Jump to content

Ben Stein, the Michael Moore of intelligent design?


flaps15

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 534
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Science is best equipped to deal with things that belong to and are bound by the natural world. Any designer by definition must be outside of that which is created.

 

Every time something is unknown or unexplainable by current knowledge scientists could either say I can figure this out or declare it the unknowable work of god. Progress is made when the former approach is taken.

 

Scientists are not being asked to not believe in God. Scientists are not even being asked to ignore having a sense of awe in the complexity of what they are discovering.

 

What they are being asked is that while they speaking as scientists - that the behave like scientists.

 

Using scientific inquiry to look for god is a little like trying to find out how much something weighs using only a stopwatch.

If there is a designer then all scientific inquiry is a search for the designer. If there is a designer scientists are behaving like scientists when looking for the designer. Your arguement rests on the presumption that there is no designer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If there is a designer then all scientific inquiry is a search for the designer. If there is a designer scientists are behaving like priests when looking for the designer. Your arguement rests on the presumption that there is no designer.

 

Fixed...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Normally Dog presents a fairly strong debate, but me thinks he's been hitting the Jesus Juice.

FYI...I am anything but a religious man. I don't pretend to know the truth like some around here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the fatal flaw in intellegent design is that one has to effectively reject the concept of randomness. As time goes on matter goes from a state of order to a state of greater randomness. The universe expands, it gets less constrained and therefore more random. This is a basic of thermodynamics and seems to hold throughout the universe. In intelligent design, this concept of randomness, the true lack of force to bring things into line, does not exist. It is set by some unseen hand. There is no inbetween in the same way Heisenbergs cat cannot be half dead. Do you reject the concept that there can be a random event? Or are all things determined?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that the fatal flaw in intellegent design is that one has to effectively reject the concept of randomness. As time goes on matter goes from a state of order to a state of greater randomness. The universe expands, it gets less constrained and therefore more random. This is a basic of thermodynamics and seems to hold throughout the universe. In intelligent design, this concept of randomness, the true lack of force to bring things into line, does not exist. It is set by some unseen hand. There is no inbetween in the same way Heisenbergs cat cannot be half dead. Do you reject the concept that there can be a random event? Or are all things determined?

A related problem is that it also violates parsimony by postulating a completely unknown and very powerful agency.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If there is a designer then all scientific inquiry is a search for the designer. If there is a designer scientists are behaving like scientists when looking for the designer. Your arguement rests on the presumption that there is no designer.

 

 

Is all medical inquiry the search for the designer? Certainly medicine and science have a large intersection. Should medical research halt looking for cures for cancer and begin looking for an ID?

 

My point, aside from pointing out your obvious overstatement, is that science is looking for solutions and answers. Science at this point is looking for rules, not the creator of the rules.

 

You are completely mistaken that my argument is dependent on the presumption that there is no designer. Science should be agnostic about the existence of an ID until it can prove it one way or the other.

 

Getting back to Helios and the sun cart, science has done a good job in disproving this theory. Should a scientist take this to mean that there is no god? Of course not, but he or she should be pretty confident in saying that Helios in the manner that the Greeks pictured him is incorrect.

 

That is the proper role for science in religion. Neither saying that there is no god or ID nor saying that there is scientific evidence of one when there is not.

 

I will grant you that there are atheists who are willing to overstate the role of science as it relates to theological questions. But this does not excuse the religious who are either trying to deny or hijack science in defense of god. Both sides are wrong. To say otherwise is the old story about trying to use 'but he murdered more people than me' to prove innocence.

 

Seeing god or ID in a dna strand is not the same thing as reaching a scientific conclusion that an ID exists. Would we accept a 'scientific' opinion that there must be an ID because I saw a beautiful meadow where everything worked together? Much of the so called studies that are being rejected by scientific peers are basically this same discussion but either a much larger or smaller scale.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that the fatal flaw in intellegent design is that one has to effectively reject the concept of randomness. As time goes on matter goes from a state of order to a state of greater randomness. The universe expands, it gets less constrained and therefore more random. This is a basic of thermodynamics and seems to hold throughout the universe. In intelligent design, this concept of randomness, the true lack of force to bring things into line, does not exist. It is set by some unseen hand. There is no inbetween in the same way Heisenbergs cat cannot be half dead. Do you reject the concept that there can be a random event? Or are all things determined?

 

I may be crazy, but I thought I heard the other day something on NPR? about randomness being mathematically predictable. Does that sound correct to anyone? Something to do with Fractals?

 

Edit: Yes, this is what I heard. Linky

Link to post
Share on other sites
I may be crazy, but I thought I heard the other day something on NPR? about randomness being mathematically predictable. Does that sound correct to anyone? Something to do with Fractals?

 

not surprising - you can count on malarkey to make some random negative comment about DemocRATS - entirely perdictable...

