I was not aware that 'easily understood by a small child' became part of the criterion for acceptable science.
That's brilliant.
That's brilliant.
Stingray, I don't possibly see how any research can prove the a "higher intelligence" designed something. Unless you have some material to show us on it, there's nothing biologically nor geologically that is so obviously "designed" that we should buy into it.
The Neo-Darwinian Theory of evolution has extensive research across many fields (biology, psychology, chemistry... and others) that support it. I'd say it's the bottom of the ninth with two outs for ID. The debate won't end though because it can't. Science can never disprove faith. That's fine... believe what you want... but don't make an argument that Intelligent Design has the same scientific backing as does the theory of Evolution.
And what about this... hypothetically, if ID were correct... could evolution still be correct? Say we were seeded here (Panspermia), could we have then evolved from that seed? Could evolution be guided?
What I'm getting at is that it's pretty pointless to have a closed mind to either, or both, theories. But please... provide some research before you claim what you are claiming.
The Neo-Darwinian Theory of evolution has extensive research across many fields (biology, psychology, chemistry... and others) that support it. I'd say it's the bottom of the ninth with two outs for ID. The debate won't end though because it can't. Science can never disprove faith. That's fine... believe what you want... but don't make an argument that Intelligent Design has the same scientific backing as does the theory of Evolution.
And what about this... hypothetically, if ID were correct... could evolution still be correct? Say we were seeded here (Panspermia), could we have then evolved from that seed? Could evolution be guided?
What I'm getting at is that it's pretty pointless to have a closed mind to either, or both, theories. But please... provide some research before you claim what you are claiming.
The irony of this debate is that rationalism lies in the center. Strict rationalism is the most common defense for accepting evolution, but there is a side to rationalism that pertains to intelligent design as well.
It's basically the side that the human mind is capable of rationalizing anything and everything.
Whatever the case, this entire debate often makes me wish education was totally privatized, so that the religious could have their own schools with creationism or whatever, while the rest of us could continue teaching evolution without any hindrances.
It's basically the side that the human mind is capable of rationalizing anything and everything.
Whatever the case, this entire debate often makes me wish education was totally privatized, so that the religious could have their own schools with creationism or whatever, while the rest of us could continue teaching evolution without any hindrances.
I've read a few things, not directly noting ID, but some mathmatical formulas after thuroughly researched, have found flaws that are not supposed to exist, chaos factors, physics with remainders, remainders that when applied to reality, don['t work, yet they are undeniably there. How? Of course, it could be merely the greater whole of the unsolved universe, one day to be scientifically answered,<-- but that's just speculation, as is ID, so these mysteries, as the source in life in general leave both sides open to debate, blatantly denying one or the other is only ignorant until a solid answer is brought out.Stingray24 wrote:
I'm not sure where they're publishing it, perhaps the documentary will shed light on this.GorillaTicTacs wrote:
What design did they discover in their research? Why would they surpress it from publication with all the other right-wing retard crazy shit thats floating around? So they made a documentary about repressed research that they still can't show? Where is this research published?Stingray24 wrote:
*sigh* For the 10,000th time, ID is not to scientifically prove God's existence. It merely points to a higher intelligence because of the design they've discovered in their research. It is being suppressed from publication because some do not like their conclusions. That's why this documentary has been made.
That being said, I don't really believe in ID, but I don't rule it out, for reasons I just stated.
What points towards intelligent design? Just because we don't know how something came to be doesn't automatically mean that a designer had to create it.Stingray24 wrote:
Our knowledge of the universe certainly is limited and always will be. Which is part of the reason that it fascinates me that the concept of design in the universe is resisted with such intensity. We're still discovering so many things about Earth, let alone the universe, so how can design be dismissed so quickly? Scientists are supposed to be about discovery and interest in the details. They themselves are applying intelligence to everything they do. We don't look at a massive ship or skyscraper and assume it got there by chance. Why do so with the universe? Even if those folks from 100 years ago called us gods because of our medicine and science, both of those still resulted from applied intelligence, not by chance.
You cannot argue with a creationist about the creation of the universe. You cannot argue with a creationist about evolution... because they will find one small flaw in any argument and run it into the ground. Obviously, we don't know everything, but our theories have hundreds of thousands of man-hours of research and thousands of the most intelligent people on earth designing them. Creationists have magic (and a book...), any flaw we find can and will be explained by some of the craziest bullshit stories I've ever heard.. I hate how they always ask "well how did the big bang start everything, where did the material come from if matter cannot be created nor destroyed." -- By that same logic.. where did God come from?
