic to deism.

To the posts regarding supernaturalism, I have already responded to each of these, as far as possible to state that I agree that science is about naturalistic information not supernaturalism. Why don't you get me? I am not stretching and I am not making this up. Please refer to my post to Shokusku above. There have been a few guesses as to why Ben Stein made his film and now I am making my speculations. Fair?

Apparently Ken Miller must be out of the loop for that one as he is one of the most prominant Evolutionary Biologists and a Christian who wrote "Finding Darwin's God." The person who said logic is not science was incorrect, well, partially. There is scientific logic and philisophical logic, which are quite different. Logic is based in math, an as such is a part of science (scientific logic, not philisophical). Logic in science, much like the term theory, does not mean the same as it would in layman's speech. Logic is a form of math.

Quote:

I am speculating about the purpose of Ben Stein's film. I am not one for conspiracy theories. (at least not when I am on my meds. j/k xd ) In fact, if you have read my posts I stated that this sort of accusation goes on both sides. On the one side we have deists who are feeling something like this, yes. On the other side, there is paranoia about fundamentalists taking over the public school systems and meddling with the definition of science. There is some merit to each's claims.

The "paranoia" of fundementalists trying to take over the school system is not "paranoia" it is based in fact. There have been multiple court cases across the country over evolution being taught in the classroom. For example, the Kitz-Miller v Dover Area School District case. Warnings were placed in all science textbooks regarding the theory of evoluion as being just a theory that only some scientists agreed with.
The very basis of "ID" is faulty in that "Defendants’ expert witness ID proponents confirmed that the existence of a
supernatural designer is a hallmark of ID. First, Professor Behe has written that by
Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 29 of 139
30
ID he means “not designed by the laws of nature,” and that it is “implausible that
the designer is a natural entity.” (P-647 at 193; P-718 at 696, 700). Second,
Professor Minnich testified that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules
of science have to be broadened so that supernatural forces can be considered." (Official Court Docs pg 30)

Science does not deal with the supernatural and cannot deal with the supernatural, therefore ID is not a science, and as such is not a viable alternative to the scienific theory of evolution.
Official Case Docs
Talk Origins
Wiki

Quote:

As described above. That most scientists presume randomness of the universe whereas there are but few who believe in order. I have been debating on Gaia for closing in on one year now and I have been a witness to a high number of claims by fellow Gaians to this belief. At University, there was one anthropologist who was a deist with tenure; a Jewish Cantor who was head of the department. His intro to cultural anthroplogy was about how apes mourn their dead by beating branches on the ground as evidence of the beginnings of religion. rolleyes He was a great lecturer and I enjoyed his courses very much.[/color

Some scientists beilieve there is order, Einstein believed this. However, Einstein was against quantum physics which is today one of the most successful scientific feilds (which shows randomness). Prior to quantum physics, order was presumed. However, the evidence we have today points to randomness on the atomic level, not predictability nor order. On a side note, most anthropologists wouldn't go as far as to say that is evidence for religion, however, some hominids (our bipedal ancestors) show stronger signs of religious activities before homo sapiens . Also, be careful with the word ape, as humans are apes.