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that the fatal flaw in intellegent design is that one has to effectively reject the concept of randomness. As time goes on matter goes from a state of order to a state of greater randomness. The universe expands, it gets less constrained and therefore more random. This is a basic of thermodynamics and seems to hold throughout the universe. In intelligent design, this concept of randomness, the true lack of force to bring things into line, does not exist. It is set by some unseen hand. There is no inbetween in the same way Heisenbergs cat cannot be half dead. Do you reject the concept that there can be a random event? Or are all things determined?

 

 

I don't think that randomness has to be rejected given the theory of Intelligent Design. I am not sure that I see the correlation. Are you using randomness as the opposite of physical determination?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think that randomness has to be rejected given the theory of Intelligent Design. I am not sure that I see the correlation. Are you using randomness as the opposite of physical determination?

 

This whole thing about predicting uncertainty chases its own tail, because prediction implies uncertainty implies randomness. That is the study of statistics.

 

One of the standard arguments in theology seems to be the rocket launch view of existence vs the continual push. The first approach says that all laws were determined at the instant of the Big Bang and left to its own from there. All the "Intellegent Design" was instituted at that instant. The latter approach is seen in Genesis. It took seven days. Things were designed and, if you want to take it to extremes, haven't changed in the last 6000 years of existence. The latter does not sound like your interpretation.

 

However, there is an issue with the first approach. I agree there is a bit of the Zeno paradoxes here. All of the non-randomness has to be instituted in the first instant. At the second instant, if there is true randomness, there is less design and on and on. As time goes on, there has to be less determination of the outcome, therefore, less design. This is truly seen in the laws of thermodynamics. There is no design in randomness.

 

There is now a monkey wrench thrown in the works. The laws of thermodynamics do not hold where life is involved. A life form creates order when it is born and growing, but goes to greater randomness when it dies, so, overall the randomness is increasing.

 

It is only with the presence of life that we can even have a concept such as randomness. We get into tail chasing again here and relies heavily on the moment of genesis not being the Big Bang, but that instant an amino acid was formed. Was that first amino acid a random event? It has possibilities.

 

All this is standard Physics 300 and Philosophy 400 stuff, so I am not creating my own paradigm here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A related problem is that it also violates parsimony by postulating a completely unknown and very powerful agency.

 

Just when I swore off this topic it gets more interesting...

 

I think that you mistake parsimony as it applies here.

 

There are two issues in ID as I see it. One is the creation of the inert universe. The second is the beginning of life. We define life with any standard definition without running into an issue.

 

Lets look at the creation of the universe.

 

We can take three views of it as they relate to this discussion.

 

1. The universe is a completely natural entity with no outside influence created by the big bang.

2. The universe is created by God as described in the bible.

3. The universe is created by an external supernatural intelligent designer using the big bang.

 

2 and 3 postulate your unknown very powerful agent. Does Occam's razor indicate that 1 is the simplest best answer?

 

Not so fast. 1 still has questions left to answer. The universe had a beginning in time (or with time if you prefer) But something must have caused it. Even if the cause is within itself it needs to answer why it formed and why it formed when it did. There are many theories among various physicists and I won't embarrass myself trying to discuss them with any authority. One theory is that we still don't know enough and that the current models of the universe never contracting are wrong. It expands, cools and contracts like a never ending yo-yo. Another theory that I have heard is that black holes or some other mechanism create their own universe. There are parent universes giving birth to others.

 

The reason that I bring these theories up it to show that view 1 needs to postulate some unknowns as well as 2 and 3 do.

 

Occam's Razor doesn't so much say that the theory with the less crap in is most likely to be right as it says that among similar theories the theory that explains the data while making the fewest assertions is more likely to be correct.

 

For example if I suddenly came to lying in the road in considerable pain, I could make two guesses.

 

a. I got hit by an automobile.

b. I got hit by a yellow 2002 VW Passat

 

Occam's Razor says that a is more likely to be correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just when I swore off this topic it gets more interesting...

 

OMG, I think this might be a first for PA; a discussion that regained a level of intellectual significance after devolving to a series of contradictions.

Thanks

NS

Link to post
Share on other sites
OMG, I think this might be a first for PA; a discussion that regained a level of intellectual significance after devolving to a series of contradictions.

Thanks

NS

 

We are in PA? I hadn't noticed. I just sort of thought it was GA.

 

where is my mud?

Link to post
Share on other sites
However, there is an issue with the first approach. I agree there is a bit of the Zeno paradoxes here. All of the non-randomness has to be instituted in the first instant. At the second instant, if there is true randomness, there is less design and on and on. As time goes on, there has to be less determination of the outcome, therefore, less design. This is truly seen in the laws of thermodynamics. There is no design in randomness.

 

 

Interesting. I see what you are getting at. But if everything is expanding from moment to moment can't there be both more randomness and more design all at once?

 

The second law of thermodynamics calls for less order but this is not the same as less design or more randomness to use non ID terms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like your argument on that.