Intelligent Design is a belief with no proof except for a bunch of quote mining. Intelligent Design is...
Belief not based on fact
Ultra-conservative
Laughable
Loony
Stupid beyond belief
Hugely un-supported by science
Ignorant
True only to stupid people
I did the best I could...
Seriously, I hate Creationists. They want to force an ignorant and stupid BELIEF on children, as opposed to an incredibly supported in scientific fact theory. It's not a theory, it's a fact!
Belief not based on fact
Ultra-conservative
Laughable
Loony
Stupid beyond belief
Hugely un-supported by science
Ignorant
True only to stupid people
I did the best I could...
Seriously, I hate Creationists. They want to force an ignorant and stupid BELIEF on children, as opposed to an incredibly supported in scientific fact theory. It's not a theory, it's a fact!
Last edited by FallenMorgan (2008-04-09 16:03:02)
Ben Stein + popped collar = pimp.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ben … c=su_expel
Scientific American got a sneak preview!
Makes me want to see it, to be honest.
Scientific American got a sneak preview!
Makes me want to see it, to be honest.
Is that coming from someone who does or doesn't believe in ID?djphetal wrote:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-john-rennie&ec=su_expel
Scientific American got a sneak preview!
Makes me want to see it, to be honest.
This movie looks absolutely absurd. That SciAm review seals the deal for me...I won't be wasting my money.
Doesn't.ghettoperson wrote:
Is that coming from someone who does or doesn't believe in ID?djphetal wrote:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-john-rennie&ec=su_expel
Scientific American got a sneak preview!
Makes me want to see it, to be honest.
I want to see ID fail again at verifying itself.
Well, I agree, but honestly, it's debate... you have to expect some rhetorical appeals.pierro wrote:
By the way, talking about a guy with a PHd in biochem agreeing with you makes the point true is a logical fallacy (appeal to authority)
But ethos is not the way you're gonna win an argument like this...
I will not see this third rate attempt at hackery.
Read the wikipedia page (including links) on the film.
Read the wikipedia page (including links) on the film.
The movie has been criticized by several of the interviewees, including Myers and Dawkins[56] and National Center for Science Education head Eugenie Scott, who say they were misled into participating by being asked to be interviewed for a film named Crossroads on the "intersection of science and religion", with a blurb[57] which described the strong support that had been accumulated for evolution, and contrasted this with the religious who rejected it, and the controversy this caused[58][59][60]:
“ It has been the central question of humanity through the ages: How in the world did we get here? In 1859 Charles Darwin provided the answer in his landmark book, “The Origin of Species.” In the century and a half since, geologists, biologists, physicists, astronomers, and philosophers have contributed a vast amount of research and data in support of Darwin’s idea. And yet, millions of Christians, Muslims, Jews, and other people of faith believe in a literal interpretation that humans were crafted by the hand of God. The conflict between science and religion has unleashed passions in school board meetings, courtrooms, and town halls across America and beyond. ”
However, the movie was actually pitched to Stein as an anti-Darwin picture:
“ I was approached a couple of years ago by the producers, and they described to me the central issue of Expelled, which was about Darwinism and why it has such a lock on the academic establishment when the theory has so many holes. And why freedom of speech has been lost at so many colleges to the point where you can’t question even the slightest bit of Darwinism or your colleagues will spurn you, you’ll lose your job, and you’ll be publicly humiliated. As they sent me books and talked to me about these things I became more enthusiastic about participating.
Plus I was never a big fan of Darwinism because it played such a large part in the Nazis’ Final Solution to their so-called “Jewish problem” and was so clearly instrumental in their rationalizing of the Holocaust. So I was primed to want to do a project on how Darwinism relates to fascism and to outline the flaws in Darwinism generally.
