PDA

View Full Version : Ben Steins Movie - EXPELLED


SLAG
03-13-2008, 05:16 PM
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iV8sN1UngFY&rel=1&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iV8sN1UngFY&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"width="425" height="355"></embed></object>


Looks interesting I thought

keg in kc
03-13-2008, 05:20 PM
I predict that any discussion on this will inevitably be Expelled to DC.

irishjayhawk
03-13-2008, 06:26 PM
Unfortunately, it's been intellectually dishonest all the way through the entire production as well as in the screening of the film.

First, they secured interviews with certain people under false pretenses. They interviewed PZ Myers (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/), a professor at the University of Minnesota-Morris. You can read the massive coverage of Expelled the movies and it's sneaky tactics by searching the ScienceBlogs site (http://www.google.com/cse?cx=017254414699180528062%3Auyrcvn__yd0&q=Expelled&sa.x=10&sa.y=10&sa=search). They secured an interview with Richard Dawkins as well.

Essentially, they told disinformation to hide their true agenda, got the interviews granted on false pretenses, changed to the true pretenses and touted the interviews. (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/im_gonna_be_a_movie_star.php)

Then, they pulled stunts on the screening of the film (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/business/media/10stein.html?scp=1&sq=expelled&st=nyt).


There's so much bad press for this film it's funny. Not to mention that the reviews about the credibility of the film have been not so shiny (http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_movies_blog/2008/02/is-ben-stein-th.html).



Has anyone found any good press from this movie?

gta0012
03-13-2008, 06:50 PM
Yea well pretty much the same thing Michael fat ass Moore did with his film and people felt he was brilliant, and not a fat ass deceiving bastard child.

Take the movie as thought provoking and it could be great.

And FYI....Einstein was quoted with saying something like "the world is too perfect for there not to be a creator/god etc."

And i think Ben Stein is taking a decent view point that scientists who believe in an intelligent creator should not be shunned and making scientists who don't believe this look like close minded fools.

I don't think that is a proper categorization. I think many scientists would have no problem with a theory if they could back it up with data and factual evidence. Scientists are probably sick of hearing very religious people back up theories with "facts" that are no were near being factual enough for science. Ben feeds off this and creates this documentary.

Oh well i still think one could walk away from it learning a thing or two about both sides.

mikey23545
03-13-2008, 07:09 PM
Unfortunately, it's been intellectually dishonest all the way through the entire production as well as in the screening of the film.

First, they secured interviews with certain people under false pretenses. They interviewed PZ Myers (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/), a professor at the University of Minnesota-Morris. You can read the massive coverage of Expelled the movies and it's sneaky tactics by searching the ScienceBlogs site (http://www.google.com/cse?cx=017254414699180528062%3Auyrcvn__yd0&q=Expelled&sa.x=10&sa.y=10&sa=search). They secured an interview with Richard Dawkins as well.

Essentially, they told disinformation to hide their true agenda, got the interviews granted on false pretenses, changed to the true pretenses and touted the interviews. (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/im_gonna_be_a_movie_star.php)

Then, they pulled stunts on the screening of the film (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/business/media/10stein.html?scp=1&sq=expelled&st=nyt).


There's so much bad press for this film it's funny. Not to mention that the reviews about the credibility of the film have been not so shiny (http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_movies_blog/2008/02/is-ben-stein-th.html).



Has anyone found any good press from this movie?

You are too good to be true! ROFL
I really thought you were doing a parody of a Michael Moore critic, and then I realized you were dead serious!!!

You have a fantastic career ahead of you as an "unintentional comedian"...

irishjayhawk
03-13-2008, 07:11 PM
You are too good to be true! ROFL
I really thought you were doing a parody of a Michael Moore critic, and then I realized you were dead serious!!!

You have a fantastic career ahead of you as an "unintentional comedian"...

Care to point out what exactly was funny about it or what exactly I'm wrong about?

Count Alex's Wins
03-13-2008, 07:16 PM
god lol

mikey23545
03-13-2008, 07:16 PM
Care to point out what exactly was funny about it or what exactly I'm wrong about?

Stop it! You're killing me!

Fish
03-13-2008, 07:20 PM
Yea well pretty much the same thing Michael fat ass Moore did with his film and people felt he was brilliant, and not a fat ass deceiving bastard child.

Take the movie as thought provoking and it could be great.

And FYI....Einstein was quoted with saying something like "the world is too perfect for there not to be a creator/god etc."

And i think Ben Stein is taking a decent view point that scientists who believe in an intelligent creator should not be shunned and making scientists who don't believe this look like close minded fools.

I don't think that is a proper categorization. I think many scientists would have no problem with a theory if they could back it up with data and factual evidence. Scientists are probably sick of hearing very religious people back up theories with "facts" that are no were near being factual enough for science. Ben feeds off this and creates this documentary.

Oh well i still think one could walk away from it learning a thing or two about both sides.

He he..... using Einstein as an example?

You got that quote a little wrong...

In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."



"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

just sayin....

Extra Point
03-13-2008, 07:22 PM
"Diabolic theocratic conspirators" trying to push their thoughts into the classroom. Dorothy, I'm still in Kansas. They haven't seen fossils in the Flint Hills.

Third Eye
03-13-2008, 07:31 PM
He he..... using Einstein as an example?

You got that quote a little wrong...








just sayin....

I don't think that contradicts his paraphrasing of the quote. He never said Einstein believed in a biblical type god, merely a creator, which your quotes back up. I myself tend to fall in this category.

Edit: perhaps creator is not the right choice of words. Maybe the Aristotelian "prime mover" or the Spinozan "Deus sive natura" are more correct.

irishjayhawk
03-13-2008, 07:34 PM
"Diabolic theocratic conspirators" trying to push their thoughts into the classroom. Dorothy, I'm still in Kansas. They haven't seen fossils in the Flint Hills.

No, no, that's all wrong. It's easy: God placed fossils on earth to test us.

Ultra Peanut
03-13-2008, 08:18 PM
Want to teach kids something in their science classes? I've got this wacky idea called teach something scientific.

But yeah, I'm sure the judge in Kitzmiller v. Dover, who was appointed by GWB and is buddies with Rick Santorum, was just one of them lieberal activist judges who hates Jesus. How unfair, keeping the door from being opened to any ridiculous belief that has enough people who follow it to make enough noise.

Count Alex's Wins
03-13-2008, 08:19 PM
jesus lol

SNR
03-13-2008, 08:44 PM
Was Meyer's paper credible and valid? They don't mention a single word if it was or wasn't in the preview.

My guess is that it wasn't and scientists were upset with him for pushing agenda before actual science even if the science he does bring up doesn't work at all. Science isn't about picking a conclusion and trying to map a way there... it's about research and study. If that leads to an answer to your question, then so be it. Otherwise, GTFO.

I don't think I'll see this movie. I didn't even know such a thing was out and it turns out it already happened.

elvomito
03-13-2008, 08:54 PM
Care to point out what exactly was funny about it or what exactly I'm wrong about?you really don't get it do you?

Ultra Peanut
03-13-2008, 08:57 PM
you really don't get it do you?lol u showed him brah

Jenson71
03-13-2008, 09:00 PM
Want to teach kids something in their science classes? I've got this wacky idea called teach something scientific.

But yeah, I'm sure the judge in Kitzmiller v. Dover, who was appointed by GWB and is buddies with Rick Santorum, was just one of them lieberal activist judges who hates Jesus. How unfair, keeping the door from being opened to any ridiculous belief that has enough people who follow it to make enough noise.

A better movie to see would be that PBS show on the Dover Trial.

Jenson71
03-13-2008, 09:03 PM
I'll gladly be counted as someone who didn't see anything that was so funny or ridiculous about irishjayhawk's post.

Count Alex's Wins
03-13-2008, 09:04 PM
I'll gladly be counted as someone who didn't see anything that was so funny or ridiculous about irishjayhawk's post.

The truth hurts, huh?

elvomito
03-13-2008, 09:11 PM
lol u showed him brahi wasn't being sarcastic or making a snide remark.

irishjayhawk
03-13-2008, 10:05 PM
you really don't get it do you?

Stop it! You're killing me!

Just like to note that, so far, both people who have stopped in to laugh at my post have not offered anything to the contrary.

It's a lot like the movie itself, really. Laugh but offer nothing but empty rhetoric and ideas.

Third Eye
03-13-2008, 10:41 PM
Just like to note that, so far, both people who have stopped in to laugh at my post have not offered anything to the contrary.

It's a lot like the movie itself, really. Laugh but offer nothing but empty rhetoric and ideas.

I don't see how the rhetoric and ideas are empty. If you have a problem with the fact they duped people into appearing under false pretenses, then you have a problem with Michael Moore, Morgan Spurlock, et al.

elvomito
03-13-2008, 10:51 PM
i wasn't laughing at you.
but it seems that your extreme hatred for God will lead you to lash out at anything that hints of Him, no matter how wacky it makes you look. i suppose that's the Micheal Moore correlation, although his obsession isn't God

irishjayhawk
03-14-2008, 12:05 AM
I don't see how the rhetoric and ideas are empty. If you have a problem with the fact they duped people into appearing under false pretenses, then you have a problem with Michael Moore, Morgan Spurlock, et al.

I'm not referring to that but that's a nasty thing in the first place. I'm talking about babbling about a scientific controversy. There is no controversy. And there is no "Big Science" conspiracy against "ID/Creationism".

irishjayhawk
03-14-2008, 12:06 AM
i wasn't laughing at you.
but it seems that your extreme hatred for God will lead you to lash out at anything that hints of Him, no matter how wacky it makes you look. i suppose that's the Micheal Moore correlation, although his obsession isn't God

I'm lashing out at a third rate movie that's got nothing but bad press. You still have done nothing to provide anybody with good press or point out where I'm wrong or the people I linked are wrong.

Rausch
03-14-2008, 12:08 AM
I don't even think it's an issue in grade schools but Colleges?

Are they not supposed to be the strongest advocates of free thought and open mindedness?...

irishjayhawk
03-14-2008, 12:10 AM
I don't even think it's an issue in grade schools but Colleges?

Are they not supposed to be the strongest advocates of free thought and open mindedness?...

They are. But you cannot come in and assert that pigs can fly without having evidence for it.

At least, I think that's what you're getting at (open mindness towards ID). Correct me if I'm misreading that.

Rausch
03-14-2008, 01:44 AM
They are. But you cannot come in and assert that pigs can fly without having evidence for it.

At least, I think that's what you're getting at (open mindness towards ID). Correct me if I'm misreading that.

Not at all.

Have the open debate. If the pigs don't fly allow them to fall and the students to see exactly why.

It's odd how for those who are religous it's required for some guy to say the Pig can't to earn the right to argue with some guy to say the pig can and the study of the issue is what determines faith. Reiligon.

Science will draw a conclusion. People will make up their own minds based on trial and error, theory, proofs.

What's amazing to me is that many religons are easily proven wrong but the scientific community feels insulted by having to suffer their presence...

Chiefnj2
03-14-2008, 08:21 AM
Not at all.

Have the open debate. If the pigs don't fly allow them to fall and the students to see exactly why.

It's odd how for those who are religous it's required for some guy to say the Pig can't to earn the right to argue with some guy to say the pig can and the study of the issue is what determines faith. Reiligon.

Science will draw a conclusion. People will make up their own minds based on trial and error, theory, proofs.

What's amazing to me is that many religons are easily proven wrong but the scientific community feels insulted by having to suffer their presence...


Would you feel the same way if Scientologists produced some scientists with proof of "Lronhubbard Evolution"? Should that be taught in schools?

irishjayhawk
03-14-2008, 09:21 AM
Not at all.

Have the open debate. If the pigs don't fly allow them to fall and the students to see exactly why.

It's odd how for those who are religous it's required for some guy to say the Pig can't to earn the right to argue with some guy to say the pig can and the study of the issue is what determines faith. Reiligon.

Science will draw a conclusion. People will make up their own minds based on trial and error, theory, proofs.

What's amazing to me is that many religons are easily proven wrong but the scientific community feels insulted by having to suffer their presence...

Yes but when people misunderstand the word Theory with respect to science and then spread lies, I don't see how science can be as, ummm, I guess forgiving.

KC Kings
03-14-2008, 10:16 AM
I have read this movie, and saw Ben Stein interview on CNN last week.

He talked about two things the movie was going to focus on, ID and Global Warming. Global warming is a farce, and there are plenty of scientist specializing in relevant fields that agree that global warming is not happening.

From what I got from the article was not that this movie was going to argue that ID was true, but the fact that Darwinism has a lot of whole in it, and science is supposed to be trying to disprove theories to find the truth. Darwinist spend most of their time trying to prove the theory, (prolly because the people that are most anti-Darwin are using ID to back up their point).

There are lots of theories and scientific calculations that require a piece of the puzzle simply being there in the first place. What I got from the interview was that a lot of people in the scientific community were unable to properly do their job if their findings either disproved global warming, or agreed with ID.

I think ID is a wasted argument because 1. Not many atheist believe in ID, and 2. We know so little about our past, submitting to ID is kind of a cop out (less than 5% of total dinosaur species have been discovered).

I hope the global warming piece gets it's fair share of screen time, because Ben Stein is pretty much just saying what a lot of scientist have been saying for the past 5 years, that there is more evidence against the possibility that we are experiencing a man-made long term global warming process, than there is to support it.

Adept Havelock
03-14-2008, 10:19 AM
Not at all.

Have the open debate. If the pigs don't fly allow them to fall and the students to see exactly why.

It's odd how for those who are religous it's required for some guy to say the Pig can't to earn the right to argue with some guy to say the pig can and the study of the issue is what determines faith. Reiligon.

Science will draw a conclusion. People will make up their own minds based on trial and error, theory, proofs.

What's amazing to me is that many religons are easily proven wrong but the scientific community feels insulted by having to suffer their presence...

The problem is the ID movement is attempting to redefine the terms of the debate, and that doesn't wash.

Science is the search for "natural" answers, not supernatural.

ID theory is based on an unprovable, untestable assumption known as "Irreducible Complexity". As such a concept is untestable and unprovable, it places itself outside the scientific method.

ID proponents can cry "wahhh! You guys won't change the rules/method to let our theory in the door". However, the Scientific method simply does not work that way.

I'm all for Science debate, conducted within the bounds of the Scientific method.


As for this film, like the offerings of Mr. Moore, I'll pass.

Would you feel the same way if Scientologists produced some scientists with proof of "Lronhubbard Evolution"? Should that be taught in schools?

Or Lysenko genetics, phlogiston theory, etc. If we are going to ignore the basic tenets of the Scientific Method to allow for "Irreducible Complexity", might as well start teaching Phrenology, Crystal Healing, Astrology, and all the other psuedo-sciences.

Sure, and then in a generation or two see where we stack up in Science and Math with the rest of the world. :shake:

I have no problem with teaching Creationism/ID in a religion or philosophy course. It simply doesn't belong in a Science class for the reasons discussed above.

Why shouldn't both be taught in a Science class? For the same reason we don't teach Phys. Ed in a Physics class. Both may have something to do with energy, motion, etc., but they are not even close to being the same thing.

Ultra Peanut
03-14-2008, 10:25 AM
Exactly. You can't "teach both sides" when they're not sides but rather different coins altogether. "Teach the controversy" is just an intellectually disingenuous way of weaseling religion into scientific discussion, and it detracts from teaching actual, gasp, science.

If you want to talk about the differences between Christian creationism and the Buddhist creation belief in philosophy class, feel free. But calling creationism by a different name and pretending it's science is ludicrous and dishonest.

KC Kings
03-14-2008, 10:56 AM
"Diabolic theocratic conspirators" trying to push their thoughts into the classroom. Dorothy, I'm still in Kansas. They haven't seen fossils in the Flint Hills.


This is exactly Ben Stein's point. People see fossils, copy and paste big words from the internet, and think that the theory is proof. It would be bad enough if it stopped there, but any other line of thinking gets you shunned in the scientific community.

The problem with this subject is that knowledge and science should be the first things we turn to, but instead most people turn to dogmatic or anti-dogmatic beliefs. This happens for several reasons. First, most people/groups that speak up for ID have no credentials except that they believe in God. This makes everybody else hear "Intelligent Design", and automatically assume that the designer has to be the God of Genesis.

To me, you can either believe that all creatures evolved from a non-living matter, (a rock), or you can believe in ID. There is a good deal of faith required for both. I don't think that most people think that ID should be taught in the science class because there isn't a lot of science behind it. However, kids shouldn't be taught that Darwinism is flawless. Micro-evolution has a lot of scientific evidence to back it up, making it uncontroversial. Macro-evolution theory has a lot of holes in it, and if you want to teach it as "science" you should expose these holes and try to use them to disprove the theory. That's what science should be about!

Darwinism starts with a single cell organism, but where did that organism come from? Either we all came from non-living matter or life has always existed in the universe, or something created/designed the organism. None of those ideas can be defended on any scientific basis.

irishjayhawk
03-14-2008, 11:29 AM
I have read this movie, and saw Ben Stein interview on CNN last week.

He talked about two things the movie was going to focus on, ID and Global Warming. Global warming is a farce, and there are plenty of scientist specializing in relevant fields that agree that global warming is not happening.

If he's purporting that global warming is not happening, it's just another lie in a long line of lies blasted from his soapbox. Global warming is happening. The question is whether man has created it, facilitated it or aided it. In essence, the questions is whether it is independent of man or influenced by man. There is no debate that global warming is happening. If he says this, the movie has more issues than I thought.

Stein's entire position is that there is a "Big Science", which is bad. It's like Hitler and only allows his views to be represented. It shuts out things like creationism and ID from the discourse. This just isn't true. If they would apply ID to the scientific method and present some evidence, they would get somewhere. However, they haven't.

Typically, creationists quote-mine other scientists, sometimes really bad. They usually mangle the word "Theory" to mean "guess", which it does not. It's hard to take people seriously when they cannot grasp basic scientific language.


From what I got from the article was not that this movie was going to argue that ID was true, but the fact that Darwinism has a lot of whole in it, and science is supposed to be trying to disprove theories to find the truth. Darwinist spend most of their time trying to prove the theory, (prolly because the people that are most anti-Darwin are using ID to back up their point).

Yep, he's going to argue that it's a flawed theory and we are missing fossils and the usual garbage. Science has moved on. Darwin's theory is the founding rock of biology at the moment. There is very little, if any, evidence against it.