 

I am trying to stay away from that dreaded word entropy. Instead I use the term randomness. There is a standard high school look at the process. Sugar cubes with a heart (doesn't matter) printed on it is disolved in water. Order to randomness. The chances of the sugar molecules coming back together as the solution is stirred to form a heart are.....not very much, but finite.

 

The conditions to form an amino acid are not very much, but again finite. There is a possibility over time and given the right temperature conditions, that it will come about. I really like the concept that to have life, you have to have a temperature somewhere around the temperature of the earth. Any colder and the molecules do not move around enough to mingle enough to form the bonds. If it is hotter, the mollecules get together and have enough kinetic energy that they just bounce off each other. But I digress.....

 

Is the intellegent design the framework of creating the possibility of creating the amino acid or is it a by-product of the possible permutations of the hundred or so elements that exist?

Link to post
Share on other sites
There is now a monkey wrench thrown in the works. The laws of thermodynamics do not hold where life is involved. A life form creates order when it is born and growing, but goes to greater randomness when it dies, so, overall the randomness is increasing.

 

Okay, I'm not sure this fully holds to be true in that the laws of thermodynamics do not hold where life is involved. The second law of thermodynamics stipulates that entropy increases in an isolated system. If we view a life form as an isolated system, then thermodynamics clearly does not explain the decrease of entropy that begins when a life form is generated. However, lifeforms are not an system isolated from the rest of the universe. The energy required to generate life and create order is contributed by the surrounding environment which released this energy. The total energy of the system (universe) is neither gained nor lost due to this process (in compliance with the first law).

 

Am I misunderstanding your statement?

 

NS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting arguments all around. Im reading the God Delusion now so this is pertinent stuff!

 

So why do so many people cover their ears when the subject is intelligent design?

 

I don't cover my ears, as above, I roll my eyes... because I find evolution a far more simple and elegant solution than sudden 'perfection' reached in a single blow! Why can't god and evolution exist together? ID says they can not, and that is where you lose people.

 

I/we as atheists could care less about what any of you believe as long as it is not thrust into our lives and government. I think that is why churches, synagogues and other places of worship were built. It is not however, why public schools and city halls were built.

 

yup!

 

In our scientific pursuit for an explanation for our existence should we dismiss the possibility of an intelligent designer?

 

Who designed the designer? Using an above example the cake can not make a cake maker?

 

I feel that it is religious interpretations that cause most of the problems. If there is a single master designer, which religion gets to take credit for it?

 

As for faith, I have faith that my trap lines will not part in the middle of a race. Using faith to explain the existance of things is a rather weak arugument. I have faith that lawn farries keep my grass growing, therefor they exists...???

 

I'll see the the above movie, becasue I like to see as many sides to a story as I can. But, like a Moore movie, you can edit whatever point you want to from the footage taken! Viewer beware!

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't cover my ears, as above, I roll my eyes... because I find evolution a far more simple and elegant solution than sudden 'perfection' reached in a single blow! Why can't god and evolution exist together? ID says they can not, and that is where you lose people.

 

ID design does not have to be fleshed out to preclude evolution. The Creationists that are most vocal in the US right now do so, but it is not mandatory.

 

An alternate theory is that ID uses evolution much like an engineer uses a robot to build a car.

 

Evolution likewise does not have to preclude ID. The Darwinian concept of 'random' mutations is a little hostile to the idea of ID. Still it is a small step from random to guided in a manner which we cannot detect - whether it be the handiwork of ID or just the product of rigid deterministic physicalism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ID design does not have to be fleshed out to preclude evolution. The Creationists that are most vocal in the US right now do so, but it is not mandatory.

 

An alternate theory is that ID uses evolution much like an engineer uses a robot to build a car.

 

Evolution likewise does not have to preclude ID. The Darwinian concept of 'random' mutations is a little hostile to the idea of ID. Still it is a small step from random to guided in a manner which we cannot detect - whether it be the handiwork of ID or just the product of rigid deterministic physicalism.

 

I still find straight evolution under 'natural laws' for more compelling than an intended design put forth by some supernatural designer... to mix ID and evolutin as you do is contrary to the entire ID argument. Isn't it? If that are not exclusive, then it's not ID! Seems to be ID is used to debunk evolution. you can't have it both ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the topic starter...

 

http://www.expelledexposed.com/

 

Comments from some that have seen it.

 

I watched the whole trailer. I research a bit about Richard Sternberg the the publication of the Meyer article.

 

I have respected Ben Stein as a fairly measured commentator on politics and policy; one of the few on the "other side of the fence" that has remanined calm and collected; providing intelligent discourse even when I didn't agree with it.