”
—World Magazine[62]
On learning of the pro-intelligent design stance of the real film, Myers said "not telling one of the sides in a debate about what the subject might be and then leading him around randomly to various topics, with the intent of later editing it down to the parts that just make the points you want, is the video version of quote-mining and is fundamentally dishonest."[58] Dawkins said, "At no time was I given the slightest clue that these people were a creationist front"; and Scott said, "I just expect people to be honest with me, and they weren't."[4]
Mathis called Myers, Dawkins and Scott a "bunch of hypocrites", and said that he "went over all of the questions with these folks before the interviews and I e-mailed the questions to many of them days in advance".[63][64] The film's proponents point out that Dawkins participated in the BBC Horizon documentary A War on Science, whose producers, they allege, presented themselves to the Discovery Institute as objective filmmakers and then portrayed the organization as religiously-motivated and anti-scientific.[63][65][66]
Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association wrote a letter to the editor of the New York Times, complaining about the deception. Speckhardt wrote, "If one needs to believe in a god to be moral, why are we seeing yet another case of dishonesty by the devout? Why were leading scientists deceived as to the intentions of a religious group of filmmakers?"[67]
Defending the movie, the producer, Walt Ruloff, said that scientists like prominent geneticist Francis Collins keep their religion and science separate only because they are "toeing the party line". Collins, who was not asked to be interviewed for the film in any of its incarnations, said that Ruloff's claims were "ludicrous".[4] When the editorial staff of Scientific American asked Mathis why they did not include anybody like devout Catholic and prominent biologist Kenneth R. Miller in the movie, Mathis stated that his inclusion "would have confused the film unnecessarily" and went on to question Miller's intellectual honesty and orthodoxy as a Catholic because he accepts evolution.[68]
Intelligent Design is bs. I'm going to write a blog about it, but what I want to do first is see the documentary, so I won't be a hypocrite.
I didn't know it had been upgraded from theory status.FallenMorgan wrote:
It's not a theory, it's a fact!
The concept of a theory in science (whether it be social or physical science) is different than traditional definitions. Mostly due to how science uses probability.Stingray24 wrote:
I didn't know it had been upgraded from theory status.FallenMorgan wrote:
It's not a theory, it's a fact!
The inherent nature of science is questioning. We cannot progress without the contention between competing theories. I believe in Darwinism, but it doesn't explain everything. All people should be open minded about new theories; That's how we grow.
I find it interesting that the same people who preach tolerance for Islam sneer and scoff at other religions.
Islam has never imposed itself on my life. Christianity has.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I find it interesting that the same people who preach tolerance for Islam sneer and scoff at other religions.
I find it interesting that the defenders of intelligent design cherry-pick the posts that they wish to respond to and ignore the ones that refute their claims.
How people can turn their backs on the proof of DNA and evolution, the fossil record, dinosaurs, gene inheritance, competitive advantage and more to beleive in intelligent design is in my opinion crazy.
And to think, it was Christianity that also said the Sun revolved around the Earth, which was the centre of the universe.
I really wish those pushing for ID also push for that theory. Because they are equally absurd.
And to think, it was Christianity that also said the Sun revolved around the Earth, which was the centre of the universe.
I really wish those pushing for ID also push for that theory. Because they are equally absurd.
Blame Ptolemy for geocentrism. Early Christianity took a lot of its scientific doctrine from the Greeks.TheAussieReaper wrote:
How people can turn their backs on the proof of DNA and evolution, the fossil record, dinosaurs, gene inheritance, competitive advantage and more to beleive in intelligent design is in my opinion crazy.
And to think, it was Christianity that also said the Sun revolved around the Earth, which was the centre of the universe.
I really wish those pushing for ID also push for that theory. Because they are equally absurd.
Clearly it should have read 'easily understood by a confused pot head'.Bertster7 wrote:
I was not aware that 'easily understood by a small child' became part of the criterion for acceptable science.
That's brilliant.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I don't blame Ptolemy, the problem was that they continued to assert this theory, when evidence proved otherwise. Although the geocentric view had been dominant since the time of Aristotle, it was the Catholic Church which prohibited the advocacy of heliocentrism as potentially factual, when Galileo's work was published.SenorToenails wrote:
Blame Ptolemy for geocentrism. Early Christianity took a lot of its scientific doctrine from the Greeks.TheAussieReaper wrote:
How people can turn their backs on the proof of DNA and evolution, the fossil record, dinosaurs, gene inheritance, competitive advantage and more to beleive in intelligent design is in my opinion crazy.
And to think, it was Christianity that also said the Sun revolved around the Earth, which was the centre of the universe.
I really wish those pushing for ID also push for that theory. Because they are equally absurd.
True. I thought you were implying that christianity is the origin of the geocentric view. My mistake.TheAussieReaper wrote:
I don't blame Ptolemy, the problem was that they continued to assert this theory, when evidence proved otherwise. Although the geocentric view had been dominant since the time of Aristotle, it was the Catholic Church which prohibited the advocacy of heliocentrism as potentially factual, when Galileo's work was published.