Sure, there are holes in an over arching theory, but none that shake the foundations and let it lose it's credibility. The point is that they would like you to think it's so full of holes that scientists are trying to plug them. It's simply not true. There are holes and there are modifications trying to be made to the theory. Both sides are arguing back and forth within the scientific method. This is standard operating procedure within science.


There are lots of theories and scientific calculations that require a piece of the puzzle simply being there in the first place. What I got from the interview was that a lot of people in the scientific community were unable to properly do their job if their findings either disproved global warming, or agreed with ID.

And Ben Stein has what credibility in the field of science? And if he's already misrepresented his intentions to lure scientists, what exactly shoudl we gain from any credibility he does have?

It's like a political science teacher telling a nuclear physicist that he can't do his job properly.


I think ID is a wasted argument because 1. Not many atheist believe in ID, and 2. We know so little about our past, submitting to ID is kind of a cop out (less than 5% of total dinosaur species have been discovered).

Aside from the lack of evidence, I'd agree with you. But #1 is not a reason to toss ID aside.


I hope the global warming piece gets it's fair share of screen time, because Ben Stein is pretty much just saying what a lot of scientist have been saying for the past 5 years, that there is more evidence against the possibility that we are experiencing a man-made long term global warming process, than there is to support it.

Notice the distinction between this and what you opened with. I'll be interested to see which argument he sides with. And I don't think science has taken a stance on whether man has caused it. But I don't think it hurts or is inaccurate to say we aren't helping.

This is exactly Ben Stein's point. People see fossils, copy and paste big words from the internet, and think that the theory is proof. It would be bad enough if it stopped there, but any other line of thinking gets you shunned in the scientific community.

Likewise, people like Ben Stein and other creationists come up with ludicrous statements like "God hid all the fossils here to test us". There are plenty of fossils to back up the Theory of Evolution.

You also illustrate the big problem: education. What you are saying is that there is a disconnect between what people see and what people understand. That's where education comes in. And the sad fact is that creationists are killing the education that's there by redirecting discourse to "teach the controversy". Take a look at Oklahoma, Texas and Florida for recent cases. Oklahoma tried to pass a bill that said science teachers couldn't count tests answers wrong if they were religiously grounded. In other words, I could say that the Flying Speghetti Monster created the world yesterday and planted fossils here so that people could have jobs putting puzzles together. According to law, they would have to accept this answer. Texas has tried in many districts to pass legislature that instructs teachers to teach the "controversy" even though there isn't one. Florida has the same problem. And of course, Kansas has been fighting that for years and is the laughing stock because of it.


The problem with this subject is that knowledge and science should be the first things we turn to, but instead most people turn to dogmatic or anti-dogmatic beliefs. This happens for several reasons. First, most people/groups that speak up for ID have no credentials except that they believe in God. This makes everybody else hear "Intelligent Design", and automatically assume that the designer has to be the God of Genesis.

Valid points. That's why the Flying Spagehtti Monster was created - to fight Kansas board of education people's "teach the controversy" and "equal class time" ideas.


To me, you can either believe that all creatures evolved from a non-living matter, (a rock), or you can believe in ID.

Stop right there. You are complaining about what people look at and post on the internet and you have just illustrated your point. No one has argued that we evolved from non-living matter (a rock). This underscores your lack of understanding about evolution. And that's where the problem is. We are killing the education that is supposed to EDUCATE you. All in the name of political correctness and religious ideology.


There is a good deal of faith required for both. I don't think that most people think that ID should be taught in the science class because there isn't a lot of science behind it.

And yet, people don't understand this. There is no science behind it. Apply the Scientific Method to it and you don't get anywhere.

However, kids shouldn't be taught that Darwinism is flawless.

This is a wrong assumption. No one has said that evolution doesn't have holes in it. Science LOVES to exploit those holes. However, science does not like it when those holes are viewed - wrongly - to let things like ID live with credibility when placed next to it. The holes don't let ID live. They just make the case ongoing - as science always is.

Micro-evolution has a lot of scientific evidence to back it up, making it uncontroversial. Macro-evolution theory has a lot of holes in it, and if you want to teach it as "science" you should expose these holes and try to use them to disprove the theory. That's what science should be about!

Again, you illustrate your lack of understanding on the topic of evolution. The holes aren't big enough to "disprove the theory" which is what you're suggesting. If they were, you'd bet your bottom dollar scientists would be on that. There's a lot of prestige for that kind of find. Moreover, Macro-evolution is "science" however much you want to put quotes around it. In fact, it doesn't take much once you buy into micro evolution to see that changes in the cells over millions of years will form branches of things and ultimately cause a wide variety of different species. That's MACRO evolution. It's an easy bridge but one people want to deny.


Darwinism starts with a single cell organism, but where did that organism come from? Either we all came from non-living matter or life has always existed in the universe, or something created/designed the organism. None of those ideas can be defended on any scientific basis.

Thank you for lastly illustrating a common misconception. Evolution doesn't even attempt to answer where life came from. Period. End of story. It is based on a presumption of life. Life exists, is it's premise. Once it does, it evolves.

Don't confuse the Big Bang Theory and Evolution to the same thing as creationists do. These ideas can be defended on a scientific bases, just not at the present time. Just like the radio couldn't be defended by scientists in the 16th century.

KC Kings
03-14-2008, 01:45 PM
If he's purporting that global warming is not happening, it's just another lie in a long line of lies blasted from his soapbox. Global warming is happening.....

I could go back through and argue every statement you made about Darwinism and against ID, but as I already said it is a waste of time. I read a lot of stuff from the internet but I also read a lot of books, watch documentaries, and our last family vacation was to Chicago to see the Museum of Field Science. That doesn't make me an expert, but I refuse to blindly agree with anything simply because somebody "says" it.


Speaking of blindly agreeing.... enter Al Gore and the American public. I guess I should have phrased the global warming statement differently. The Global Warming as described by Al Gore and the media, which is believed by 70% of the public and has people measuring their carbon footprint, is a farce. This man made global warming that is going to melt Antartica is no less of a farce than the media driven "Global Cooling" scare of the 70's.

irishjayhawk
03-14-2008, 01:58 PM
I could go back through and argue every statement you made about Darwinism and against ID, but as I already said it is a waste of time. I read a lot of stuff from the internet but I also read a lot of books, watch documentaries, and our last family vacation was to Chicago to see the Museum of Field Science. That doesn't make me an expert, but I refuse to blindly agree with anything simply because somebody "says" it.

That's fine, but you highlighted your ignorance and purported a view point after saying that a lot of people see/read things and make opinions on them without understand them. Just because you read books, watch documentaries, and went to the Museum, doesn't mean that you understand. Likewise, I may be wrong on some points too. But it's through discourse that we discover these things.

No one is advocating blind faith. Moreover, you also highlight another aspect of the thing you so despise. You are unwilling and consider it a waste of time to openly discuss "Darwinism" (I don't see why you don't just say Evolution. It seems like a weak attempt to package it as a religion so as to discard it from the classroom as well.) or ID. Discussion is what facilitates EDUCATION.


Speaking of blindly agreeing.... enter Al Gore and the American public. I guess I should have phrased the global warming statement differently. The Global Warming as described by Al Gore and the media, which is believed by 70% of the public and has people measuring their carbon footprint, is a farce. This man made global warming that is going to melt Antartica is no less of a farce than the media driven "Global Cooling" scare of the 70's.The jury is still out. Again, I don't think there's any harm in highlighting the fact that we can HELP keep the planet in better shape. That's what Al Gore is doing. Whether he's doing it sensationally or scare tactics wise, is another matter. But telling people to measure their carbon footprint is perfectly fine.

You're damn right though, global warming can be happening independently from anything humans have done.

SLAG
03-14-2008, 01:59 PM
Speaking of blindly agreeing.... enter Al Gore and the American public. I guess I should have phrased the global warming statement differently. The Global Warming as described by Al Gore and the media, which is believed by 70% of the public and has people measuring their carbon footprint, is a farce. This man made global warming that is going to melt Antartica is no less of a farce than the media driven "Global Cooling" scare of the 70's.


Man Bear Pig

http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l62/theonlyPHELPS/manbearpig.jpg

bishop_74
03-14-2008, 02:09 PM
Environmental Hysteria

<a href="http://myspacetv.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=8917946">Penn and Teller - Bullshit! - Environmental Hysteria</a><br><embed src="http://lads.myspace.com/videos/vplayer.swf" flashvars="m=8917946&v=2&type=video" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="430" height="346"></embed>

Creationism

<a href="http://myspacetv.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=2307760">Penn & Teller Creationism Bullshit</a><br><embed src="http://lads.myspace.com/videos/vplayer.swf" flashvars="m=2307760&v=2&type=video" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="430" height="346"></embed>

Pitt Gorilla
03-14-2008, 02:13 PM
To me, you can either believe that all creatures evolved from a non-living matter, (a rock), or you can believe in ID. You have got to be kidding. :shake:

Chiefnj2
03-14-2008, 02:45 PM
You have got to be kidding. :shake:

You think the retard fish baby having butt sex with a retard squirrel baby is the better theory?

Pitt Gorilla
03-14-2008, 02:54 PM
You think the retard fish baby having butt sex with a retard squirrel baby is the better theory?Do you have a citation for that particular theory? I hadn't heard about it during my educational/post-educational experiences.

To answer your question, your theory and the statement in question both sound equally stupid.

xiandude
03-14-2008, 03:02 PM
As a credentialed environmentalist and one with an interest in ID, please shut up and talk about sports.

Chiefnj2
03-14-2008, 03:17 PM
Do you have a citation for that particular theory? I hadn't heard about it during my educational/post-educational experiences.
.

Yes, I do have a citation. Pitt should rethink their current curriculum.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw-b270WZqU&feature=related

Ultra Peanut
03-14-2008, 03:18 PM
To me, you can either believe that all creatures evolved from a non-living matter, (a rock)what the ****

Pitt Gorilla
03-14-2008, 03:27 PM
Yes, I do have a citation. Pitt should rethink their current curriculum.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw-b270WZqU&feature=relatedOk, so, ostensibly, people who think evolution is crap believe that evolution consists of retard fish and squirrels mating? Is that the point of your post?

irishjayhawk
03-14-2008, 05:52 PM
what the ****

It's not an uncommon line of though, which is why I tried to address it.

BigRock
03-14-2008, 06:17 PM
From the title, I was hoping this was gonna be like a Ferris Bueller sequel or something.

:shrug:

mcan
03-15-2008, 04:22 AM
The reason these people are being shunned isn't because they are believers, and it isn't because they are questioning Darwin's Theory. They are being shunned because they are involved with The Discovery Institute (http://www.discovery.org/). Period. It's like wearing a swastika in Isreal.

whoman69
03-15-2008, 09:28 AM
What people need to get over is the fact that Darwinism does not prove there is no God. They can go hand in hand. God could have used evolution to create everything. Like most issues in America the conversation needs to move more towards the center. Those who take too literal a view of the bible by trying to state that gravity is the hand of God keeping us connected to the earth are just as guilty as those who believe that science has disproven God.

I once asked my 8th grade science teacher if the study of science had made it more difficult to believe in a higher being. He stated that it actually reinforced his beliefs. While I don't believe that things like intelligent design should be taught in schools, there should at least be a disclaimer that Darwinism and the Big Bang Theory do not disprove the presence of a higher being. If you want to take that a step farther then teach those things at home and church. Schools are not the place to present a rigid religious doctrine.

Dave Lane
03-15-2008, 10:10 AM
The problem is the ID movement is attempting to redefine the terms of the debate, and that doesn't wash.

Science is the search for "natural" answers, not supernatural.

ID theory is based on an unprovable, untestable assumption known as "Irreducible Complexity". As such a concept is untestable and unprovable, it places itself outside the scientific method.

ID proponents can cry "wahhh! You guys won't change the rules/method to let our theory in the door". However, the Scientific method simply does not work that way.

I'm all for Science debate, conducted within the bounds of the Scientific method.


As for this film, like the offerings of Mr. Moore, I'll pass.



Or Lysenko genetics, phlogiston theory, etc. If we are going to ignore the basic tenets of the Scientific Method to allow for "Irreducible Complexity", might as well start teaching Phrenology, Crystal Healing, Astrology, and all the other psuedo-sciences.

Sure, and then in a generation or two see where we stack up in Science and Math with the rest of the world. :shake:

I have no problem with teaching Creationism/ID in a religion or philosophy course. It simply doesn't belong in a Science class for the reasons discussed above.

Why shouldn't both be taught in a Science class? For the same reason we don't teach Phys. Ed in a Physics class. Both may have something to do with energy, motion, etc., but they are not even close to being the same thing.

QFT

A+ young padawan!

Dave

and Rep!

irishjayhawk
03-21-2008, 07:49 PM
I have some information to pass along again:

There is a rich, deep kind of irony that must be shared. I'm blogging this from the Apple store in the Mall of America, because I'm too amused to want to wait until I get back to my hotel room.
I went to attend a screening of the creationist propaganda movie, Expelled, a few minutes ago. Well, I tried … but I was Expelled! It was kind of weird — I was standing in line, hadn't even gotten to the point where I had to sign in and show ID, and a policeman pulled me out of line and told me I could not go in. I asked why, of course, and he said that a producer of the film had specifically instructed him that I was not to be allowed to attend. The officer also told me that if I tried to go in, I would be arrested. I assured him that I wasn't going to cause any trouble.
I went back to my family and talked with them for a while, and then the officer came back with a theater manager, and I was told that not only wasn't I allowed in, but I had to leave the premises immediately. Like right that instant.
I complied.
I'm still laughing though. You don't know how hilarious this is. Not only is it the extreme hypocrisy of being expelled from their Expelled movie, but there's another layer of amusement. Deep, belly laugh funny. Yeah, I'd be rolling around on the floor right now, if I weren't so dang dignified.
You see … well, have you ever heard of a sabot? It's a kind of sleeve or lightweight carrier used to surround a piece of munition fired from a gun. It isn't the actually load intended to strike the target, but may even be discarded as it leaves the barrel.
I'm a kind of sabot right now.
They singled me out and evicted me, but they didn't notice my guest. They let him go in escorted by my wife and daughter. I guess they didn't recognize him. My guest was …
Richard Dawkins.
He's in the theater right now, watching their movie.
Tell me, are you laughing as hard as I am?
# (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php)

Follow up:
People are asking me to tell them more about the movie, Expelled. I can't! I was thrown out!
Let me clarify a few things. This was a private screening with no admission charge, and you had to reserve seats ahead of time; you also had to sign a promise that you wouldn't record the movie while you were there, and they were checking ID. Everyone in my family reserved seats under our own names, myself included. There was no attempt to "sneak in", although apparently the producer, Mark Mathis, accused me of doing so in the Q&A afterwards (Mathis, of course, is a contemptible liar (http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=5152;st=600#entry101115)). We followed the procedures they set up, every step of the way, and were completely above board in all our dealings.
Mark Mathis was there at the screening, and apparently spotted me and gave instructions to the guard to throw me out. I asked the guard why I was being evicted, and he explained directly that the producer had given him that instruction.
They were well within their rights to exclude anyone. When I was told I would not be allowed in and threatened with arrest, I told the security guard that I would not cause any trouble. I stopped to talk with my family when they came over with a theater manager to evict me; again, I left peacefully. Apparently, the guards were talking about carrying out further measures when they saw me standing outside the theater, and speculated that I was going to harass other attendees. This was not true; I'd just had to leave my friends and family behind, and all I really wanted to do was tell them where I'd be. The last thing I wanted to do was spend two hours hanging around a movie theater.
This account is a complete fabrication (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php#comment-795664). I was not disturbing anyone, was not trying to make a scene, and was only standing quietly in line. When I was taken aside by the guard, it was a complete surprise.
I was the only person evicted. The people I was with, which included my wife, my daughter Skatje (http://skatje.com/), her boyfriend Collin, Richard Dawkins, and the entire staff of the Richard Dawkins Foundation, were overlooked. I was the lucky one.
Afterwards, we went out to eat and have a beer or two, which is why I didn't give you all a more complete summary right away. We laughed over the movie, which I hear is not only boring and poorly made, but is ludicrous in its dishonesty. Apparently, a standard tactic is to do lots of fast cuts between biologists like me or Dawkins or Eugenie Scott and shots of Nazi atrocities. It's all very ham-handed. The audience apparently ate it up, though. Figures. Christians have a growing reputation for their appreciation of dishonesty (http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2008/03/dawkins_crashes.html).
There are plans afoot for rebuttals. It's hard to come up with much motivation to do so after discovering how bad this movie is, but yeah, both NCSE and the RDF will be doing something. Dawkins is going to mention it at least briefly in his talk tomorrow. He may write up a review, too, although I don't think he considers it a high priority (did I mention what a piece of dreck this movie is?).
Kristine was there (http://amused-muse.blogspot.com/2008/03/expelled-from-expelled.html). You can read her summary (http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=5152;st=600#entry101110).
The RDF crew are a fine bunch of people and we had a good time after the crappy movie. Which I have not seen. Apparently, I've been given a fair amount of time in the movie, too.
This outcome so far has been absolutely perfect, as far as I'm concerned. The hypocrisy of the Expelled makers has been exposed by their expulsion of one of the people they filmed (final lovely irony: I'm also thanked for my contributions in the credits), they've revealed their incompetence by throwing me out when Richard Dawkins was right next to me, and I didn't have to waste two hours on a bad movie.
I've also got a story to tell: when the creationists saw me and Dawkins in a lineup, I am the one that had them so frightened that they had to call for the guards. I feel mighty.
# (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/a_late_night_quick_one.php)

His story is backed up here. (http://amused-muse.blogspot.com/2008/03/expelled-from-expelled.html)

AustinChief
03-21-2008, 10:10 PM
Everyone should be forced to go to Catholic school. (j/k)

I was taught RELIGION in religion class... and I mean religion as a concept.. not just Catholicism.. and I was taught EVOLUTION in science class... with NO DISCLAIMER...

It seems to me that these people must just assume that their children are dirt stupid... if they want THEIR children exposed to both ideas... then shouldn't THEY do just that... or is it that they want ALL children exposed to their beliefs? Seems mighty heavy handed to me.