 

After watching the trailer looking at some of the feedback on this film from people that have seen it I have lost considerable respect for Mr. Stein for being involved with this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

<h4 class="BlogPostHeader"></h4>

<h4 class="BlogPostHeader">EXPELLED - NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED</h4> Posted by Leonard Pierce

Last week, I attended — well, really, infiltrated is the proper word — CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, DC. A gathering of true believers, donors, hucksters, pundits and politicians of the extreme right-wing conservative momement, CPAC has, for a number of decades, been the premier venue for those seeking to court the votes of the nation's most reactionary thinkers. Both President Bush and Vice-President Cheney spoke at this year's CPAC, and I was there; Mitt Romney announced the suspension of his campaign at this year's CPAC (to the great disappointment of the right-wing faithful, who had inexplicably anointed him the new successor to St. Reagan), and I was there. More importantly to Screengrab readers, though, there were exclusive screenings of a number of new films made by and targeted at the extreme right, and once again, I was there. The first of the three films I saw during CPAC was Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Like most of the rest of the 'documentaries' shown at the conference, Expelled — directed by Nathan Frankowski, who also worked on the ideologically motivated TV movie The Path to 9/11 — is little more than pure propaganda. Of course, the same argument can be made (and is, endlessly, by the constantly complaining voices of power at CPAC) about any number of left-leaning documentaries, a number of which are up for Academy Awards this year. The main difference is that those movies tend to be made by professional filmmakers with ideological leanings, and thus maintain a certain level of basic professionalism, while the propaganda films of the right tend to be made by professional ideologues with a smattering of training in filmmaking and are almost totally unwatchable from an aesthetic standpoint. The makers of Expelled, at the very least, grace us with a professional actor as its primary spokesman and delivery vector for the sub-Michael Moore schtick that comprises most of the film: it's Ben Stein, a right-wing opinion columnist, former Nixon speechwriter and one-time game show host best known for his appearance as the "Bueller...? Bueller...?" teacher in Ferris Bueller's Day Off.

 

Expelled's central thesis is that an arrogant cabal of Marxist academics, politically correct leftists, and scientific ideologues are conspiring to keep the teaching of "Intelligent Design" — a non-theory that is essentially creation science dressed up and given a new set of buzzwords — off of college campuses. In aid of this theses, Stein wanders around with a camera crew, engaging in Moorean antics that involve him drawing calculated outrage and obnoxious bluster from a number of scientists, academics, and other detractors of ID. If all you want to do is upset authority figures, of course, it's not hard to do; people like Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers are easy to rile up, especially when confronted with an irritating talk-show host berating them about their unwillingness to discuss total nonsense. If you want to see a bunch of straw men soaked with seltzer, Expelled attains a certain level of success; the right people are made to look foolish or self-important, if for all the wrong reasons.

 

However, if you want to see what the movie actually promises — a genuinely successful argument over why Intelligent Design should or should not be taught in schools — you'd best look elsewhere. The movie spends very little time in discussing the actual hypotheses of ID, no doubt because they're largely open-ended and unfalsifiable, and thus poor science. It's not so much a theory as it is a loosely slapped-together, multi-pronged critique of other theories, and is no more science than the man in the moon or the tooth fairy. (Curiously, for all the film's bluster about "academic freedom" and First Amendment rights — which, of course, have nothing to do with what should be taught in science classes — Stein is never seen arguing that Babylonian creation myths or the theories of Scientology should be given equal time. Apparently, only his favored form of nonsense suffers from exclusion.) Since any legitimate confrontation between Intelligent Design and actual science would end badly for ID, the movie focuses on making ID's opponents look like censors (as if the teaching of science was a democratic practice, where all possible ideas are presented and then people vote on which one they like the best) or anti-Christian bigots or wordy, incomprehensible windbags.

 

It's a pure hatchet job, plain and simple, without any scientific merit and very little artistic merit. Worse still, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a fundamentally dishonest film: it's funded by right-wing think tanks, its marketing materials urge the formation of politically-motivated 'street teams' to push for screenings of the movie before they've even seen it (a tactic likely motivated by the fact that no one would book the thing based on its qualities as a film), and hosted by a political hack for either mercenary or ideological reasons. Stein does deliver a few amusing moments with his deadpan delivery, but it's nothing you couldn't get in equal amounts from one of his Clear Eyes commercials in less than thirty seconds and without the added burden of vast, pseudoscientific nonsense. Sadly, Expelled, worthless as it is, was the best of the three movies I saw at CPAC; stay tuned for further reports.

 

(For pure delusional self-pity, it's hard to beat the Expelled movie blog; their latest entry claims that, since those meddlesome Washington bureaucrats combined Lincoln and Washington's birthdays into President's Day, "Darwin Day has now supplanted Lincoln's birthday in the public imagination"! Yes, who can forget those long Darwin Day weekends, when the family gathers around a copy of Origin of Species and makes a little wooden model of the Galapagos Islands before setting out for a big trip to the mall for one of the many Darwin Day sales?)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Using scientific inquiry to look for god is a little like trying to find out how much something weighs using only a stopwatch.

 

It's also a huge contradiction of the whole concept of faith. If we were to "prove" God exists, then God would not exist since faith would be redundant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I still find straight evolution under 'natural laws' for more compelling than an intended design put forth by some supernatural designer... to mix ID and evolution as you do is contrary to the entire ID argument. Isn't it? If that are not exclusive, then it's not ID! Seems to be ID is used to debunk evolution. you can't have it both ways.

 

What is the minimum that a theory needs to say to be considered ID?

 

I think it is.

1. The universe is created by a supernatural force.

2. This force created the universe to some end.

 

This is why it the Intelligent Design argument is also known as the teleological argument. It is about purpose.

 

 

Now lets look at the minimum required for a theory to be evolution as it relates to biology.

(this is tougher especially trying to avoid the word evolve.)

 

1. in a population there will be variation in the members of the population.

2. some of these variations will make an individual that has it more likely to survive and reproduce.

3. over time traits that were/are conducive to survival will become the norm in the population.

 

 

When we look at the stripped down theories they is not an inherent exclusivity in them.

 

It becomes a little more problematic when we add in that we humans are the teleological end the ID had in mind. But even this is not fatal. The real schism comes when you throw literal biblical creationism into the mix. At this point I agree it is exclusive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I still find straight evolution under 'natural laws' for more compelling than an intended design put forth by some supernatural designer... to mix ID and evolutin as you do is contrary to the entire ID argument. Isn't it? If that are not exclusive, then it's not ID! Seems to be ID is used to debunk evolution. you can't have it both ways.

Why can't you mix evolution and ID? Why can't you mix any scientific theory with ID

Link to post
Share on other sites

B.J.

 

I watched the trailer. It was painful and I would not have done it if I was not commenting in this thread. I think less of Ben Stein after watching it.

 

I don't think that I would watch the movie and feel no intellectual remorse in not doing so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What is the minimum that a theory needs to say to be considered ID?

 

I think it is.

1. The universe is created by a supernatural force.

2. This force created the universe to some end.

 

This is why it the Intelligent Design argument is also known as the teleological argument. It is about purpose.

Now lets look at the minimum required for a theory to be evolution as it relates to biology.

(this is tougher especially trying to avoid the word evolve.)

 

1. in a population there will be variation in the members of the population.

2. some of these variations will make an individual that has it more likely to survive and reproduce.

3. over time traits that were/are conducive to survival will become the norm in the population.

When we look at the stripped down theories they is not an inherent exclusivity in them.

 

It becomes a little more problematic when we add in that we humans are the teleological end the ID had in mind. But even this is not fatal. The real schism comes when you throw literal biblical creationism into the mix. At this point I agree it is exclusive.

So in your view, if you throw out all the biblical creationism out, is ID a valid subject for scientific investigation?

Link to post
Share on other sites
So in your view, if you throw out all the biblical creationism out, is ID a valid subject for scientific investigation?

 

Not for reasonable people - it kind of like ghost hunting - wonderfuly entertaining but not the subject of science....

Link to post
Share on other sites
So in your view, if you throw out all the biblical creationism out, is ID a valid subject for scientific investigation?

 

As tempted as I am to just say 'no' and leave it at that...

 

The problem with ID as a scientific study isn't creationism or any other motivation. The problem is that there is no scientific data that supports researching ID. It is a philosophical argument. It is like asking if scientists should be researching Descartes' Theory "I think therefore I am"

 

Furthermore there is question if science even has the tools or methodology to do that type of investigation. Science is pinned on researching repeatable events that occur completely in the natural world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why can't you mix evolution and ID? Why can't you mix any scientific theory with ID

 

becasue ID is defined as god designing all things as they are today... and is used as the antithesis of evolution!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Back to the topic starter...

 

http://www.expelledexposed.com/

 

Comments from some that have seen it.

 

I watched the whole trailer. I research a bit about Richard Sternberg the the publication of the Meyer article.

 

I have respected Ben Stein as a fairly measured commentator on politics and policy; one of the few on the "other side of the fence" that has remanined calm and collected; providing intelligent discourse even when I didn't agree with it.

 

After watching the trailer looking at some of the feedback on this film from people that have seen it I have lost considerable respect for Mr. Stein for being involved with this.

<h4 class="BlogPostHeader"></h4>

 

 

The reviewer makes a valid point: Where's the outrage over the persecution

of pooooor little Tom Cruise over his belief in Xemu, or whateverthefuck ya call him,

from these people?

 

Where's the outrage?!!?

Link to post
Share on other sites
That would be fine if there was a "natural explanation". There is no natural explanation for the universe. In the absense of any evidence the belief that one exists requires faith.

Ok, lets go with the intelligent designer for a moment. In fact why go with just one, why not many, why not a team? A team of ominpotents. The O-Team. The universe is a big place, you are gonna need lots of talent to get it going. Who did what and why? Did they act simultaneously or in tandem? Was there a convention or rules? Are they still around controlling stuff? You know, punching the clock to make sure the universe keeps running? Maybe their just kicking back with the most amazingly designed Marguarita in hand, watching the reality show that is us.

seriously folks...