F*** 'em... I will most likely send my children to Catholic school.. but I'll be damned if I try to force that on everyone elses kids. How many of these folks would be ok with adding a bit of the "science" of Dianetics to the classroom as well?

bowener
03-21-2008, 11:16 PM
irishjayhawk

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

I had not reached your post yet, but I have compiled almost the exact same list of quotes to respond to. I applaud you.

I would like to note a few things as well. I am a philosophy and religion major; No that is not one major, it is two separate majors. I already have my minor in psychology, and have one year left. I choose to study religion later in my academic career once this ID ridiculousness began to get a lot of press; roughly 1.5 years ago or something. Part of the problem with the whole ID conundrum is that scientists, philosophers, religion studies ... etc. do not want to even bother debating them. It just gives them more press, and seemingly more credibility if you take them on in public discourse... which inevitably leads nowhere (for reasons mentioned before: such as IDer wanting scientific method amended so it will allow their ideas).

As for holes in evolution, wow, yes it does have holes. What is the problem with that? It is a continuing theory of science that attempts to understand the beginning of life possibly as far back as 3 billion years ago up to the present. That doesn't seem like a very easy task to tackle in a few generations.

Another way to think about this is to ask: Are we are on Earth now? Not floating about in space, or above the Earth by any measure?
Gravity, after all is just a theory, which has enormous holes in it.
Yes we seem to understand gravity and the nature of it on Earth, but it still has holes in it on Earth (and massive unexplainable phenomena on the quantum and massive scales).
To really throw the IDer's off, it never once is mentioned in the bible, not once. God did not see fit to create one (or any) of the most fundamental forces in nature in Genesis. God at least explained how animals got here; from earthen materials while trying to create a companion for Adam (interesting side note: in Hebrew (adam) actually means human and (eve) actually means life...slight mistranslation somewhere along the lines I suppose).

America is also the only place this 'debate' is being forced to take place. Europe doesn't even think twice about it. Maybe that is because they are far better educated? I do not know.

Okay, I have to go before finishing this, a friend is having some troubles.

Please understand that I do not want to hurt anyones feelings, but I may do so with my attitude. I cannot help that I am dick.

irishjayhawk
03-21-2008, 11:40 PM
Another little update:

1) <sup>*</sup>By the way, another interesting thing is on the DVD. They've got excerpts from the Inner Life video (http://multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu/media.html). Creationists are certainly drawn to stealing that work (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/11/creationist_crooks_pilfer_harv.php), aren't they? # (http://feeds.feedburner.com/%7Er/scienceblogs/pharyngula/%7E3/255888679/still_straining_to_find_an_exc.php)

2) NY Times picked up on the issue (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html).

3) Salon picked up as well (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html).

4) SocraticGadFly has a summary of the lies Mark Mathis (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html), Expelled's Producer, has to offer.

Ultra Peanut
03-21-2008, 11:45 PM
Apparently, a standard tactic is to do lots of fast cuts between biologists like me or Dawkins or Eugenie Scott and shots of Nazi atrocities.Putting this on my Netflix queue.

elvomito
03-22-2008, 01:39 AM
I cannot help that I am dick.and a bowener at that! lol


Gravity, after all is just a theory, which has enormous holes in it.
interesting. so its not considered the "law" of gravity?

politics/religion really sucks. i wish they'd both disappear.

one thing i've learned from this thread that irish pointed out, is that evolution doesn't try to explain the origin of life. i don't think it even infers that humans evolved from apes, right? or that life started in one place rather than 20, for example? people just love to have conflict

bowener
03-22-2008, 02:22 AM
and a bowener at that! lol


interesting. so its not considered the "law" of gravity?

politics/religion really sucks. i wish they'd both disappear.

one thing i've learned from this thread that irish pointed out, is that evolution doesn't try to explain the origin of life. i don't think it even infers that humans evolved from apes, right? or that life started in one place rather than 20, for example? people just love to have conflict

No, Gravity is a theory and cannot really be a law (I lied there, it can), but currently we do not have a good enough understanding of why and how it works exactly, except that mass plays a large role. In string theory (M-Theory) though they are now arguing in favor of Gravitons (not to be confused with 'the gravitron', a spinning auto-puke machine at cheap fairs).

Physics never tries to prove anything beyond the Big Bang either. Why try? That is not in the realm of science (so far as we know). What they want to prove is why everything is how it is now through testable repeatable sets of data. Evolution is the same way, once life began, however it got started, it was most likely in the form of a single celled organism. If you are curious, all the necessary components for life exist in nature, and definately would have existed in 'the primordial ooze' of ancient Earth. Something just had to give it a 'spark'. Could have been radiation from the Sun since Earth would have had a weak ozone, could have been an organic mishap or mistake... but they are pretty close to being able to do this now: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7041353.stm also http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1996/09.12/CreatingLifeina.html

Fascinating stuff. But yeah, physics/biology, [science], does not have a preconceived notion of the world, [science] uncovers, through the data given, what the world really is. That is something everybody should keep in mind. X-ian creationists have a preset notion of the world, namely God created it, and they are setting out to try and prove that notion. This in turn means they discard data that does not fit. Science accepts the data that does not fit and tries to get it again, if it occurs again, then science needs to discover why it appeared and then include the new data.

Int. Designers use the argument of 'irreducible complexity', which is actually a rehash of an older argument known as the 'watchmaker analogy'. They are interesting arguments, but flawed. A short response to Behe's Ir.Com. that I just read from a Christopher Hitchens book was, (that the 'miraculous designs' we see in the human eye that are so perfect and complex that they could not possibly come about from random chance or mutations prove that God/Designer exists) [keep in mind it is a response not refutation], if God designed us, then why give us horribly designed eyes? First off they see everything upside down, which the brain must correct, our rods and cones are not well balanced, and are easily damaged. We are born with a natural myopia of the eyes, and we have pretty weak ones at that; compared to the 'lesser' beings of the God designed world, especially birds. We can also trace the development of the eye through fossils and through living organisms today. Same can be said for the human brain. We are not well wired. We are still Apes (though many people seem to forget that we are) and our brain is not as highly evolved as we would like to think it is. Our lobes are too small and our adrenal glands are too big for our own good. We are just smart enough to understand how dumb this can cause (the majority) to be. I just thought that those were good questions/points.

What I have learned of biology is that as an ape we share a link with the others. It doesnt mean we necessarily came directly from a chimp, but it means we shared a past ancestor with them (think of the letter Y as the branch with us on the right, chimps on the left and cousin 'It' at the bottom). Genetics has really allowed this argument to leap forward: here is a cool site for this http://www.cs.ucr.edu/~eamonn/DNA/ and another one: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/238852_chimp01.html and: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061113180219.htm




Now, Bed.

a1na2
03-22-2008, 02:33 AM
I'm lashing out at a third rate movie that's got nothing but bad press. You still have done nothing to provide anybody with good press or point out where I'm wrong or the people I linked are wrong.

Why do you think that critics might lash out at this movie? How many of the critics claim Christianity? How many of them disclaim it?

I haven't read much about the movie so I don't have any bias for or against it. I saw enough of the cuts from Moron Moores film to know that he manipulated truth to fit his agenda. I did not see his entire film although I had opportunity to do so. I also did not see the rebutal to the film and had plenty of opportunity to see that one as well.

I'll probably not choose to watch this film either.

My only commentary to date has to do with those that have agnostic and or atheistic beliefs seem to be flocking out against this movie just as the evangicals did against MM's film of incorrect or manipulated data.

My only question regarding the film and those groups standing out against it: Why the fear?

bowener
03-22-2008, 02:45 AM
My only question regarding the film and those groups standing out against it: Why the fear?

Fear of what? Having your words manipulated and your image falseley represented? Or Why the fear of having ID taught in school?

If it is the latter of the three, because it simply is not science on the most fundamental grounds. Not because their is a god or God involved, but because they cannot show proof for their arguments; which I may be mistaken, but that is one reason you call it 'faith' in the first place.
Also, this would open up a pandoras box (lame cliche statement, but most fitting) of full out bullshit. Any one person would have grounds to argue that they had a right to learn whatever belief they so chose for that day. You also could not grade anything on the basis of it being scientifically proven or repeated through scienctific experiments because ID (as said before) has no proof other than what they already possess, ie) 'Irreduscibly complex objects'; that coincidentally can be explained by means of evolutionary biology. It would also slow our education and hamper our already weak system on the basis that things would always be tied up in debate because student A wants to learn biology through evolution, Student B wants to learn bio through ID, and Student C wants to learn bio from the FSM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster). You would have one teacher, 30 different theories, no grades, and no learning. We are already one of the most 'dumb' 1st world nations, this would just be the final nail.

Jenson71
03-22-2008, 06:55 AM
Why do you think that critics might lash out at this movie? How many of the critics claim Christianity? How many of them disclaim it?

Just thought I'd mention that you can believe in evolution (or be against creationism) and still be a Christian.

BigVE
03-22-2008, 08:53 AM
The fuel that keeps fanning this fire is that there are too many uneducated people who are blindly following a "belief" based on almost NO research or reading of their own. They take someone elses words as gospel and leave it at that. THEN you have the OVER-educated know-it-alls who think that their opinions should NOT be questioned. The funny thing about these statements is that they equally apply whether your talking about darwinism OR creationism. Example: when Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" came out a few years ago I heard of some friends who refused to watch it because they felt it would try to "change their beliefs". If your faith or beliefs are so weak as to be easily influenced by a hollywood movie then you have problems. I for one believe in ID but I do NOT rule out the fact that there may still have been a sort of an evolution of some things over the years too.

irishjayhawk
03-22-2008, 11:29 AM
and a bowener at that! lol


interesting. so its not considered the "law" of gravity?

Don't assume that the scientific definition of law means that we know everything there is about it.

Scientifically:

A Theory says that it's observable but not predictable.
A Law says that it's both observable and predictable. Hence, the graduation from theory to law.

An example of how a law may be wrong can be found in the Law of Thermodynamics. On earth, we have witnessed that matter cannot be made on-demand, instantaneously, without another external cause. Hence, we have a law that basically says: something cannot come from nothing. However, we have no idea if this holds true in all corners of the universe. We haven't even traveled to another planet. It could be that in the distant corner of the universe there is something that creates matter out of nothing and there we could discover 80 new elements. No one knows. So while something is "law" it doesn't mean it's 100% fact in the UNIVERSE but rather 100% on Earth. Likewise, scientific Theory doesn't mean that it's a "guess" like the regular use of theory does. Does that make sense?

politics/religion really sucks. i wish they'd both disappear.

We will always have politics. I'm thinking the same is true for religion but I'm hoping not. ;)


one thing i've learned from this thread that irish pointed out, is that evolution doesn't try to explain the origin of life. i don't think it even infers that humans evolved from apes, right? or that life started in one place rather than 20, for example? people just love to have conflict

Evolution doesn't infer that humans evolved DIRECTLY from apes. Instead, we branched off. More like a tree than a anything else. We both belong to the larger group of primate. And there are (more than, but for this purposes) two branches: apes and us. We are related but we aren't the end result of their branch. We are a new branch. And it's this branch stuff that really confuses anti-evolutionists because it's so easy to say it's linear and ask why isn't there a half human-ape or ape-fish.

Why do you think that critics might lash out at this movie? How many of the critics claim Christianity? How many of them disclaim it?

For the most part, this is part of the problem even though, as Jenson points out, you can be an evolutionist and a Christian. But to ignore the fact that Christianity plays a big part in this movie is to ignore the forest with all the trees.

Critics are going to lash out at this movie on many different basis. First, it's intellectually dishonest for most of the reasons I posted for elvomito. Second, the film spreads many lies, which have been canvassed over and over. Third, if anyone understands the background of the film, they'll understand why the film should be canned already. Fourth, this new storm with expelling someone (scientist) from the Expelled screening (irony meter exploded) should have ushered in it's final blow.

I haven't read much about the movie so I don't have any bias for or against it. I saw enough of the cuts from Moron Moores film to know that he manipulated truth to fit his agenda. I did not see his entire film although I had opportunity to do so. I also did not see the rebutal to the film and had plenty of opportunity to see that one as well.

It's worse than Moore's film because it offers ZERO evidence for ID yet says it needs to be taught and "Big Science" is out to get them.

I'll probably not choose to watch this film either.

My only commentary to date has to do with those that have agnostic and or atheistic beliefs seem to be flocking out against this movie just as the evangicals did against MM's film of incorrect or manipulated data.

My only question regarding the film and those groups standing out against it: Why the fear?

The fear isn't really fear as much as it is truth-telling and intellectual honesty. But if I have to speak in terms of fear:

1) Misrepresenting science
2) Linking Evolution to Hitler/genocide (as if genocide wasn't present before Darwin)
3) Spreading lies about ID and the evidence for it.
4) Spreading lies about evolution and the evidence for it.
5) Cultivating an ignorant mass of people. Think of it as intellectual AIDS.
6) Giving Ben Stein any credibility at all.
7) Cultivating a culture of the dark age thinking.
8) Science can't put out an equal movie because it would be boring. It would be factual but no one would want to watch it. And we don't have Ben Stein :rolleyes:. So it makes it hard for a rebuttal in the same medium.

There's more but essentially it will set us back. We cannot move forward until people accept it. It cripples everything.

Just thought I'd mention that you can believe in evolution (or be against creationism) and still be a Christian.

Yep. In fact, I don't see how it's hard for believers to get that. I see no contradictions between Bible and evolution.

The fuel that keeps fanning this fire is that there are too many uneducated people who are blindly following a "belief" based on almost NO research or reading of their own. They take someone elses words as gospel and leave it at that.

That would be part of the "fear" even though it's more of a truth.

THEN you have the OVER-educated know-it-alls who think that their opinions should NOT be questioned. The funny thing about these statements is that they equally apply whether your talking about darwinism OR creationism.

This is true, but I would say that most people on the side of Darwinism can actually back up what they say. Or if they can't, they say so. Like me. I'm not about to tell you that EVERYTHING i've typed is 100% truth. If there's a person on here with more science knowledge and can explain what I've said better or correct me, more power to them.

Example: when Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" came out a few years ago I heard of some friends who refused to watch it because they felt it would try to "change their beliefs". If your faith or beliefs are so weak as to be easily influenced by a hollywood movie then you have problems. I for one believe in ID but I do NOT rule out the fact that there may still have been a sort of an evolution of some things over the years too.

Better example: People of faith in a big riot about The Golden Compass. If atheistic viewpoints infiltrate your views and shatter your preexisting ones, you are so insecure in your beliefs that it's sad, really.


Out of curiosity, Big Rock, what evidence (and you can put it in PM if you don't want to turn this thread into a DC) do you have for ID or that convinced you of it?

irishjayhawk
03-22-2008, 11:41 AM
Video with Dawkins and Myers talking about the film and the incident:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/c39jYgsvUOY&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/c39jYgsvUOY&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

mrpopo
03-22-2008, 12:25 PM
well run for the hills maw barker...before i call the Feds LMAO

bowener
03-24-2008, 02:07 PM
Originally Posted by Jenson71
Just thought I'd mention that you can believe in evolution (or be against creationism) and still be a Christian.

Originally Posted by irishjayhawk
Yep. In fact, I don't see how it's hard for believers to get that. I see no contradictions between Bible and evolution.


The pope came out and said it himself; that their is no reason for the church to have any stance on evolution and they do not see it as contradicting anything in the bible since the bible never tells you how God works specifically. Isnt it considered a sin to assume you know how God works anyway (not being a smartass; I genuinely do not know)?

Duck Dog
03-24-2008, 04:25 PM
I believe God created evolution.

BigVE
03-24-2008, 04:34 PM
Out of curiosity, Big Rock, what evidence (and you can put it in PM if you don't want to turn this thread into a DC) do you have for ID or that convinced you of it?



I'm assuming you were asking ME this question since your quotes were taken from my posts...? Anyways I could be setting myself up but either way here is my answer: There are many reasons I believe in ID. First of all if you have faith in God and the bible it clearly states that God CREATED the heavens and the earth. Period. Next, if you look into ANY animal or plant or human you can see the complexity of how it works. For me, these things are WAY TOO complex to have just happened by chance. It's like taking the finest crafted watch and taking it completely apart and putting all the pieces into a box and then just shaking it up endlessly and hoping/expecting that eventually it will somehow end up being that same fine timepiece once again...all by chance. That's just my 2 cents.

Ultra Peanut
03-24-2008, 04:51 PM
Irreducible complexity does not a compelling argument make. Bowener (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4644099&postcount=59) actually touched upon this a little, and there's plenty more on it here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity).

What you fail to understand about chance is that we're talking about spans of time that are downright inconceivable to humans. It's not at all shocking that somewhere in this unfathomably massive universe, at some point in an unfathomably massive amount of time, life has arisen and evolved. We just happened to be the who and where, or else, you know, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Even if you want to credit God with the initial creation (and hey, that's fine with me, as long as you don't try to pass off belief as science), there is such a preponderance of evidence supporting evolution (including a shitton -- that's a very scientific term, let me assure you -- of transitional fossils (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html)) that you have to either believe God (or the devil) planted all of it there -- including in our own DNA -- to fool us, or simply stick your fingers in your ears and cover your eyes to believe that evolution didn't occur.

BigVE
03-24-2008, 05:09 PM
Irreducible complexity does not a compelling argument make. Bowener (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4644099&postcount=59) actually touched upon this a little, and there's plenty more on it here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity).

What you fail to understand about chance is that we're talking about spans of time that are downright inconceivable to humans. It's not at all shocking that somewhere in this unfathomably massive universe, at some point in an unfathomably massive amount of time, life has arisen and evolved. We just happened to be the who and where, or else, you know, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Even if you want to credit God with the initial creation (and hey, that's fine with me, as long as you don't try to pass off belief as science), there is such a preponderance of evidence supporting evolution (including a shitton -- that's a very scientific term, let me assure you -- of transitional fossils (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html)) that you have to either believe God (or the devil) planted all of it there -- including in our own DNA -- to fool us, or simply stick your fingers in your ears and cover your eyes to believe that evolution didn't occur.

You try to make it sound like evolution is so cut and dry and it clearly is not. There have been many so called "missing links" that have been continually debunked...that in itself lessens the credibility of other so called transitional fossils being used as evidence in my books. I was asked a question so I answered it.

Jenson71
03-24-2008, 05:54 PM
In addition to Ultra Peanut's link, I should mention the Tiktaalik fossil discovery, which seems to be a link between fish and land animals.

I believe God created evolution.

That's not a bad thought, one that many also believe in and one that neither discredits general scientific thought on evolution or Christian beliefs.

Faith and reason can form together to complete a whole truth. Without one, I believe you have an incomplete truth. We Christians believe in the Truth - as in the Father, the Christ, and the Holy Spirit. But we must recognize the truth that comes from our reason, our science, and our intellect.

Bishop DiLorenzo of Richmond, chair of the Committee on Science and Human Values in a December 2004 letter sent to all U.S. bishops: "...Catholic schools should continue teaching evolution as a scientific theory backed by convincing evidence. . . . Students should be able to leave their biology classes, and their courses in religious instruction, with an integrated understanding of the means God chose to make us who we are." (National Catholic Reporter via wikipedia)

I'm not at all saying that the only credible scientists are Christians. I don't believe that at all. I do feel though, that no Christian should see science/truth as something entirely opposing their beliefs, which I think we hear a lot of and assume to be the norm.

keg in kc
03-24-2008, 06:08 PM
"Debunked" is a good word. Because that's a denial stemming from a preconceived, preexisting agenda. Which is not a good thing, if we're still in the realm of science. Now, there's nothing wrong with skepticism, asking for valid evidence to support a theory, but refusing to believe something, or actively "debunking" it, simply because it threatens a certain philosophical worldview that an individual holds, can never and will never be "science".

That's not to say that scientists themselves aren't often guilty of this. It's still in many ways a tenured world, a world where many at the highest levels seem less interested in discovery and scrutiny than they are in maintaining their positions. From the outside, it's appears that it's often difficult to get recognition or even discussion of new ideas because they're contrary to current understanding.

While this may sound like a commentary about ID and science's reaction, it certainly is not. ID is not science. It's the exact opposite of science, starting from a conclusion and ignoring the steps that have to be taken to honestly reach it. In the end, it's a blatant deception, a sham of science based on mythology, and not something that can ever be verified through observation. It would be just as valid for me to stand in front of a classroom and state that Atun created the universe out of the waters of Nu.

By all means believe in creation if you want to believe in creation. Just don't let yourself fall into the trap, the lie, that ID is. Be honest and acknowledge that your view is shaped by faith, and it can't possibly be supported by real, hard science. Which is a perfectly fine thing. There's absolutely nothing wrong with faith. The fact is, science can't disprove it, either. That's the whole point of having it in the first place.

a1na2
03-24-2008, 06:28 PM
Just thought I'd mention that you can believe in evolution (or be against creationism) and still be a Christian.

I've never been an opponent of evolution and creationism being adverse to the final outcome of the planet.

I am not against evolution, I am not against creationism. I find evidence that they probably were worked in the plan of the creator.

I do not think that you can be a Christian and be against Creationism, at least not the Christian belief that I hold.

BigVE
03-24-2008, 06:46 PM
By all means believe in creation if you want to believe in creation. Just don't let yourself fall into the trap, the lie, that ID is. Be honest and acknowledge that your view is shaped by faith, and it can't possibly be supported by real, hard science. Which is a perfectly fine thing. There's absolutely nothing wrong with faith. The fact is, science can't disprove it, either. That's the whole point of having it in the first place.

I believe I DID. When I said:
There are many reasons I believe in ID. First of all if you have faith in God and the bible it clearly states that God CREATED the heavens and the earth. Period. ... That's just my 2 cents.

BUT, to say that my beliefs can't possibly be supported by real, hard science is wrong. You may disagree and that is fine.

Jenson71
03-24-2008, 06:48 PM
I've never been an opponent of evolution and creationism being adverse to the final outcome of the planet.

I am not against evolution, I am not against creationism. I find evidence that they probably were worked in the plan of the creator.

I do not think that you can be a Christian and be against Creationism, at least not the Christian belief that I hold.

Then we seem to be in basic agreement. From the earlier post, it seemed like you thought differently, and I just thought it would be needed for me to make the statement.

keg in kc
03-24-2008, 07:04 PM
BUT, to say that my beliefs can't possibly be supported by real, hard science is wrong.No, they can't. You can't, through any scientific observation, prove the existence of your (or any other) God, nor can you prove creation in any biblical sense. That doesn't mean your God doesn't exist, that doesn't mean the world wasn't created in 6 days, that simply means the existence of those ideas can't possibly be verified through science. Because they fall outside the bounds of real, hard science. You're talking about philosophical, mythological and even supernatural entities, not about something that can be observed.

And, even if it was possible, I'm not sure why you would want or need a more scientific verification of your God, in any case, unless you're struggling with a crisis of faith yourself.

bowener
03-24-2008, 08:49 PM
No, they can't. You can't, through any scientific observation, prove the existence of your (or any other) God, nor can you prove creation in any biblical sense. That doesn't mean your God doesn't exist, that doesn't mean the world wasn't created in 6 days, that simply means the existence of those ideas can't possibly be verified through science. Because they fall outside the bounds of real, hard science. You're talking about philosophical, mythological and even supernatural entities, not about something that can be observed.

And, even if it was possible, I'm not sure why you would want or need a more scientific verification of your God, in any case, unless you're struggling with a crisis of faith yourself.

When you say 'days' do you mean 23.6 hour Earth days, or do you mean some unknown 'days' that demarcates 'days' in which God worked that we assume means an Earth day? I am just asking because I thought it was pretty certain through science and study of geological formations that the Earth took longer than 6 days to form... but I think I just realized that I suppose God could have created the molten Earth in one day, then set it in motion to become what it is now in several billion years? Does that count? Or do you mean it was created in one day, then inhabited soon after?

keg in kc
03-24-2008, 10:12 PM
When you say 'days' do you mean 23.6 hour Earth days, or do you mean some unknown 'days' that demarcates 'days' in which God worked that we assume means an Earth day? I am just asking because I thought it was pretty certain through science and study of geological formations that the Earth took longer than 6 days to form... but I think I just realized that I suppose God could have created the molten Earth in one day, then set it in motion to become what it is now in several billion years? Does that count? Or do you mean it was created in one day, then inhabited soon after?You're asking the wrong cat. I don't believe in God or that the Earth was created in 6 days. My only point is that you can't (dis)prove an article of faith.

irishjayhawk
03-25-2008, 12:01 AM
You try to make it sound like evolution is so cut and dry and it clearly is not. There have been many so called "missing links" that have been continually debunked...that in itself lessens the credibility of other so called transitional fossils being used as evidence in my books. I was asked a question so I answered it.

Can you please cite the "missing links"? I ask because generally speaking "missing link" is a sure fire phrase that's been repeated by someone who's done little, if any, research and heard second hand info for the most part. Also, you say in another post that your belief can be backed up by hard evidence. Can you please provide it? The first step in any claim verification is to present the evidence.



Now, I've mentioned the lies of Expelled and their producers and tomorrow I hope to have compiled a complete history of the film's trouble past and present. Needless to say, it doesn't look good, especially for the credibility of those involved. Especially the writer.


Also, I have this question to you (general). Is this child abuse?
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fUeoem1gR3s&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fUeoem1gR3s&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

My inclination is yes because it is the deliberate and intentional campaign of disinformation. How do we expect to grow in professional areas if we continue to allow this to go on? It's a rare case of the freedom of speech being stretched to it's ultra limit. (And, yes, I'm saying they are still covered and have every right to say/believe/spew/etc this nonsense.)

irishjayhawk
03-25-2008, 12:05 AM
You're asking the wrong cat. I don't believe in God or that the Earth was created in 6 days. My only point is that you can't (dis)prove an article of faith.


While this is true (and I've repeated the following ad nausem in DC), the onus of proof is always on the person making the claim - whether the claim is faith based or not.

Example:

If I claim that the Earth actually revolves around Mars, I would have to prove it. It is not the responsibility of the people to disprove someone, in this case me, who has made a claim about something. It's up to that person to verify it.

Likewise with Thor, leprechauns, tiny orbiting teapots, unicorns, ManBearPig etc. The people asserting that they are real are the people who need to produce evidence.

a1na2
03-25-2008, 12:46 AM
While this is true (and I've repeated the following ad nausem in DC), the onus of proof is always on the person making the claim - whether the claim is faith based or not.


I have faith that water is wet. Need proof?
I have faith that there is wind but cannot see it, only evidence of it.
I have faith in God, you cannot see my faith or my evidence as you cannot see through my eyes.

Your onus of proof is to prove that our faith is not real and there is no way for you to do so. Your only response is to tell me that you don't believe that I have faith or that faith in God can be real. Think about it, your beliefs cannot be proven outside your own realm any more than you can accept those beliefs in others.

keg in kc
03-25-2008, 01:04 AM
While this is true (and I've repeated the following ad nausem in DC), the onus of proof is always on the person making the claim - whether the claim is faith based or not.And my point is that there's no real burden of proof on an article of faith. Or rather, there shouldn't be. Because it's not a belief generated or restrained by science or scientific principles. Those who choose to believe a supernatural or mythological "truth" need not be at all concerned with the findings of hard science. Unless, of course, they intend to twist or misuse the principles of science in order to "prove" the validity of their preexisting belief. And that's the point that the burden of proof comes into the equation. That's why I believe the forces behind ID err with what I assume is a deliberate abuse of science for the proselytization of unbelievers. I think it would be wiser to leave creationism in the realm of faith where it belongs, where no observable proof is required to support a claim. Sleight-of-hand just won't work in a lab, no matter how convincing an evangelist you may be.

Anyway, the real problem, over all of this, is that people just can't let other people be. Everybody wants to tell everyone else what they should believe, whether it's the people behind ID, or the so-called "Darwinists". Human nature, I guess.

bowener
03-25-2008, 02:50 AM
And my point is that there's no real burden of proof on an article of faith. Or rather, there shouldn't be. Because it's not a belief generated or restrained by science or scientific principles. Those who choose to believe a supernatural or mythological "truth" need not be at all concerned with the findings of hard science. Unless, of course, they intend to twist or misuse the principles of science in order to "prove" the validity of their preexisting belief. And that's the point that the burden of proof comes into the equation. That's why I believe the forces behind ID err with what I assume is a deliberate abuse of science for the proselytization of unbelievers. I think it would be wiser to leave creationism in the realm of faith where it belongs, where no observable proof is required to support a claim. Sleight-of-hand just won't work in a lab, no matter how convincing an evangelist you may be.

Anyway, the real problem, over all of this, is that people just can't let other people be. Everybody wants to tell everyone else what they should believe, whether it's the people behind ID, or the so-called "Darwinists". Human nature, I guess.

:clap:
The only problem I ever have with anything of this nature, is when it is being pushed on to other people. As long as somebody doesnt try to hamper my beliefs I wont do the same to them.

bowener
03-25-2008, 02:56 AM
I have faith that water is wet. Need proof?
I have faith that there is wind but cannot see it, only evidence of it.
I have faith in God, you cannot see my faith or my evidence as you cannot see through my eyes.

Your onus of proof is to prove that our faith is not real and there is no way for you to do so. Your only response is to tell me that you don't believe that I have faith or that faith in God can be real. Think about it, your beliefs cannot be proven outside your own realm any more than you can accept those beliefs in others.

I think he was leaning more toward if you are using 'faith' to prove science, you cant really do that. Science requires more than faith of something happening or faith in something.
I dont think he doubts you have faith in God, and I dont think he wants you to prove you have faith in God.

If you wondered, Descartes would say that your 'clear and distinct' thought of God is proof he exists. He also calls that his 'natural light' which one could say is his 'reason'. Dont use that as an arguement though (in Descartes form) because his argument leads to the dreaded 'cartesian circle'.

Samson
03-25-2008, 09:28 AM
This is a very interesting topic, and certainly questions regarding origins (universe, life & man) will not be answered in this post, or probably, in our lifetime.

I believe parts of evolutionary theory require great faith. For example, I remember in my Biology class learning that Louis Pasteur disproved Spontaneous Generation with the meat and flies experiment. But in that same text book, and only a few chapters later, the Organic Soup Theory was stated as the only possibly explanation as how life arose from nonlife (this is the theory about lightening and chemicals by random chance coming together and forming complex structures like amino acids, and then eventually DNA).

I apologize to the posters here that see folks that question parts of the Darwinistic, vertical evolutionary subtheories as religous fanatics; but doesn't belief in the Organic Soup Theory alone require GREAT faith?

irishjayhawk
03-25-2008, 11:24 AM
I have faith that water is wet. Need proof?
I have faith that there is wind but cannot see it, only evidence of it.

Excellent examples, except not for your case. You don't have faith that water is wet. It is wet. You can touch it and it is wet. You have evidence/proof. You touch it (physical), it is wet (physical property). You see the trees move and feel air rush past you. Both are physical experiences to the senses of touch or sight. It's not faith. [Now if you want to argue that all of language (and therefore every experience ever had) is a leap of faith, then you've opened a can of worms that will spiral out of control until faith is devoid of meaning you attribute to it in the next part.]


I have faith in God, you cannot see my faith or my evidence as you cannot see through my eyes.

And you use a different type of faith. Faith not based on evidence but supernatural. Quite different than the examples above.


Your onus of proof is to prove that our faith is not real and there is no way for you to do so. Your only response is to tell me that you don't believe that I have faith or that faith in God can be real. Think about it, your beliefs cannot be proven outside your own realm any more than you can accept those beliefs in others.

Tell me, what other realm - besides science - helps us understand the natural world? Did your faith in God invent the radio? What about the helio-centric based view of the solar system? I recall many people of faith hammering about that that view went against their teachings. Only science has brought us out of the dark ages in terms of understanding the physical universe. So I don't really see your point about different realms.


And my point is that there's no real burden of proof on an article of faith. Or rather, there shouldn't be. Because it's not a belief generated or restrained by science or scientific principles. Those who choose to believe a supernatural or mythological "truth" need not be at all concerned with the findings of hard science. Unless, of course, they intend to twist or misuse the principles of science in order to "prove" the validity of their preexisting belief. And that's the point that the burden of proof comes into the equation. That's why I believe the forces behind ID err with what I assume is a deliberate abuse of science for the proselytization of unbelievers. I think it would be wiser to leave creationism in the realm of faith where it belongs, where no observable proof is required to support a claim. Sleight-of-hand just won't work in a lab, no matter how convincing an evangelist you may be.

Anyway, the real problem, over all of this, is that people just can't let other people be. Everybody wants to tell everyone else what they should believe, whether it's the people behind ID, or the so-called "Darwinists". Human nature, I guess.

I now see what you're saying. The problem I have here is much like what I explained above. If science is the main avenue towards understanding the world, why should people be allowed to discard everything to believe in something for which there is no evidence.

There should always be a burden of proof for any claim because otherwise we might as well live in a world where pigs fly because someone believes it or the sky is purple. We must maintain some continuity.

At what point was it necessary to divide the world into natural and supernatural? I contend it was before science got to the point of explaining just about everything. We are at that point now. We've got DNA, protons, nuetrons, electrons, dark matter, quantum mechanics, chemistry, elements, etc etc etc. To explain all of this to a primitive people even back in 1300s, let alone 0BC, would be impossible. That's where religion itself took hold and still has a big grip because of the ignorance of the masses in regards to science.
But my real point in asking that question was: Why should some questions be left alone because their untestable? Why aren't they marked invalid and everybody move along? Why aren't there any losers or winners? I think it's this tendency to not want to offend. It's quite nice for most things but when someone seriously believes that 2+2=5 and passes that knowledge down to classes and hammers it home, it must be stopped. And that's where we must label some things wrong and some things right.


This is a very interesting topic, and certainly questions regarding origins (universe, life & man) will not be answered in this post, or probably, in our lifetime.

We're on an exponential curve, so perhaps, but yes, unlikely.

I believe parts of evolutionary theory require great faith. For example, I remember in my Biology class learning that Louis Pasteur disproved Spontaneous Generation with the meat and flies experiment. But in that same text book, and only a few chapters later, the Organic Soup Theory was stated as the only possibly explanation as how life arose from nonlife (this is the theory about lightening and chemicals by random chance coming together and forming complex structures like amino acids, and then eventually DNA).

I'm not familiar with the OST, so I can't really comment. However, once again, you use two different meanings of the word faith interchangeably. It's not the same type of faith required to believe things OUTSIDE the natural world.


I apologize to the posters here that see folks that question parts of the Darwinistic, vertical evolutionary subtheories as religous fanatics; but doesn't belief in the Organic Soup Theory alone require GREAT faith?
Also, I think you are misusing the word Theory as well. You do realize that scientifically, Theory is not the same as theory (a guess). They aren't interchangeable.

Moreover, you also seem to be assuming that these are the official - set in stone, never changing - theories. That's also wrong. This is just the current Theory - and probably a competing Theory with others - that science has come up with.

Now, you may ask why would they put something like that in a text book. The answer is quite simple: if you don't bring it up and provide the current thinking, how can you acquire evidence for or against? You have to educate people on the current line of thinking. If you don't how can you move forward?

stevieray
03-25-2008, 11:31 AM
ROFL

Samson
03-25-2008, 11:59 AM
Interesting comments Mr. Irishjayhawk...

With your points regarding my misuse of the words faith and theory, and that they have dual meanings...possible multiple meanings; I couldn't help but chuckle, as I could hear Bill Clinton's famous words in my head... "It all depends on what "is" is..."

What I liked about the Expelled trailer and from what I've read about the documentary, is emphasizes the point that it's taboo to question any parts of the Darwin dogma...any of them...period. With no mention of a religion, God, or intelligent design, any science student in America should be able to raise their hand and ask their teacher if Charles Darwin's accepted theory is accepted as true, why isn't the fossil record flooded with transitional fossils?

That question and the teacher answering it (again, w/o God or personal belief) is censored because of religious paranoia. And that's a shame.

Science is often defined as the search for truth...and it rightfully encourages questioning and investigating. But let's be honest. The scientific community will not let vertical evolution to be questioned - period. And unfortunately, it takes great faith to believe in the random chance assortment of all living things.

I know God cannot be proven by science, and therefore His existence and place in the origins discussion shouldn't be be brought up in a classroom. But there are enough holes in evolutionary theory that should be debated w/o religious overtones - and that is why I am glad a documentary like Expelled is finally shedding the light on this oppressed discussion.

a1na2
03-25-2008, 06:33 PM
Excellent examples, except not for your case. You don't have faith that water is wet. It is wet. You can touch it and it is wet. You have evidence/proof. You touch it (physical), it is wet (physical property). You see the trees move and feel air rush past you. Both are physical experiences to the senses of touch or sight. It's not faith. [Now if you want to argue that all of language (and therefore every experience ever had) is a leap of faith, then you've opened a can of worms that will spiral out of control until faith is devoid of meaning you attribute to it in the next part.]