 

On the Trailer:

Stein is so fantastically, mind-bogglingly, full of shite, that it is pathetic. Ooooh, the tyranny of rational argument and the fossil record, putting to waste the illogical propositions and running roughshod over the malformed hypotheses of the intelligent design crowd! Cruel, cruel Darwinists! Nazis they are (nevermind that the Nazis used god as a pillar to justify their atrocities)! How dare the Darwinazis crush superstitious twaddle under the jackboot of reason?

I would stand in the soaking rain for a ticket to watch Dawkins wear Stein's guts for garters debating this topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
this article certainly makes it sound as though they are.

The author of that article does not understand what Darwin is proposing or he is being disingenuous for sensational reasons. There is nothing random about Darwin's theory (remember gravity is a theory). Preferred traits manifest themselves over a long times-pan via natural selection.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben Stein is no dummy he knows there is money to made in this arena-- a lot of money. Whether he actually believes what he is pedaling is probably up for debate. I'm certain he sounds sincere. Think about how much money Passion of the Christ made. How many Christians do you think will watch this movie. How about a lot. It's pure business, I'd expect no less out of Ben Stein-- go capitalism.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ben-st...nnie&sc=rss

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks for the link. Great article.

 

It speaks to their anti-intellectualism and fundamental misunderstanding of science that for the makers of Expelled (and ID advocates more generally) the answer "we don't know yet" is a badge of shame. "We don't know yet" is what defines the fruitful frontier for science; it is what directs scientists' curiosity and motivates them to spend years on research. Research starts where knowledge and certainty drop off.

 

NS

Link to post
Share on other sites
The author of that article does not understand what Darwin is proposing or he is being disingenuous for sensational reasons. There is nothing random about Darwin's theory (remember gravity is a theory). Preferred traits manifest themselves over a long times-pan via natural selection.

lmao!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Another Scientific American article worth perusing.

 

Should be required reading for Dog.

 

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-ans...-to-creationist

 

NS

Look...I said before that I have no idea if there is a intelligent designer or not. Darwin only provides a theory as to how life evolves not how it or the universe began. Even if mud, given enough time really can evolve to imagine relativity theory that does not preclude the possibility of a designer.

 

Ben Stein has balls.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Look...I said before that I have no idea if there is a intelligent designer or not. Darwin only provides a theory as to how life evolves not how it or the universe began. Even if mud, given enough time really can evolve to imagine relativity theory that does not preclude the possibility of a designer.

 

Ben Stein has balls.

 

Great. Then we both know that Creationism shouldn't be taught in science classes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Great. Then we both know that Creationism shouldn't be taught in science classes.

If you mean a faith based religious creationism I agree...I don't think that's the issue Stein is addressing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you mean a faith based religious creationism I agree...I don't think that's the issue Stein is addressing.

All ID is faith based. Scientology contains as much proper science as ID. Shall we then teach teach Xenu along with Newton? E-Meters in computer science?

ID is a philosophical proposition. if you want to teach it in that context, knock yourself out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you mean a faith based religious creationism I agree...I don't think that's the issue Stein is addressing.

 

Intelligent Design = Faith Based Religious Creationism

 

You DO understand that Dog, right?

 

There is nothing, zero, zip, nada, zilch scientific about Intelligent Design. It is a slick repackaging of faith based creationism concepts that strips out the more ridiculous and unpalatable goofiness and is then blurred with pseudo-science to add an air of feasibleness to those that don't "get" how science really works, e.g. a substantial chunk of the American public. No science, just marketing.

 

The ultimate objective of ID is to re-brand Creationism so it can be blown by the scientifically ignorant people and put into the educational system by people that don't know any better.

 

While many of the the moonbats are dopey enough to believe in Creationism literally, they are also politically astute enough to realize they can't get a obviously religious whopper taught in school. So they have to modernize it and tart it up in a cheap pseudo-science dress.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Intelligent Design = Faith Based Religious Creationism

 

You DO understand that Dog, right?

 

There is nothing, zero, zip, nada, zilch scientific about Intelligent Design. It is a slick repackaging of faith based creationism concepts that strips out the more ridiculous and unpalatable goofiness and is then blurred with pseudo-science to add an air of feasibleness to those that don't "get" how science really works, e.g. a substantial chunk of the American public. No science, just marketing.

 

The ultimate objective of ID is to re-brand Creationism so it can be blown by the scientifically ignorant people and put into the educational system by people that don't know any better.

 

While many of the the moonbats are dopey enough to believe in Creationism literally, they are also politically astute enough to realize they can't get a obviously religious whopper taught in school. So they have to modernize it and tart it up in a cheap pseudo-science dress.