And you use a different type of faith. Faith not based on evidence but supernatural. Quite different than the examples above.



You cannot see wind, you can feel it and only have faith that wind is causing the trees to move etc.

I don't really care of your scientific realm as I know science has a large part in our world, I'm just feeling really bad for you that you don't seem to be able to have faith of any kind.

Faith is what makes the world go around. Have fun with it.

Ultra Peanut
03-25-2008, 06:47 PM
You cannot see wind, you can feel it and only have faith that wind is causing the trees to move etc.Exactly. You experience wind as a physical sensation.

IPSO FACTO, FAITH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT

irishjayhawk
03-25-2008, 07:23 PM
Interesting comments Mr. Irishjayhawk...

With your points regarding my misuse of the words faith and theory, and that they have dual meanings...possible multiple meanings; I couldn't help but chuckle, as I could hear Bill Clinton's famous words in my head... "It all depends on what "is" is..."

While I'd chuckle if that came to mind, just because words have multiple meanings doesn't mean they can be used interchangeably. A scientific Theory is not a layman's theory. It is more than an guess. Just as a law isn't a layman's law. Evolution is as good as fact.


What I liked about the Expelled trailer and from what I've read about the documentary, is emphasizes the point that it's taboo to question any parts of the Darwin dogma...any of them...period.

You fall into a trap here. Expelled is nothing more than a propaganda film, especially if you look at it's history. Thus, you are falling hook line and sinker for that claim. The fact is that it is questioned and questioned daily. Problem is, there's been nothing to debunk it.

Think about the gold mine in it for a scientist who can debunk evolution. It's gold mine of money, a gold mine of prestige, and of making the history books. It is the type of motivation that encompasses all types of people. That is, it has the power to motivate anyone depending on their tendencies.

The entire point of science is to constantly solidify it's knowledge about the world and how to explain things. Evolution has plenty of holes in it. The misconception is that these holes aren't being addressed or that they make it less credible. If you think about it, Evolution attempts to explain a lot in a very simplistic way. In one sense, it's a perfect explanation: simple. In another, it's easily discarded because people see complexity and cannot comprehend how something so simple can cause such complexity. An argument in this vein is Irreducible Complexity which Ultra Peanut outlined earlier.

With no mention of a religion, God, or intelligent design, any science student in America should be able to raise their hand and ask their teacher if Charles Darwin's accepted theory is accepted as true, why isn't the fossil record flooded with transitional fossils?

Again, this is a repetition of something you've heard second hand, I fear. There are plenty of transitional fossils. However, if you are asking why there isn't a bird-monkey, or a fish-ferret, you're illustrating your ignorance of the Theory.

In Evolutionary Theory, the species BRANCH. They do not go from point A to point B. That's why a lot of scientists resent the diagram of the progression of humans starting with apes/chimps. That's not true. We branched at some point. That's why there are still apes/chimps alive with us. It is not necessarily LINEAR.

So, to address that, it's quite simple: the person asking that question hasn't paid much attention or done any research. I am willing to bet a reasonable amount that - aside from a rogue scientist with an agenda (ala William Dembski) - most professors will answer that question quite easily or, at the very least, point them in the right direction.


That question and the teacher answering it (again, w/o God or personal belief) is censored because of religious paranoia. And that's a shame.

Simply not true, especially if you look at his examples of the people who have been "ruined" by "Big Science".


Science is often defined as the search for truth...and it rightfully encourages questioning and investigating. But let's be honest. The scientific community will not let vertical evolution to be questioned - period. And unfortunately, it takes great faith to believe in the random chance assortment of all living things.

I'm sorry but I cannot help but correct you when you make very wrong claims. In this quote there are 1 truthful statement and 2 false statements along with some very nasty assumptions that breed all kinds of ignorance and should shed some light on why scientists seem so "close-minded" when, in fact, they are not.

First, you start off perfect. It's the search for knowledge - not truth. A minor distinction but an important one. We are not seeking for the reason why humans exist here or what our purpose is. This is commonly known as truth. Science is much more interested in obtaining the reasons on HOW we got here and HOW to stay here. Moreover, it's interested in explaining anything and everything. Explaining why wind blows. Explaining the ocean currents, the land masses, the moon, the other planets, what makes up other planets, how the planets revolve or "live", what plants are, how they work, the variations, etc etc.

Next, you say something called "vertical evolution". I'm pretty sure you are talking about one of two things: macro-evolution or linear evolution. I've pointed out the problems with linear evolution and macro-evolution is usually discarded by non-scientists because they don't see, like linear, the man-fish or such. Most will concede that there is a such thing as micro evolution. Now, an obvious question I must ask for that is if there are tiny (micro) evolutionary changes over millenia, wouldn't that tend to change the overall big picture (macro)? That is, wouldn't tiny changes produce big changes? Cell changes producing species changes? Seems like a pretty easy connection but it's often immediately discarded with no reason other than "it can't happen" or, as you continue next, "chance".

The problem with your "chance" sentence is twofold. First, evolution depends on life. Therefore, the "chance" you are talking about is non-existent. Life is already there. But, let's assume that you mean "chance" of the changes that occur. It would be a gross understatement to say that if you find this true, you are the problem the scientific community faces. There is little "chance". All the changes serve a purpose. Some of those changes don't produce much in the long run but may in the short run and vice versa. If anyone says "chance", it is likely they don't understand the concept of natural selection. If that's the case, we've highlighted the problem already. I think that's the case here. Am I wrong?


I know God cannot be proven by science, and therefore His existence and place in the origins discussion shouldn't be be brought up in a classroom. But there are enough holes in evolutionary theory that should be debated w/o religious overtones - and that is why I am glad a documentary like Expelled is finally shedding the light on this oppressed discussion.

Again, you've bought the propaganda hook, line and sinker. There are holes. They are being addressed. There aren't "enough of them" or "big enough" holes to warrant the discredit or debate of the theory. That's kind of like asking if a forest has 65 holes in it of trees that have been cut down, is it a forest? The debate should begin!

It's simply not the case. There is no oppressed discussion. Another example is the 2+2=4. Should mathematicians debate whether that is correct? Is that oppressed discussion on the answer of that equation? Are we being told 4 is the right answer when it may be 5 or 6?

At what point does something grow out of "oppressed discussion" into "fact"? Are all facts "oppressing discussion"? Where's the line?

You cannot see wind, you can feel it and only have faith that wind is causing the trees to move etc.

As UP points out, you have just exhibited how it's a physical property and therefore it is not faith. Again, you are trying to use faith interchangeably and it doesn't work.

I don't really care of your scientific realm as I know science has a large part in our world, I'm just feeling really bad for you that you don't seem to be able to have faith of any kind.

I have plenty of faith. I have faith in my Jayhawks to make it to the finals. I have faith that I'll pass all my classes. I don't understand your problem in understanding that.

Faith is what makes the world go around. Have fun with it.

Actually, the orbit and axis are what make the world go round. A long with a little thing called gravity.

irishjayhawk
03-25-2008, 07:56 PM
New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/blog/shortsharpscience/2008/03/are-id-proponents-being-silenced.html) reviews Expelled:

Are ID proponents being silenced?


http://www.newscientist.com/blog/shortsharpscience/uploaded_images/bein-stein-795915.jpg (http://www.newscientist.com/blog/shortsharpscience/uploaded_images/bein-stein-795922.jpg)On Wednesday, my colleague Maggie and I went to an advance screening of Ben Stein's upcoming documentary, Expelled: No intelligence allowed (http://www.expelledthemovie.com/). It purports to be about threats to academic freedom, but it seemed more like a pro-religion, pro-intelligent design propaganda film that looks like a bad Michael Moore rip-off.

The film was just silly, with virtually zero scientific content, which, of course, is not surprising coming from Ben Stein (http://www.benstein.com/stein2.html) - a comedian, speech writer and game show host . . . but not a scientist.

I'm hopeful that anyone with the least bit of intelligence (no pun intended) will see straight through the film's hokey attempts to distract viewers from the lack of scientific credibility with appeals to their emotions - like the dark lighting, foreboding music and harsh camera angles that set the scene for Stein's interview with - dun dun dun - biologist Richard Dawkins, an avowed atheist.

Or worse, the countless images and references to Nazis that culminate in Stein dopily wandering through the Dachau concentration camp pondering the ways in which the "Darwinian gospel" was a "necessary but not sufficient condition" for the atrocities that took place there.

But the real silliness came after the credits rolled, when the audience had a chance to pose questions to Mark Mathis, the film's producer.

One woman said it was morally reprehensible to equate the death of six million Jews with Darwin. I clapped, and was astounded when nearly everyone else remained silent.

I shot my hand up to ask a question. "The intelligent design movement has gone to great lengths to argue that intelligent design is not religion, that it's science (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19225824.000-intelligent-design-the-god-lab.html). And you made a whole film arguing that it is religious. How do they react to that?"

"Well," Mathis said, "I guess it makes them a little uncomfortable."

Some arguing ensued concerning the scientific merits of ID, and someone asked, "Where's the evidence? Where are the peer reviewed papers?" to which Mathis proudly proclaimed, "Actually, there are ten peer reviewed papers."

A guy in the front row scoffed. "Ten papers?" he asked sarcastically.

Mathis told the guy not to interrupt, and then mockingly called him "Mr Darwinist." Zing!

He began calling on others in the crowd, who asked friendlier questions. But Maggie and I quickly realised that we'd seen some of these people before - earlier that evening, in fact, working at the movie's registration table. These friendly audience members worked for the film? Had Mathis planted questioners?

People asked what they could do to help the film succeed, and a young woman in the front row inquired: "How can I pray for you and for the movie?" Mathis grew excited. "We need to start a grass roots movement!" he said, encouraging people to tell their "networks" about the movie and to get as many people as they could to go on opening weekend.

Another man in the front row wondered about the film's premise that supporters of ID are being silenced. He pointed out that a recent trial about the teaching of intelligent design held in Dover, Pennsylvania (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/dn8498-judge-intelligent-design-is-relabelled-creationism.html), gave supporters of intelligent design all the time in the world to make their case, but most of the 'leading lights' of ID didn't even show up.

When Mathis was responding, the guy asked another question, and the producer shot back, "How about you let me finish talking?" Then, a security guard for the film approached the calmly seated man and told him, "I may have to ask you to leave."

"Does anyone else see how ironic this is?" the guy asked.

"Shut up!" someone shouted from the back.

I had another question to ask and held my hand up high, but Mathis called on anyone and everyone else who appeared to be more sympathetic. Finally, he looked at his watch and said, "Well, I think that's all the time we have," and began to walk out. I followed him out into the lobby to speak with him.

I said that the film spent a lot of time making the point that proponents of evolution can't explain how life arose from non-life, and asked how intelligent design explains it.

It doesn't, he acknowledged. "Then don't you think it's strange that you tried to pin that on the scientists?" I asked.

"Well, it's a real hole in their theory," he said.

"Actually, it's not - the theory of evolution never purported to touch on the issue of how life arose from non-life, it's about how species arose from other species."

I said that in science, criticising someone else's theory doesn't make your theory right, and that the film never bothers to say how intelligent design explains anything at all. He countered that intelligent design says there are things that are too complex to be explained by natural selection.

I asked how ID explains the complexity, but he said, "I don't have time for this," and walked away.

Throughout the entire experience, Maggie and I couldn't help feeling that the polarised audience in the theater was a sort of microcosm of America, and let me tell you - it's a scary place. I also couldn't help thinking that the intelligent design folks aren't being silenced, so much as they're being silent. Because when it comes to actually explaining anything, they've got nothing to say.

a1na2
03-25-2008, 08:14 PM
Yada yada yada

Dude, you are simply missing the point to the discussion. There is no discussion you can't prove or disprove much of anything and most people don't really care if you understand it or not. I certainly don't.

I'm just amazed at the amount of time you are using to defend a point that is defenseless and basically of no interest to others.

You are basically just talking to hear yourself talk.

Adept Havelock
03-25-2008, 08:22 PM
New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/blog/shortsharpscience/2008/03/are-id-proponents-being-silenced.html) reviews Expelled:

Interesting read. Thanks.

irishjayhawk
03-25-2008, 08:27 PM
Then we've got this background checking on the team (http://monkeytrials.blogspot.com/2008/03/quacks-like-duck-conclusion.html) behind Expelled. Then you have the contradictory stories (http://pigeonchess.wordpress.com/2008/03/25/contradictory-stories-from-the-id-crowd-on-the-expelled-incident/) being put forth by the film's supporters. On top of all this you have this non-sense about the rationale behind expelling PZ Myers from Expelled:

The first one:
"You should know that I invited Michael shermer to a screening at NRB in Nashville. He came and is writing a review for scientific American. I banned pz because I want him to pay to see it. Nothing more. "The second one (aka They weren't invited):
Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers are running around saying they weren’t “gate crashers” at a pre-screening of “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”. But that’s exactly what they were.The third one:
EXPELLED was screened for a select Minneapolis grass roots audience on Thursday night. Dr. Myers and noted atheist Dr. Richard Dawkins were not sent invitations to the screening from the producers. Nevertheless, they acquired access to a proprietary online RSVP site, along with a group of other atheists. The producers were notified that Myers and others who were not invited had signed up for the screening. They were also aware that Dawkins, who oddly used his formal surname "Clinton" instead of Richard to sign up, was in attendance.Unfortunately, the RSVP site they claim was "proprietary" said this:
You are invited to a FREE PRIVATE SCREENING of Ben Stein’s upcoming, history-making film, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Opening in theaters April 2008).
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed follows Ben Stein on his journey around the globe where he discovers that scientists, educators and philosophers are being persecuted in a modern day witch hunt because they dare to go against the theory of evolution. These pillars of education are being fired, ridiculed and ostracized for merely challenging Darwin’s theory; proposing that life on this planet could be a part of some intelligent design and not random chance.
This movie provides a rare opportunity to educate everyone on issues that deeply affect our families, schools, churches, courts and the progress of science and medicine. This film truly has the potential to have a positive impact on our society.
The private screening details are as follows:
Date: Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Time: 7:00PM
Location: AMC Lowes Streets of Woodfield 20, 601 N. Martingale Rd., Suite 185, Schaumburg, IL 60173
RSVP: http://rsvp.getexpelled.com/events/special/expelled
Please let us know if you are able to attend. You can RSVP now and provide us with how many guests you’d like to bring with you to this
screening.
Moreover, if he had been "gate crashing" why would Dawkins and his family along with the other scientists and anti-ID people be allowed in? None of this adds up.

An even better contradiction though is found on the screen writer's website.

He says (http://kevinwrites.typepad.com/otherwise_known_as_kevin_/2008/03/pathetic-and-sa.html#comment-107971996):
2. We have not lied about a Nazi-Atheism connection. If you actually watch the film, you'll see we don't even address that topic. However, we do address the Darwin-Hitler connection.Yet a spoiler on the expelled website says (http://www.expelledthemovie.com/chronicle.php?article=11) (Go to the bottom and notice where it says SPOILER. Highlight what's below (the white text)):
In fact, Nazi Germany is the thread that ties everything in the movie together. Evolution leads to atheism leads to eugenics leads to Holocaust and Nazi Germany.
EDIT: I forgot to mention that all screenings - even ones they had scheduled - have been canceled during the aftermath of expelled from Expelled. No date on when they'll resume or when the film will come out.

EDIT 2: I'll link this review of the film (http://richarddawkins.net/article,2400,n,n)because it's too long to post.

a1na2
03-25-2008, 08:46 PM
You are worse than those that attacked F9/11 when it came out. It was totally filled with lies and yet you supported it's content.

Is there nothing to you whoredom that you won't do?

irishjayhawk
03-25-2008, 09:52 PM
You are worse than those that attacked F9/11 when it came out. It was totally filled with lies and yet you supported it's content.

Is there nothing to you whoredom that you won't do?

I don't recall ever saying anything to you or anyone on this board about F9/11, but don't let that get in your way of good ole ad hominems.

a1na2
03-26-2008, 06:26 AM
I don't recall ever saying anything to you or anyone on this board about F9/11, but don't let that get in your way of good ole ad hominems.

How fkg dense are you? You are arguing the exact opposite of what you did when moron moores movie came out. IIRC you argued vehemently that Bush was the debil or worse.

You seem to be one that loves to change history to suit your needs. That is one of the big issues I've had with your commentary. Keep it up though, we wouldn't want you to change your ways just for the sake of clarity.

Ultra Peanut
03-26-2008, 07:22 AM
Tom?

You are dumb.

Samson
03-26-2008, 11:47 AM
irishjayhawk,

You took a lot time to dissect my posts, and I read every word. To steal a pun, we'll just agree to disagree.

One point I'm absolutely sure of is that the fossil record is NOT littered with transitional fossils. In fact, many sea critters look virtually identical to what they look like now. No sense going back and forth on this one, but you won't convince me that fossils "prove" or "demonstrate" macro-evolution. It simple isn't the case, and it has baffled even the proudest of pure evolutionists. That's why other theories, such as the Gap Theory came to be - to account for the lack of evidence. Even the small changes should be able to be witnessed over time, but that is not the case - and there's plenty of evidence (or lack of) to support what I'm stating.

Your argument is based on a Philosophy vs. Science discussion...or Truth vs. truth. Ultimately and categorically, they cannot be different. There can only be one TRUTH, and as I stated earlier, we'll never scientifically know in this lifetime...we'll only continue to speculate and debate.

Science cannot prove the existence of God or a creator, but it's left with filling its acceptated evolutionary holes without an inteligent designer (not 'why' holes, but 'how' holes). It can't be done. The universe, life and man are too perfect for random chance creation and assortment. Heck, even DNA, single-celled critters, or the perfect distance of the sun from the earth to support life, cries out the proof of an intelligent designer.

But there is no sceintific proof of this Creator, so the scientific community can continue to support it's non-creator started Big Bang Theory, Organic Soup Theory, and Macro-Evolution Theory...all that are based on random chance occurances.

I've understand your point. You won't change my mind, and I don't intend on changing yours. Appreciate the opportunity to debate. It's great to strench our minds, and affirm how truely complex we are.

Ultra Peanut
03-26-2008, 12:35 PM
One point I'm absolutely sure of is that the fossil record is NOT littered with transitional fossils. In fact, many sea critters look virtually identical to what they look like now.A) The first sentence has nothing to do with the second. Just because some animals have filled their niche so well that they no longer evolve doesn't invalidate the ones that (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html)have evolved (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils).

B) "Macro-evolution" is the same thing as "micro-evolution." The only difference is length of time.

The universe, life and man are too perfect for random chance creation and assortment. Heck, even DNA, single-celled critters, or the perfect distance of the sun from the earth to support life, cries out the proof of an intelligent designer.That is an utterly fallacious supposition. Of course the conditions for our existence are "perfect" (note: not really perfect, just within the necessary parameters). Otherwise, we would not be here.

But there is no sceintific proof of this Creator, so the scientific community can continue to support it's non-creator started Big Bang Theory, Organic Soup Theory, and Macro-Evolution Theory...all that are based on random chance occurances.Science doesn't take a position on God/No God. It's not "THERE IS NO GOD DEAL WITH IT," it's, "This is what the evidence suggests." The evidence doesn't suggest a higher power, so they don't shoehorn one in just because.

irishjayhawk
03-26-2008, 02:31 PM
irishjayhawk,

You took a lot time to dissect my posts, and I read every word. To steal a pun, we'll just agree to disagree.

I have to agree but first I have to point out that the "agree to disagree" philosophy gets people no where. That's why science doesn't tolerate "agree to disagree".

One point I'm absolutely sure of is that the fossil record is NOT littered with transitional fossils. In fact, many sea critters look virtually identical to what they look like now. No sense going back and forth on this one, but you won't convince me that fossils "prove" or "demonstrate" macro-evolution.

It seems that you have already decided that a) there are no transitional fossils and b) if there were transitional fossils, they wouldn't convince you. If this is true, then I can see how you like Expelled's message. You want to push your "close mindedness" (assuming b is true), into science and make it fit. You've made up your mind before examining the evidence. That's pretty dishonest and wrong.

It simple isn't the case, and it has baffled even the proudest of pure evolutionists.

Please, when you're making claims that are as wild - and vague - as this, cite who and what you're talking about. I can say that Richard Dawkins has written (I think) 7 books on evolution and natural selection before writing the well known "God Delusion" bestseller. He would fit the "proudest of pure evolutionists" category, yet isn't baffled.

That's why other theories, such as the Gap Theory came to be - to account for the lack of evidence. Even the small changes should be able to be witnessed over time, but that is not the case - and there's plenty of evidence (or lack of) to support what I'm stating.

The Gap Theory is religion's best way of sneaking itself into science. It's called the "god of the gaps" argument. Essentially, it looks at all the holes in scientific thinking and understanding at the present time and finds the holes to insert itself. This is the same thing with evolution and why you hear people hammering on about the "holes in evolution" and "teach the controversy". There are certainly holes but there is no controversy.

Your argument is based on a Philosophy vs. Science discussion...or Truth vs. truth. Ultimately and categorically, they cannot be different. There can only be one TRUTH, and as I stated earlier, we'll never scientifically know in this lifetime...we'll only continue to speculate and debate.

Science cannot prove the existence of God or a creator, but it's left with filling its acceptated evolutionary holes without an inteligent designer (not 'why' holes, but 'how' holes). It can't be done.

Why can't it be done? Tell me why science cannot continue to explain anything and everything.


The universe, life and man are too perfect for random chance creation and assortment. Heck, even DNA, single-celled critters, or the perfect distance of the sun from the earth to support life, cries out the proof of an intelligent designer.

Once again, you bring the Irreducible Complexity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity) claim and the fallacy of chance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit). It is too perfect for random chance for me to win the lottery twice in a row. But it can happen. You'd obviously put the odds very high, but the odds always allow for the possibility.

Moreover, if the odds for all the things you listed are too high and therefore too perfect, which you say leads to "proof of an intelligent designer", wouldn't the odds that there is an intelligent designer have to be higher than those? Wouldn't the irreducible complexity claim apply to the designer?

But there is no sceintific proof of this Creator, so the scientific community can continue to support it's non-creator started Big Bang Theory, Organic Soup Theory, and Macro-Evolution Theory...all that are based on random chance occurances.

No one is suggesting random chance. Moreover, these are all Theories subject to change. For a moment, consider that we know something cannot come from nothing here on Earth. However, consider that we travel everywhere in the universe. Is it not entirely possible - perhaps even plausible - that there is a corner of the universe (per se) that creates something from nothing that can be explained in PERFECT, SCIENTIFIC terms that imply nothing of "chance" or "randomness".


I've understand your point. You won't change my mind, and I don't intend on changing yours. Appreciate the opportunity to debate. It's great to strench our minds, and affirm how truely complex we are.

You are very right in your closing sentence but very wrong in your preceding sentence. You outline the entire problem facing all scientists: close-mindedness. That's not to say that scientists can't be close-minded. I'm sure many of them are on some issues. However, it's only through changing of minds that society can progress. That's why you're way off in asserting that I cannot change your mind and you aren't going to try to change mine. Someone has to budge, eventually. So that leads me to my last question:

What would it take for you to accept evolution, as you've already said transitional fossils - even if they existed - wouldn't convince you?

bowener
03-26-2008, 03:27 PM
One point I'm absolutely sure of is that the fossil record is NOT littered with transitional fossils. In fact, many sea critters look virtually identical to what they look like now.

Yes, I am basically stealing the same points that Peanut used, but that is because they need to be touched on.

First off, you picked sea life as an example. Lots of problems trying to find fossils of sea 'critters'. If you think for a second you will realize that fish are not generally made of bones, but cartalidge; which does not fossilize well, if at all. Cartalidge is much softer and much less dense than bones, which allows for it to break down much faster than bone (that is why it is difficult for it to fossilize). Generally speaking sea animals are much much older than land animals which means their fossils are going to be much deeper in the earth. This is bad for many reasons as well. Depth in Earth increases pressure put upon the fossils, if they arent fossilized bones but did make it to fossilization, then they stand a great chance of being destroyed long before we ever get to them. Depth also makes it very difficult to get to, especially if some of the best places to look for ancient sea life is at the top of mountain ranges. Not to mention, some if not most, are underwater, miles down.

Another reason their is a lack of transitional fossils is because that animal was just a step in the new direction, almost a bottleneck like position. Think about it, if something is prevalent in the fossil record that means it was well evolved for life as it knew it, that is why it reached that point and maintained its dominance. If something is transitional, that means it is moving from one niche to another niche to better survive, that is how evolution works. So, if it didnt survie, no more fossils will be found and it will not be a transitional fossil since it did not lead to something else; there are many dead limbs on the tree of life, so to speak. If it did survive and make it to a new species, then you are going to have tons of fossils before and after this transitional fossil, but there are not going to be very many fossils like it since it did not exist as long or in as much prevalence since it was in route to something else.

It seems the main problems you are having with all of this is that you do not understand evolution. You need to read a lot more before you can argue against something. I am not trying to say you are stupid so do not get offended, but these are things that you should understand if you are going to argue against it. You need to educate yourself heavily on things you think are wrong, that way you can rip them apart, that is what I do. So, had you had more bio or if you just sit down and read real texts on how this all works, I think you would be much better off. It will either allow you to see differently, or allow you to argue your point more fully, but at the moment it is doing neither for you.


Originally Posted by Samson
The universe, life and man are too perfect for random chance creation and assortment. Heck, even DNA, single-celled critters, or the perfect distance of the sun from the earth to support life, cries out the proof of an intelligent designer.

We seem to be at the perfect distance, but again this is evolution. The 'critters' that could not survive at this distance, did not. The ones that could, did. That is pretty much as simple and basic as you can get. There isnt much more to it than that. It looks as though everything fits in here perfectly because the 'critters' grew and evolved and adapted to fit into it perfectly,; that is what this is all about. The universe is not perfect, it is no imperfect, it is the universe. Biology does not argue about the universe, physics yes, and I think that physics would disagree with a perfect universe. My perfect universe would be static and ever lasting, this one is not, it is going to die, that does not seem too perfect to me.

Random chance for alomst 3,000,000,000 years isnt all that phenomenal. I think a lot of problems could be better understood if people understood how long 1 billion years is, or 3 in this case. Also a lot of problems would be understood if people understood the life time of a single celled organism (short) and how they fundamentally work. I do not have the numbers on hand, I have the book somewhere, but a great example of this is (once life got started- and we had the 1 celled critters) the Earth was just a big damn ocean, I do not know the cubic footage of the ocean then, but I am going to assume a massive 1 trillion cubic feet (that is massive and possibly too massive, somebody with more knowledge help me out here). In one cubic foot of coean water we will say that on average there are 1 million amoeba (probably on the low side). Now you have 1,000,000 times 1,000,000,000,000; or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 possible amoeba at any given second on ancient Earth. A natural mutation rate is pretty low, but given that Earth would have had a weak ozone to protect against strong UV (radiation) the rate may have been much higer, but I sill assume .01% natural mutation bc these critters would be pretty susceptible to radiation. So what is .01% of that huge number (1.0 x 10^18)? It is 1.o x 10^14. Still a massive number. My point is, even if the numbers arent perfect or just made up (its a thought experiment), you can see how you would start to get huge numbers of possible mutated and altered creatures that could possibly pass genetic information on to eachother and begin to start the change from 1 to multicellular creatures. Random chance is a lot higher than you think when you have over a trillion creatures involved (and billions of years). To most people who study all of this, the distance of the Earth cries nothing but it is a distance at which these creatures that survived were best suited to survive. For a different look, check the specimens that live at the sea floor next to boiling heat vents that cannot survive anywhere but there. They survive off sulfur and 500+ degree heat, so had Earth been more like Venus perhaps, then those would be the prevailing norm of the species.

Originally Posted by Samson
But there is no sceintific proof of this Creator, so the scientific community can continue to support it's non-creator started Big Bang Theory, Organic Soup Theory, and Macro-Evolution Theory...all that are based on random chance occurances.


The fact of the lack of God has actually been a problem for a lot of scientists throughout history. Some wanted to set out his existence through science, only to find that you did not need him. If I remember correctly, Darwin was actually a fairly stringent Christsian (I may be wrong, but I believe that is what I have read). Einstein (not christian, agnostic) hated the fact that his science showed that the universe was not static because that meant it had a beginning and more importantly, an End. He tried to deny it as much as he could, but in the end he realized his math was correct and that is what it was. Again, the big bang has nothing to do with Earth-bound biology. The 'soup' theory of which you speak, is that the primordial soup? If so, that is a bit more than just 'soup'. It is a fluid that contains all the necessary building blocks of a living organism. Had you looked at some of my previous posts I posted links to sites where scientists are using the same naturally occuring building blocks (non living pieces that cells are made of) to build cells and start ife. They havent started a living creature yet, but are beyond close, it is just a matter of time. Consider too that this is a farely recent scientific endeavor as well.

What I think is really interesting is how IDers ignore the fact that on the smallest scale, the cells in humans are identical to cells in dogs, cats, snakes and others. As you progress from the simplest forms of life you can trace your way through the kingdoms and see how each trait each cell each organ evolved to aid that species for its habitat its life its niche up until you reach certain creatures. Humans are not perfect, we are actually pretty shitty creatures. We are walking upright yet our skeltal structure is not designed for this. Maybe walking upright 75% of the time, but not all the time. That is why we as a species have bad lower backs, bad hips, bad knees and bad ankles. We have higher evolved brains yes, but part of it, a large part, is still based on past designs (we arent a whole new brain). Our brain is actually easily traced back millions of years through our ancestors. We have larger frontal lobes than our ancestors and smaller adrenal glands, but the lobes are not large enough and the glands are not small enough to allow us to escape ourselves. We are still very violent beings whose violence will almost always overtake the reason part of our brains. Our eyes are far from perfect, as discussed before, we see upseide down (why would god design that in us?), we are naturally poor at seeing far. We see far fewer colors than some other animals, we have trouble with spatial awareness (brains though), trouble in dark and bright light. These are just a few samples of why we are not perfect and proof of our past. We have useless organs (why would god design those into us---please dont use the, 'we cannot know gods plan,' as an excuse). Why do our embryos go through phases the same as reptiles and lower mammals before reaching what finally looks like a human? We start out the exact same cell-wise as almost all other vertabrates, progressing past them to higher ones. Something like fishlike (gills and all) to reptile like (awesome tail and funky face) to more ape like (which is us, we are Apes in case some forgot). There is no need for this if we were designed, why would there be, what a waste! But with evolution some explain it as the way it works due to genetic traits carrying all the past information.

So, yeah this is very long, sorry. Most of which if somebody studied biology and read about biology (not from the IDer's websites) but from text books, they could have a better grasp on these matters. Darwins theory is not the prevailing theory, this is something that needs to be understood as well. He began the theory (not actually true, but he became the biggest name), but it has grown greatly from what he proposed, just as science should do, it threw out his poor arguments, replaced them with better more proven ones and continues to evolve itself, which is what science is all about (if you want to know more about the evolution of technology [sciences] read about the singularity and law of accelerating returns).

bowener
03-26-2008, 03:42 PM
Evolution of the eye made simple (http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/ridley_eyes.gif).

Human Evolution [skulls]. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg)

Evolution of Horse feet. (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/lines/transition_horse2.gif)

Very simplified page on transitions. (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/images/tran-01.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/tran-nf.html&h=262&w=500&sz=9&hl=en&start=14&um=1&tbnid=gwgYN56i5QPhnM:&tbnh=68&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dtransition%2Bfossils%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN)

One of the missing link fish. This 'fish' is fascinating if you really start to read on the build of its arm-like fins; elbows and wrists and such, trully awesome. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/science/05cnd-fossil.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

The tree of life, not as simple as the 'circle of life'. (http://www.dhushara.com/book/evol/trevol.jpg)

Very cool page! (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2006/03/060303111420.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.sciencedaily.com/gallery/fossils_ruins/origin_of_life/11/&h=300&w=300&sz=17&hl=en&start=10&um=1&tbnid=dXDu-lGTigtBEM:&tbnh=116&tbnw=116&prev=/images%3Fq%3Devolution%2Btree%2Bof%2Blife%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den)

Neat stuff here about most living creatures (very simplified). (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/phylo.gif)

A much more realistic tree of life. (http://static.flickr.com/51/171268617_ac5d2e6c23.jpg)

Pretty straight forward and simple tree that includes pictures and explains where some traits came from. (http://www.tellapallet.com/TreeOfLife.jpg)

Samson
03-26-2008, 03:49 PM
Closeminded?
Here are a few quotes from “pure” evolutionists – some from Mr. Darwin himself. I included general quotes about the “holes” in evolution from evolutionists, and a few regarding transitional fossils, since many of my comments were discounted. I have taken the liberty to bold certain parts. Enjoy…

"A general theory of biological evolution should include within its domain a number of problems that have hitherto resisted solution within the broad confines of the Darwinian, or indeed any other, research tradition. These problems include how life evolved from nonlife; how developmental programs evolve; what impact, if any, developmental dynamics have on the evolution of species; the relation between ecological dynamics and species diversification; and what is the best way of conceiving the mix between pattern and contingency in phylogeny. ... Our list of questions is not entirely haphazard. The origins of life, development, ecology, phylogenesis-these are the big questions that people think of when they hear the word *evolution*. It is answers to these questions that people want from evolutionists. That is why they so often feel put off when Darwinians confine themselves to talking about changing gene frequencies in populations and to throwing cold water on ideas about evolutionary direction, meaning, and progress." (Depew, David J. [Professor, Department of Communication Studies, University of Iowa] & Weber, Bruce H. [Professor of Biochemistry, California State University, Fullarton], "Darwinism Evolving: Systems Dynamics and the Genealogy of Natural Selection," [1995], MIT Press: Cambridge MA, 1997, Second printing, p.393. Emphasis in original).

"Personally, I consider fundamentalist creationism to be a far sillier idea than the craziest of all the crazy notions which scientists have ever proposed; but as scientists gloat over the deficiencies of non-scientific accounts of our origin and evolution, they should not ignore the considerable deficiencies in their own account. At the moment scientists certainly do not know how, of even if, life originated on earth from lifeless atoms. They do have a few plausible ideas on the subject, but many more rather implausible ones. (Scott, Andrew , "The Creation of Life: Past, Future, Alien," Basil Blackwell: Oxford UK, 1986, p.112).

"But what if the vast majority of scientists all have faith in the one unverified idea? The modern 'standard' scientific version of the origin of life on earth is one such idea, and we would be wise to check its real merit with great care. Has the cold blade of reason been applied with sufficient vigour in this case? Most scientists [B]want to believe that life could have emerged spontaneously from the primeval waters, because it would confirm their belief in the explicability of Nature - the belief that all could be explained in terms of particles and energy and forces if only we had the time and the necessary intellect. They also want to believe because their arch opponents - religious fundamentalists such as creationists - do not believe in life's spontaneous origin. It is this combative atmosphere which sometimes encourages scientists writing and speaking about the origin of life to become as dogmatic and bigoted as the creationist opponents they so despise." (Scott, Andrew , "The Creation of Life: Past, Future, Alien," Basil Blackwell: Oxford UK, 1986, pp.111-112. Emphasis in original).

"[B]The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt (John and Miklos 1988, 307)." (Wesson, Robert G. [political scientist and philosopher], "Beyond Natural Selection," [1991], MIT Press: Cambridge MA, 1994, reprint, p45).

"Darwin predicted that the fossil record should show a reasonably smooth continuum of ancestor-descendant pairs with a satisfactory number of intermediates between major groups Darwin even went so far as to say that if this were not found in the fossil record, his general theory of evolution would be in serious jeopardy. Such smooth transitions were not found in Darwin's time, and he explained this in part on the basis of an incomplete geologic record and in part on the lack of study of that record. We are now more than a hundred years after Darwin and the situation is little changed. Since Darwin a tremendous expansion of paleontological knowledge has taken place, and we know much more about the fossil record than was known in his time, but the basic situation is not much different. We actually may have fewer examples of smooth transition than we had in Darwin's time because some of the old examples have turned out to be invalid when studied in more detail. To be sure, some new intermediate or transitional forms have been found, particularly among land vertebrates. But if Darwin were writing today, he would probably still have to cite a disturbing lack of missing links or transitional forms between the major groups of organisms." (Raup, David M. [Professor of Geology, University of Chicago], "Geological and Paleontological Arguments," in Godfrey L.R., ed., "Scientists Confront Creationism," W.W. Norton: New York NY, 1983, p.156).