 

Lets put it this way none of these ID proponents are coming at it from the perspective that anything other than a christian god designed the universe - casually mention to one of these dopey losers that you agree the world was designed but you think Satan designed it and see where the conversation goes...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lets put it this way none of these ID proponents are coming at it from the perspective that anything other than a christian god designed the universe - casually mention to one of these dopey losers that you agree the world was designed but you think Satan designed it and see where the conversation goes...

 

or Apollo, Athena and the gang up on Olympus.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lets put it this way none of these ID proponents are coming at it from the perspective that anything other than a christian god designed the universe - casually mention to one of these dopey losers that you agree the world was designed but you think Satan designed it and see where the conversation goes...

 

 

I agree when we are talking about those pushing ID as a scientific hypothesis. The teleological argument however is an interesting philosophical discussion.

 

or Apollo, Athena and the gang up on Olympus.

 

 

or the Flying Spagghetti Monster which is one of the best responses ever created to the Creationist educational agenda.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree when we are talking about those pushing ID as a scientific hypothesis. The teleological argument however is an interesting philosophical discussion.

or the Flying Spagghetti Monster which is one of the best responses ever created to the Creationist educational agenda.

While I agree with the spagetti monster response you gotta admit the Greek gods had Hercules and he was every bit as popular/well known as Jesus.

 

Edit: And where would the sailing community have been without Achilles?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Intelligent Design = Faith Based Religious Creationism

 

You DO understand that Dog, right?

Like I said earlier, we have a problem with definitions...

 

"The modern intelligent design movement, however, presents a very different case. In the early 1990s, the movement began gaining steam because of its purely secular approach. Since the intelligent design movement restricts its arguments stringently to science and logic, claims that it is "disguised religion" have had trouble sticking. The intelligent design movement began calling "naturalistic" science out on the carpet. Why, as the intelligent design movement would ask, should any scientific theory be beyond question? If evolution requires some assumptions that can't be proven, why can't design theory?

 

The early-to-mid 1990s saw the emergence of several scholars who formed the core of the modern intelligent design movement. They crossed religious and political barriers, from agnostics to Catholics, from mathematicians to law professors, to biologists. Literature published by intelligent design proponents such as William Dembski, Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, and Michael Denton gave the movement a platform for debate. Though they differed in their theological beliefs, the focus of the intelligent design movement was never God, morality, religion, freedom, ethics, or philosophy, but rather, equality."

 

Hat tip to Jo Mama

Link to post
Share on other sites
Like I said earlier, we have a problem with definitions...

 

"The modern intelligent design movement, however, presents a very different case. In the early 1990s, the movement began gaining steam because of its purely secular approach. Since the intelligent design movement restricts its arguments stringently to science and logic, claims that it is "disguised religion" have had trouble sticking. The intelligent design movement began calling "naturalistic" science out on the carpet. Why, as the intelligent design movement would ask, should any scientific theory be beyond question? If evolution requires some assumptions that can't be proven, why can't design theory?

 

The early-to-mid 1990s saw the emergence of several scholars who formed the core of the modern intelligent design movement. They crossed religious and political barriers, from agnostics to Catholics, from mathematicians to law professors, to biologists. Literature published by intelligent design proponents such as William Dembski, Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, and Michael Denton gave the movement a platform for debate. Though they differed in their theological beliefs, the focus of the intelligent design movement was never God, morality, religion, freedom, ethics, or philosophy, but rather, equality."

 

Hat tip to Jo Mama

 

If gravity requires some assumptions that can't be proven, why not "Intelligent Falling"?

If sunspots require some assumptions that can't be proven, why not "Intelligent Blotting"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey Dog, ever watch this? If you do/did listen to Phillip Johnson, the so called "Father of ID". Then see if your questions aren't answered.

 

NOVA

From the horse's mouth: "I am a Christian." I believe that there is a creator." "...the naturalistic viewpoint leaves the way open for a kind of freedom from divine authority, a kind of moral anarchy."

 

Case Closed!

 

NEXT!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
From the horse's mouth: "I am a Christian." I believe that there is a creator." "...the naturalistic viewpoint leaves the way open for a kind of freedom from divine authority, a kind of moral anarchy."

 

Case Closed!

 

NEXT!!!!

Yeah...but why can't there be a designer?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the minimum that a theory needs to say to be considered ID?

 

I think it is.

1. The universe is created by a supernatural force.

2. This force created the universe to some end.

 

This is why it the Intelligent Design argument is also known as the teleological argument. It is about purpose.

 

 

I believe this distills the argument. Imagine a universe without life. There would be no purpose. The universe would keep on expanding to no definition. If a tree falls in the forest..........etc. Or would there be a purpose? Am I fair in saying that man is the only thing that can postulate the concept of purpose?

 

If purpose is totally a human process, does not purpose come totally from within an individual person? I am not talking about the communication of a common task. Purpose is so personnally defined that the concept of a designer creating a common end for each human supposes a common direction above Maslow's hierarchy.(water, food, shelter, security, sense of belonging, and on up)

 

I don't think a common end can be defined and that does affect the concept of Intellegent Design until it can be defined.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What is the minimum that a theory needs to say to be considered ID?