"Evolution at the level of populations and species might, in some cases, appear as nearly continuous change accompanied by divergence to occupy much of the available morphospace. However, this is certainly not true for long-term, large-scale evolution, such as that of the metazoan phyla, which include most of the taxa that formed the basis for the evolutionary synthesis. The most striking features of large-scale evolution are the extremely rapid divergence of lineages near the time of their origin, followed by long periods in which basic body plans and ways of life are retained. What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types." (Carroll, Robert L. [Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology, Redpath Museum, McGill University, Canada ], "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2000, Vol. 15, pp.27-32, p.27).

"But I do not pretend that I should ever have suspected how poor was the record in the best preserved geological sections, had not the absence of innumerable transitional links between the species which lived at the commencement and close of each formation, pressed so hardly on my theory." (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, p.311).

"He who rejects this view of the imperfection of the geological record, will rightly reject the whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species found in the successive stages of the same great formation?" (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, p.343).

"But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record." (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and joint founder of the modern theory of evolution], "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, pp.292-293).

"Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils." (Patterson, Colin [late Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London], letter 10 April 1979, in Sunderland L.D., "Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems," [1984], Master Book Publishers: El Cajon CA, Fourth Edition, 1988, p.89).

".. I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?' (Patterson, Colin [late Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London], letter 10 April 1979, in Sunderland L.D., "Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems," [1984], Master Book Publishers: El Cajon CA, Fourth Edition, 1988, p.89).

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution. (Gould, Stephen Jay [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University, USA], "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?," Paleobiology, Vol. 6, No. 1, January 1980, p.127).

Ultra Peanut
03-26-2008, 04:02 PM
Here are a few quotes from “pure” evolutionists – some from Mr. Darwin himself. Oh Jesus.

bowener
03-26-2008, 04:05 PM
Wow, okay? So you take quotes from a pro ID page? Have you bothered to read anything about modern evolution? It is a science, with differring fields. They state above that is has been around about 100 years, that is very true. And in 100 years we have come farther than we probably should have. Besides physics, this is the largest task you could possibly undertake. They are trying to find a comprehensive theory that holds are life, EVER, in it. That is life that existed 3 billion years ago in environments much different than today, so then you have to start including other fields of study in with biology. Darwin didnt create the idea of evolution, there were other scientists around, and today, scientists do not have to follow the word of Darwin like some have to follow the word of God. Some may choose to, like I mentioned before, those trying to start life from previously nonliving pieces may, or they just may be interested in how it all came about. You seem to be stuck on Darwin, much like th ID people. He is dead, he died. His ideas were not all correct, afterall you do understand when he was alive there was no DNA, nobody had found it yet, right? They did not have machines for xrays or MRI machines to see inside of fossils. The missing links you cling to to show that evolution is so faulty and shaky are being found each day. You do not seem to understand how many living things there are on the Earth now, not to mention 65 million years ago or farther back. 98% of all life was wiped out 65 million years ago. That is a whole lot of dead ends that scientists have to sort through when compiling records. Fossils arent exactly as easy to find as an acorn under an acorn tree. I am baffled by how you seem to think that the theory of evolution should be so simple. Read the post I posted before about transition fossils, it is pretty simple. I had read everything I can that is pro-ID, I study it almost everyday at school. We have pro-ID teachers come in and teach us; if you were going to shoot something across about how I am taught biasedly. Even when I went to MoWest we had a man from the discovery institute come in and try to debate with biologists and other scientists. I do not understand why you dont just try and learn both sides, it will better you as a person.

bowener
03-26-2008, 04:10 PM
Also, do you not realize that the majority of your quotes are taking from over 20 years ago? Again, Darwin was Darwin. A man who pushed a theory that at the time had very little to no scientific equipment to aid him in his task. You also realize that most evolutionary scientists had no equipment until about 50 years ago or so, and only those at the best schools could afford them. You also understand that the extensive digging for specific fossils did not always take place, and really didnt until 50 or so years ago as well too? You do realize too that this is all the point of science; to disprove incorrect theories and replace them with ones that make sense and fit? Even if somebody like Darwin, who IDer's seem to diefy more than anyone else, is wrong? The Pope may be infoulible, scientists are not, they are just more highly evolved apes after all.

So Darwin can be wrong, that doesnt matter one bit. He is wrong, on lots of things, but then again, most people who proposed scientific theories 130 or so years ago were wrong.

I am still confused though as to why we are not lambasting Einstein? He never proved gravity fully... when do we get to argue that?

BEST ARTICLE EVER! ****ING READ IT. (http://bjoern.brembs.net/theonion/intelligentfalling.html)

Samson
03-26-2008, 04:28 PM
"It is this combative atmosphere which sometimes encourages scientists writing and speaking about the origin of life to become as dogmatic and bigoted as the creationist opponents they so despise."

bowener
03-26-2008, 04:34 PM
"It is this combative atmosphere which sometimes encourages scientists writing and speaking about the origin of life to become as dogmatic and bigoted as the creationist opponents they so despise."

Wow, okay again?

You do realize that no matter what you do, you dogmatize what you do? The best example of this is the ancient sceptics (yes it is spelled with a c and not a k). Pyrrhonism to be exact, states that you can never know anything for certain because it is all relative to the perceiver (viewer), and since we derive what we know from the world through our sense we cannot trust our reasoning as well (descartes would have wept had he bothered to read this). They believed in the systematic break down of beliefs (ie, antidogmatism) but to do so, you had to become dogmatic in your approach. They realized that no matter what you did, you would dogmatize your beliefs or your structures. So, that is it. If you wondered though dogmatized, they werent, and they accepted that, 'the only thing we can know for certatin is that we know nothing for certain.' Thankfully much has changed since then....


edit: I should say something personal about myself. I do become angry at times in these debates because, generally speaking, those in ID that we are forced to argue against, do not bother to study and understand the positions they are arguing against (ignorance is only blissful to those who are ignorant, it is hell to those who have to deal with the ignorant). Then, rather than admitting that, they just say they have no need to because it is all a lie that satan made... thus negating any and all arguments based soley on a belief in a fictional character (to me, this is my thoughts). I want to apologize to them for seeing the world in such a drab and boring way, because to me it is much more beautiful to know that had something in the past gone 1 of a billion different ways I would have been something entirely different if anything at all. I like being this ape that I am and I like being able to discern bullshit and myths from what appears to be common everyday occurances. I want to apologize for what seems to be the death of God, not from science, but from religious atrophy and apathetic laziness. Yes science has harmed the religious, and they seem to have taken it personally, but that is a mistake, science is not personal, sadly, for if it was we would have a lot more 'devout believers' in science than in things such as transubstantiation and dietic rape. The death of God is not a literal term to me, but more of the nietzschean version. The idea of the God of the past.


please note that these are my opinions, not yours. I am sorry if you take offense to them, but I am not sorry for who I am.

irishjayhawk
03-26-2008, 04:39 PM
Closeminded?
Here are a few quotes from “pure” evolutionists – some from Mr. Darwin himself. I included general quotes about the “holes” in evolution from evolutionists, and a few regarding transitional fossils, since many of my comments were discounted. I have taken the liberty to bold certain parts. Enjoy…

There are some problems here. You are going under the assumption that if there are "holes" that it is an inherently BAD thing. This is a false assumption to make. Such an overarching Theory is bound to have holes. I need to quote - ironically it was said today (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/journalistic_flibbertigibbet.php):

Nobody (well, other than creationists, that is) argues against theories because they're incomplete; every theory is incomplete. I don't even know what a complete theory would look like.I cannot stress this enough. There isn't a theory that doesn't have holes in it. So I don't really understand your point.



"A general theory of biological evolution should include within its domain a number of problems that have hitherto resisted solution within the broad confines of the Darwinian, or indeed any other, research tradition. These problems include how life evolved from nonlife;There is a word for what you are doing. It's called quote-mining. Moreover, this paper is wrong, although free to assert that evolution SHOULD address it, that evolution must answer how life evolved from nonlife. The theory doesn't even attempt to answer that. Period. That's the Big Bang or like theories.

how developmental programs evolve; what impact, if any, developmental dynamics have on the evolution of species; the relation between ecological dynamics and species diversification; and what is the best way of conceiving the mix between pattern and contingency in phylogeny. ... Our list of questions is not entirely haphazard. The origins of life, development, ecology, phylogenesis-these are the big questions that people think of when they hear the word *evolution*. It is answers to these questions that people want from evolutionists. That is why they so often feel put off when Darwinians confine themselves to talking about changing gene frequencies in populations and to throwing cold water on ideas about evolutionary direction, meaning, and progress." (Depew, David J. [Professor, Department of Communication Studies, University of Iowa] & Weber, Bruce H. [Professor of Biochemistry, California State University, Fullarton], "Darwinism Evolving: Systems Dynamics and the Genealogy of Natural Selection," [1995], MIT Press: Cambridge MA, 1997, Second printing, p.393. Emphasis in original).Thank you for highlighting my point above. They are suggesting evolution address those issues because people have confused other things (creation of life) with evolution, when, in fact, evolution is BASED on the assumption that life exists. Moreover, science never attempts to assign any (greater) meaning to why things happen. They can explain the meanings of the implications but not meanings like "why are we here".


"Personally, I consider fundamentalist creationism to be a far sillier idea than the craziest of all the crazy notions which scientists have ever proposed; but as scientists gloat over the deficiencies of non-scientific accounts of our origin and evolution, they should not ignore the considerable deficiencies in their own account. At the moment scientists certainly do not know how, of even if, life originated on earth from lifeless atoms. They do have a few plausible ideas on the subject, but many more rather implausible ones. (Scott, Andrew , "The Creation of Life: Past, Future, Alien," Basil Blackwell: Oxford UK, 1986, p.112). Once again, you are still confusing creation with evolution. They are NOT the same. Apparently, this writer doesn't understand that either. Your bolding just illustrates your naivety. For example, you bold "many more rather implausible ones." Yet, neither you or the author (perhaps because you ended the quote) state which are implausible ones. Moreover, you fail to realize the admission directly in front of the bold which says they have plausible ones. And not just one but a few.

"But what if the vast majority of scientists all have faith in the one unverified idea? The modern 'standard' scientific version of the origin of life on earth is one such idea, and we would be wise to check its real merit with great care. Has the cold blade of reason been applied with sufficient vigour in this case? Most scientists want to believe that life could have emerged spontaneously from the primeval waters, because it would confirm their belief in the explicability of Nature - the belief that all could be explained in terms of particles and energy and forces if only we had the time and the necessary intellect. They also want to believe because their arch opponents - religious fundamentalists such as creationists - do not believe in life's spontaneous origin. It is this combative atmosphere which sometimes encourages scientists writing and speaking about the origin of life to become as dogmatic and bigoted as the creationist opponents they so despise." (Scott, Andrew , "The Creation of Life: Past, Future, Alien," Basil Blackwell: Oxford UK, 1986, pp.111-112. Emphasis in original).Here your, or rather, the author's intentions are well meant. He is merely saying that sometimes scientists can be close-minded. I pointed this out earlier. The problem once again is that most of this is 100% pure conjecture. How does Scott Andrews know why most scientists believe this way? How does he know they just want to oppose religious fundamentalists? Does he realize that religious fundamentalists have been infiltrating and using science - wrongly - to support a preconceived notion? Just see the entire background on Expelled and it's makers for an example there.

"[B]The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt (John and Miklos 1988, 307)." (Wesson, Robert G. [political scientist and philosopher], "Beyond Natural Selection," [1991], MIT Press: Cambridge MA, 1994, reprint, p45).Really? The gaps are real? OMGLOLHELICOPTERZ!!!! Seriously, this a) out dated and b) horribly inaccurate (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#gaps). Is it hard to believe that one of the main reasons there are apparent gaps is because the fossil record is not perfect - as in some are broken, not preserved, etc? This one is clearly the weakest thus far.

"Darwin predicted that the fossil record should show a reasonably smooth continuum of ancestor-descendant pairs with a satisfactory number of intermediates between major groups Darwin even went so far as to say that if this were not found in the fossil record, his general theory of evolution would be in serious jeopardy. Such smooth transitions were not found in Darwin's time, and he explained this in part on the basis of an incomplete geologic record and in part on the lack of study of that record. We are now more than a hundred years after Darwin and the situation is little changed. Since Darwin a tremendous expansion of paleontological knowledge has taken place, and we know much more about the fossil record than was known in his time, but the basic situation is not much different. We actually may have fewer examples of smooth transition than we had in Darwin's time because some of the old examples have turned out to be invalid when studied in more detail. To be sure, some new intermediate or transitional forms have been found, particularly among land vertebrates. But if Darwin were writing today, he would probably still have to cite a disturbing lack of missing links or transitional forms between the major groups of organisms." (Raup, David M. [Professor of Geology, University of Chicago], "Geological and Paleontological Arguments," in Godfrey L.R., ed., "Scientists Confront Creationism," W.W. Norton: New York NY, 1983, p.156).Unfortunately, Darwin also thought his theory wouldn't catch on. And, unfortunately, we are (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html) not in jeopardy. (and the source is also outdated)

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossils):
In 1859, when Charles Darwin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin)'s On the Origin of Species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species) was first published, the fossil record was poorly known, and Darwin described the lack of transitional fossils as "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory", but explained it by the extreme imperfection of the geological record.<sup id="cite_ref-0" class="reference">[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossils#cite_note-0)</sup> This illustrates what Darwin said, exactly. Also, it highlights an extremely plausible reason for why the fossils appear to have gaps: the geological record is imperfect.

You also might want to click on the link from "Wikipedia" to take you to the Transitional Fossil place. There you will see a section entitled Misconceptions and many citations contained to back this up. Or you can venture over here to see the claim you are making throughly debunked by a whopping 25 sources. (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html)

"Evolution at the level of populations and species might, in some cases, appear as nearly continuous change accompanied by divergence to occupy much of the available morphospace. However, this is certainly not true for long-term, large-scale evolution, such as that of the metazoan phyla, which include most of the taxa that formed the basis for the evolutionary synthesis. The most striking features of large-scale evolution are the extremely rapid divergence of lineages near the time of their origin, followed by long periods in which basic body plans and ways of life are retained. What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types." (Carroll, Robert L. [Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology, Redpath Museum, McGill University, Canada ], "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2000, Vol. 15, pp.27-32, p.27).Again, you keep repeating the same thing over and over yet you haven't bothered to look at any of the links UP, bowener or I have kindly provided. And I must, once again, highlight that your continual quotation of this is an example of why the scientific community appears to be "close minded": people don't listen to them and come up with other theories that have no merit.

"But I do not pretend that I should ever have suspected how poor was the record in the best preserved geological sections, had not the absence of innumerable transitional links between the species which lived at the commencement and close of each formation, pressed so hardly on my theory." (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, p.311).Don't really see how this helps your case. He didn't have a good fossil record then. Now, we have a much more expanded record. Thus, I cannot see why you included this other than a "the author doubted his own claim and therefore it must not be true" line of thinking.

"He who rejects this view of the imperfection of the geological record, will rightly reject the whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species found in the successive stages of the same great formation?" (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, p.343).Notice what you highlight and what it actually says. It says that for what you bolded, you must first reject the entire notion that the geological record is imperfect.

In other words, you are saying that you believe the fossil record is 100% accurate and recoverable.

"But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record." (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and joint founder of the modern theory of evolution], "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, pp.292-293).When in doubt, quote things over and over even though there are plenty of sources that have since come to back up Darwin's claim AND debunk your quote-mining and bolding. (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html)

"Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils." (Patterson, Colin [late Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London], letter 10 April 1979, in Sunderland L.D., "Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems," [1984], Master Book Publishers: El Cajon CA, Fourth Edition, 1988, p.89).See above. Oh, and you seem to be laboring under the impression people are infallible and that once you say something you can never, ever, be proven wrong (or right, in the case of Darwin).

".. I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?' (Patterson, Colin [late Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London], letter 10 April 1979, in Sunderland L.D., "Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems," [1984], Master Book Publishers: El Cajon CA, Fourth Edition, 1988, p.89). Again, this is a good 20 years out dated. Moreover, there are plenty of transitional fossils. How many times must this be repeated?

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution. (Gould, Stephen Jay [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University, USA], "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?," Paleobiology, Vol. 6, No. 1, January 1980, p.127).Again, out dated. Perhaps this:

Lets let Dr. Gould speak for what his views are. In his “Evolution as Fact and Theory” published in the May 1981 issue of Discover reprinted in his Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393311031/creationilies-20) he wrote: We [Gould and Niles Eldredge] proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the differential success of certain kind of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuations and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane.
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether though design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. [B]Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled “Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution is a Hoax” states: “The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God revealed to us in the Bible.”
Continuing the distortion, several creationists have equated the theory of punctuated equilibrium with a caricature of the beliefs of Richard Goldschmidt, a great early geneticist. Goldschmidt argued, in a famous book published in 1949, that new groups can arise all at once through major mutations. He referred to these suddenly transformed creatures as “hopeful monsters.” (I am attracted to some aspects of the non-caricatured version, but Goldschmidt’s theory still has nothing to do with punctuated equilibrium…) Creationist Luther Sunderland talks of the “punctuated equilibrium hopeful monster theory” and tells his hopeful readers that “it amounts to tacit admission that anti-evolutionists are correct in asserting there is no fossil evidence supporting the theory that all life is connected to a common ancestor.” Duane Gish writes, “According to Goldschmidt, and now apparently according to Gould, a reptile laid an egg from which the first bird, feathers and all, was produced.” Any evolutionist who believed such nonsense would rightly be laughed off the intellectual stage; yet the only theory that could ever envision such a scenario for the origin of birds is creationism—with God acting in the egg. [My emphasis.]
Or there's this (http://www.indiana.edu/%7Eoso/evolution/teaching/te2a.htm). Or this (http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/03/transitional-fo.html). Or this (http://thinktoomuch.net/2008/03/16/batten-2-transitional-fossils-and-quote-mining/).

Or there's this video:
<object height="355" width="425">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/O4GdZOlPrX8&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="355" width="425"></object>

Or this video:
<object height="355" width="425">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XUcB_HiCKnM&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="355" width="425"></object>

PHILLYSCREEN
03-26-2008, 04:44 PM
looks interesting

Samson
03-26-2008, 04:54 PM
doesn't it?

bowener
03-26-2008, 05:02 PM
I know I shouldnt but, ROFL at the end of video 1!

bowener
03-26-2008, 05:04 PM
looks interesting

You should know better. All of this is made up by evil evil men who want you to question God. Shame on you for finding this interesting.

Sorry, I got bored with all of this and want to joke around now.

bowener
03-26-2008, 05:10 PM
WAIT!? irishjawhawk, you mean to tell me that there are strict rules and standards of calssifying fossils? You actually expect me to believe that we have these guidelines all set out so that we can accurately place fossils and species in correct placement? We dont just find them and pile them up and point at them and say, 'there they are?' This is so mind blowing, and absolutely impossible.

Samson
03-26-2008, 05:13 PM
I do respect the time it took for both of you write what you did. I'll go back to one of my original comments on the documentary...

I think a lot of folks (including scientists, teachers, students, laypeople, etc.) are just tired that their belief in a Creator...an Intelligent Designer...is always quick to be jumped-on by evolutionary purists.

Evolution does not answer everything, but I don't think it should or ever will. Mysteries of orgins will always exist. I think the frustration is that when a layperson questions the evolutionary dogma, they are quickly perceived as uneducated (been called that today in this thread), or a religous fanatic (haven't been called that in this thread, but if you guys were honest, you would admit that you thought it)...or both.

Just to clear up the debate, my faith is very important to me. I am educated as I received my Master's Degress from KU, and I taught high school biology for over 10 years. I know religion and intelligent design have no place in a science classrooom, but I also know the evolutionary dogma stronghold is so great, it minimized productive class disscussion (see my comments about the organic soup theory in textbooks above).

I'm not posting to try to change your thoughts, but I would ask that you respect my views as well. Look how quick both of you were to jump on my comments and quotes from this "rookie" poster...LONG posts at that. Says a lot about the feelings those that do choose to believe in an Intelligent Designer have...you fit the bill.

I am an evolutionist in many ways. There are countless examples of it, both observable and non. However, I personally have questions with some parts that are generally accepted by the scientific community. And as I've stated before, I feel some of these areas require the same faith and/or belief that the IDs have. And if you choose to discuss those issues, always be prepared for a fight.

I'll leave it at that and thank you for responding.

a1na2
03-26-2008, 05:24 PM
You are dumb.

I consider the source, you calling someone dumb is an oxymoron.

irishjayhawk
03-26-2008, 05:32 PM
I do respect the time it took for both of you write what you did. I'll go back to one of my original comments on the documentary...

Thank you, but I think I speak for both of us that it's all futile if no one comes out of it with no new information.

I think a lot of folks (including scientists, teachers, students, laypeople, etc.) are just tired that their belief in a Creator...an Intelligent Designer...is always quick to be jumped-on by evolutionary purists.

Is it shot down without good reason? Perhaps because it's not science?

Evolution does not answer everything, but I don't think it should or ever will.

It doesn't attempt to.

Mysteries of orgins will always exist.

A reasonable conjecture to make, though I disagree.

I think the frustration is that when a layperson questions the evolutionary dogma, they are quickly perceived as uneducated (been called that today in this thread), or a religous fanatic (haven't been called that in this thread, but if you guys were honest, you would admit that you thought it)...or both.

Have you anything to the contrary (uneducated)? When does perception translate into truth? That is, when does the label of someone start to actually represent the truth: they are uneducated?


Just to clear up the debate, my faith is very important to me. I am educated as I received my Master's Degress from KU, and I taught high school biology for over 10 years. I know religion and intelligent design have no place in a science classrooom, but I also know the evolutionary dogma stronghold is so great, it minimized productive class disscussion (see my comments about the organic soup theory in textbooks above).

At least you can acknowledge that ID doesn't belong in the science classroom. Yet, at the same time, you are advocating it being scientific by saying scientists immediately dismiss it. So you're somewhat hypocritical.

Now, a master's degree and the fact that you taught high school biology for 10 years doesn't necessarily mean you are educated in certain fronts. For example, transitional fossils. Likewise, I am not educated on some of the theories you have called into question. The difference is I will admit to an area I know nothing about. I have not seen you admit, upon investigating our links and videos, that transitional fossils might actually exist.

I'm not posting to try to change your thoughts, but I would ask that you respect my views as well. Look how quick both of you were to jump on my comments and quotes from this "rookie" poster...LONG posts at that. Says a lot about the feelings those that do choose to believe in an Intelligent Designer have...you fit the bill.

You are assuming I looked at your post count and deduced certain things. I jumped on your comments because they are factually wrong. Are they not?

Again, you are confusing the line on a) when assumptions are made b) what assumptions are made c) when assumptions become truth and d) are assuming that some views be respected no matter what they are.

Should the view that 2+2=5 be respected? Should the view that the sky is purple be respected? What about Scientology, should it be respected?

Point is: there are some views that should not be respected. Am I saying your's is one of them? Maybe.


I am an evolutionist in many ways. There are countless examples of it, both observable and non. However, I personally have questions with some parts that are generally accepted by the scientific community. And as I've stated before, I feel some of these areas require the same faith and/or belief that the IDs have. And if you choose to discuss those issues, always be prepared for a fight.

I'll leave it at that and thank you for responding.

I'm interested in what you find the scientific community is accepting on faith. I'm also curious as to the examples of your evolutionist tendencies. And I'm also curious as to your evidence for any of your views. You've quote-mined, but aside from that have offered very little and ignored a vast amount.

However, I do thank you for not being offended. Sometimes when people are explaining things it can come off as condescending. And some of it may have been, I fear. But it is through this discourse that we can move forward. I would hope you continue the discussion by addressing some of the points made.

irishjayhawk
03-28-2008, 05:30 PM
I always aim to misbehave (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/i_always_aim_to_misbehave.php)

Some of you know that the producers of Expelled had a conference call this afternoon…a carefully controlled, closed environment in which they would spout their nonsense and only take questions by email. I listened to it for a while, and yeah, it was the usual run-around. However, I dialed in a few minutes early, and got to listen to a tiresome five minutes of Leslie and Paul chatting away, during which time they mentioned the secret code (DUNH DUNH DUNNNNH!) for the two way calls. I know. Sloppy, unprofessional, and stupid, but that's the way they work.


So … I redialed. (DUNH DUNH DUNNNNH!)


Then I listened along quietly until I could take no more.


They repeated the usual lies (the Minneapolis event was a private screening [which was publicly linked on the web, where any idiot could get to it]; their blog was #1 on blogpulse [near as I can tell, it wasn't—it was my exposure of their hypocrisy (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php) that was #1]; they didn't lie to get interviews [totally bogus (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/im_gonna_be_a_movie_star.php)], etc.). They made amusing contradictions. Walt Ruloff first claims that the genesis of the movie was in 2006, when he claims to have started investigating biotechnology and discovered that there are "questions that can't be asked" and that people were suppressing information that called Darwinism into doubt — note, though, that he never stated what those unnameable questions are. A moment later Mark Mathis comes on to say that the subject of the film was a work in progress, that they hadn't settled anything, and that the name wasn't even decided upon.


Come on, they registered expelledthemovie.com in early 2007 (http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2008/03/20/expelled-from-expelled/), well before they asked us to be interviewed.


They threw out a bunch of softball questions to Ben Stein: "How can you be so intelligent and question Darwinism", I kid you not.


One good question got through on email: KMOX radio contested the claim that there was no distortion of the interviews of Dawkins and Myers because they surrounded the interviews with film clips of Nazis — I think it's obvious how they were trying to bias the discussion, and I was floored by Stein's reply. He wanted more goose-stepping Nazis all over the place.
This was all a great deal to stomach, but I restrained myself. Then Mathis really started to lie: he said that all anybody ever blogged about was distractions, and several times he claimed that we never addressed the content of the movie. Let's set aside the rank hypocrisy of expelling the people interviewed in the movie from screenings so we couldn't see it; it's simply not true. We have blogged extensively on the ridiculous premise at the heart of the movie, that the Holocaust was a consequence of evolutionary theory.


Here's one of my entries in this subject (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/ahistorical_garbage_from_the_p.php).


Here's Richard Dawkins' review (http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins), which discusses the bogus Nazi connection quite a bit.


John Wilkins has an excellent post on Darwinism and racism (http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2006/08/darwin_and_the_holocaust_whats_1.php).


The Panda's Thumb has discussed (http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/05/from-darwin-to.html) the false (http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/08/kennedy-hitler.html) connection several times.


So I interrupted. I said, in essence, hang on -- you guys are spinning out a lot of lies here, you should be called on it. I gave a quick gloss on it, and said that, for instance, anti-semitism has a long history in Germany that preceded Darwin, and that they ought to look up the word "pogrom". There was some mad rustling and flustering about on the other side of the phone some complaints, etc., and then one of them asked me to do the honorable thing and hang up…so I said yes, I would do the honorable thing and hang up while they continued the dishonorable thing and continued to lie.


Then I announced that if any reporters were listening in, they could contact me at pzmyers@gmail.com (https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cm&tf=0&ui=1&to=pzmyers@gmail.com) and I'd be happy to talk to them.


So excuse me, I've got a few dozen emails in my inbox right now.


Not that much on Expelled per se rather than one of the interviewee's speaking out against the film. And it does provide some new links for anyone paying attention.

Also, if anyone is actually interested in seeing this *cough*film*cough, it opens April 28th.

irishjayhawk
04-04-2008, 12:03 AM
Not to beat a dead horse, but since I've kept tabs on the developments through this thread, I thought I'd pass this along:

http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2008/04/expelled_in_tempe_the_expected.php

Expelled in Tempe: The Expected Happens
Category: Anti-evolution • In Their Own Words • Intelligent Design
Posted on: April 3, 2008 9:50 PM, by John Lynch

Remember the e-mail I received stating that tonight’s Expelled screening in Tempe was canceled? The e-mail simply stated:

The Tempe, AZ Screening has been canceled.

Well, Ken McKnight called the theater today two or so hours before the screening. Ken says:

I just called the Arizona Mills Harkins theater and said that I had heard that the private screening of Expelled had been moved from 7:00 to 6:00 (I didn’t mention that I had been emailed that the showing was canceled). The person I spoke to confirmed that the movie is showing today at 6:00. Clearly the promoters are somehow screening the attendees and then sending out cancellation notices to the "undesirables."

There you go. Lying. Plain and simple and there is no way they can spin that.

Update: Brad was there and offers this report. The show indeed went on, despite being "canceled".


And the comment he references:
I just posted this in the last thread before I noticed this one.

I just got back from the theater and yes there was indeed a screening. I wasn't on the list, but managed to get in anyway. After getting interrogated as to which church I was with and finally approval from the man behind the curtain whom I never saw, I was admitted into the theater just as the movie was starting.

I told them I was not associated with a church here, that I am from Ohio and a friend sent me a link to the RSVP page. While that's all true (assuming I can consider the fine folks here at scienceblogs friends) and I didn't explicitly lie, I certainly represented it in such a way that would make them reach an erroneous conclusion.

The movie itself is exactly what I expected after reading various reviews online; a mismatch of lies and propaganda. I leave the descriptions to more adept writers. I was ridiculous to hear the gasps of horror at some of the pieced together "quotes" from Dawkins, PZ et al. The audience seemed especially offended with PZ's "religion should be like knitting" description.

I couldn't stay for the Q&A however, as I have some deliverables due next week that I need to work on. I'd be interested to read any accounts of that if anyone else managed to get in.

I'm almost certain the change to 6pm was a filter mechanism after the PZ/Dawkins debacle. When the attendant couldn't find my name on the list I mentioned that I had RSVP'd online, at which point he asked me "6 or 7?" I said that I received an email about the time change last week which seemed to satisfy him. I however didn't mention that I got the screening has been canceled email.

Chiefs_5627
04-04-2008, 02:33 AM
Not to beat a dead horse, but since I've kept tabs on the developments through this thread, I thought I'd pass this along:

http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2008/04/expelled_in_tempe_the_expected.php




And the comment he references:



Ben Stein tap your old lady or something?!? Damn. :shake:

irishjayhawk
04-15-2008, 11:55 PM
There are two reasons I'm posting in this thread today. First, the movie comes out this Friday. Second, I have two bits of new information to pass along.

The first is that www.expelledexposed.com went live. It's now a resource that debunks every claim made by Stein and his henchmen instead of a compilation of links to other reviews and news. It's a pretty good read for a lot of it.

The second is just plain funny:

THEY PLAGIARIZED AGAIN!

http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2008/04/expelled-erv-finally-gets-angry.html

Make that 2 videos that are straight copies of other pre-existing videos. One from Harvard and one from, none other than, PBS.

mikey23545
04-16-2008, 05:47 AM
There are two reasons I'm posting in this thread today. First, the movie comes out this Friday. Second, I have two bits of new information to pass along.

The first is that www.expelledexposed.com went live. It's now a resource that debunks every claim made by Stein and his henchmen instead of a compilation of links to other reviews and news. It's a pretty good read for a lot of it.

The second is just plain funny:

THEY PLAGIARIZED AGAIN!

http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2008/04/expelled-erv-finally-gets-angry.html

Make that 2 videos that are straight copies of other pre-existing videos. One from Harvard and one from, none other than, PBS.

I personally don't care much about this movie one way or the other (I am an atheist, btw), but if nothing in this movie is true, why the incredibly violent reaction by those accused of blackballing and censorship?

Sorry, but innocent people just don't react this way...

tiptap
04-16-2008, 08:20 AM
I personally don't care much about this movie one way or the other (I am an atheist, btw), but if nothing in this movie is true, why the incredibly violent reaction by those accused of blackballing and censorship?

Sorry, but innocent people just don't react this way...

The debate is not simply a philosophical one. There are real consequences, say treating disease for example. (Cancer is usually used in this regard.) Determining pathogens depends upon markers that are related to phylogenetic trees. So to introduce evolution as wrong is to remove the uniting piece of thought that helps direct research. This practical aspect is upheld by creationists in their acceptance of Microevolution. (It doesn't go far enough to account for the fusion of Chromosome 2 of humans from two separate chromosomes in other apes. It doesn't go far enough to explain viruses fused in our chromosomes as being the same as apes.) And there are real consequences to our understanding to discredit evolution.

And the way the ID people have decided to do that (as revealed in the Dover trial) is to argue that ID is being attacked unfairly. That it should be given equal footing intellectually based upon fairness. This film is of that ilk. What it fails to talk about is that ID doesn't have any value in investigating biological systems. It is by its nature not looking to understand how things occurred. Because by understanding the process then that removes the argument that it is making to state that there is some intelligent intervention.

If there were not real consequences there would not be real commitment to festoon the notion.

irishjayhawk
04-16-2008, 09:31 AM
I personally don't care much about this movie one way or the other (I am an atheist, btw), but if nothing in this movie is true, why the incredibly violent reaction by those accused of blackballing and censorship?

Sorry, but innocent people just don't react this way...

It's propaganda. I don't think you'd argue that Nazi propaganda would be a bad thing and the Jews reacting against it were innocent.

That's a pretty weak argument.

Just look at our country and see the unreason, failing logic, ignorant masses that happen to be comfortable in their ignorance. And see why science has to fight back.

Also, there is nothing violent. Just persistent. You don't see the scientists shooting, bombing, etc. Hell I doubt you'll see them protest it in person. And further, in a court of law, are you suggesting that when someone is accused of something they go quietly otherwise they are guilty.....

Adept Havelock
04-16-2008, 09:50 AM
I personally don't care much about this movie one way or the other (I am an atheist, btw), but if nothing in this movie is true, why the incredibly violent reaction by those accused of blackballing and censorship?

Sorry, but innocent people just don't react this way...

Why the reaction? Violent reaction? Have there been incidents of assault and battery or murder? Rioting at the theaters? I don't think so. Let me put it this way...it's as if a new expansion team tries to join the NFL (Scientific Community), but due to the way they are built they can't compete according to the basic rules of the NFL (or, the Scientific Method). So they insist (and file lawsuits, and put out BS propaganda) in an attempt to force the NFL to change their rules so they can play too. I think the NFL wouldn't respond favorably, nor should the Scientific Community.

ID is based on Irreducible Complexity. Irreducible Complexity is not falsifiable, and thus not subject to the Scientific Method. If it's not subject to the Scientific Method, guess what? It's not part of Science. That's a simple fact, no matter how much Ben Stein kvetches and derides the Scientific Method as mere "dogma".

Why should Scientists heed people who have the goal of changing the definition and fundamental basis of Science (the search for natural explanations) just so ID can be taught in Science classes? That's akin to insisting we teach Astrology in Astronomy class, Phrenology in Psychology class, or Leeching in Medical School, in order to "teach the controversy".

Teach ID in schools for all I care, but teach it as what it is...Philosophy.

This doesn't deserve "hate" from the Scientific Community. It deserves laughter at it's utter absurdity.

JMO.

markk
04-16-2008, 10:15 AM
hadn't heard much about this but i just checked and it is showing in my town. i'll go see it on friday.

i didnt even know what this was about really until i heard of people complaining and making websites about it and such. the negative publicity is probably the best promotion that the film makers could ask for.

Adept Havelock
04-16-2008, 10:17 AM
hadn't heard much about this but i just checked and it is showing in my town. i'll go see it on friday.

i didnt even know what this was about really until i heard of people complaining and making websites about it and such. the negative publicity is probably the best promotion that the film makers could ask for.

I'm sure that was part of the thought process when it was put together. By getting the Scientific Community and it's supporters to address the absurdity, whether positively or negatively, one gives some measure of credence to that absurdity. That is the essence of propaganda. :shrug:

As for my moviegoing dollars, I'll be spending them this weekend on "The Forbidden Kingdom". It probably won't make me laugh as much as "Expelled" would, but the money won't support the ID movement, so it's a win/win. :D

irishjayhawk
04-16-2008, 02:02 PM
I'm sure that was part of the thought process when it was put together. By getting the Scientific Community and it's supporters to address the absurdity, whether positively or negatively, one gives some measure of credence to that absurdity. That is the essence of propaganda. :shrug:

As for my moviegoing dollars, I'll be spending them this weekend on "The Forbidden Kingdom". It probably won't make me laugh as much as "Expelled" would, but the money won't support the ID movement, so it's a win/win. :D

Forgetting Sarah Marshall gets mine. ;)