 

I think it is.

1. The universe is created by a supernatural force.

2. This force created the universe to some end.

 

This is why it the Intelligent Design argument is also known as the teleological argument. It is about purpose.

I believe this distills the argument. Imagine a universe without life. There would be no purpose. The universe would keep on expanding to no definition. If a tree falls in the forest..........etc. Or would there be a purpose? Am I fair in saying that man is the only thing that can postulate the concept of purpose?

 

If purpose is totally a human process, does not purpose come totally from within an individual person? I am not talking about the communication of a common task. Purpose is so personnally defined that the concept of a designer creating a common end for each human supposes a common direction above Maslow's hierarchy.(water, food, shelter, security, sense of belonging, and on up)

 

I don't think a common end can be defined and that does affect the concept of Intellegent Design until it can be defined.

Agreed. Humans are much more powerful than gods. We have been creating and destroying them for thousands of years

Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you think the odds were good that this was the case?

Well…take a Hippopotamus, clearly the work of a second rate designer probably on Friday afternoon. Definitely not the same guy who came up with the Dolphin.

 

How the hell would I know?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There MIGHT be a little bias in that. Just a small amount...

 

ABOUT US

 

We believe the pursuit of truth is the highest calling of humanity. We are a collection of people who have wandered many paths, but all discovered that same truth. We are passionate about sparking authentic life journeys and sharing compelling content with skeptics, seekers, believers, and a hurting world.

 

We seek to be non-threatening, practical, and informative, using the technology of the Internet to pose tough questions and seek candid answers about God, Creation, Life, Humanity, Thought, History, and Truth.

 

Many people refer to us as “Christians,” but we consider ourselves followers of Jesus. Like Jesus, we reject many of the issues found in “organized religion” (man-made attempts to reach God through rules and rituals). Actually, we believe religion has kept more people from the truth than anything in history. Although we reject man-made religion, we consider the personal pursuit of God as tantamount in each of our personal life journeys.

 

Contact Information:

 

AllAboutGOD.com

7150 Campus Drive, Suite 320

Colorado Springs, Colorado 80920

719-884-2246

719-884-2247 fax

Website: AllAboutGOD.com

Contact us here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well…take a Hippopotamus, clearly the work of a second rate designer probably on Friday afternoon. Definitely not the same guy who came up with the Dolphin.

 

How the hell would I know?

Just trying to determine how far into the improbable (did not say impossible) you are willing to venture.

 

BTW. Both hippos and dolphins are superbly adapted to their environments.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just trying to determine how far into the improbable (did not say impossible) you are willing to venture.

 

BTW. Both hippos and dolphins are superbly adapted to their environments.

Here's how far I will go....One more time....I don't know... neither do you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All this debate reminds me of this passage from the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.

 

“It's lovely to live on a raft. We had the sky up there, all speckled with stars, and we used to lay on our backs and look up at them, and discuss about whether they was made or only just happened. Jim he allowed they was made, but I allowed they happened; I judged it would have took too long to MAKE so many. Jim said the moon could a LAID them; well, that looked kind of reasonable, so I didn't say nothing against it, because I've seen a frog lay most as many, so of course it could be done. We used to watch the stars that fell, too, and see them streak down. Jim allowed they'd got spoiled and was hove out of the nest.”

 

It’s a timeless question and one we will never answer, neither can be proven. It makes no sense that scientists should be ostracized if they hold the 'wrong' view.

Link to post
Share on other sites
All this debate reminds me of this passage from the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.

 

"It's lovely to live on a raft. We had the sky up there, all speckled with stars, and we used to lay on our backs and look up at them, and discuss about whether they was made or only just happened. Jim he allowed they was made, but I allowed they happened; I judged it would have took too long to MAKE so many. Jim said the moon could a LAID them; well, that looked kind of reasonable, so I didn't say nothing against it, because I've seen a frog lay most as many, so of course it could be done. We used to watch the stars that fell, too, and see them streak down. Jim allowed they'd got spoiled and was hove out of the nest."

 

It's a timeless question and one we will never answer, neither can be proven. It makes no sense that scientists should be ostracized if they hold the 'wrong' view.

We may very well know the answer at some point in the future; I have far more faith in the capability of mankind to advance itself (or "evolve") I guess.

 

As far as being "right" or "wrong" - a scientist that ignores science and postulates the ridiculous will not be regarded well by his peers.

 

ID is BAD science, like Astrology it is not science at all in any sense. How seriously do you think a scientist would be taken if he started including astrological forecasts into his work? This is no different. I don't care if he believes it or not, Astrology has no place in scientific studies. Ditto for creationism and divine influences.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Though they differed in their theological beliefs, the focus of the intelligent design movement was never God, morality, religion, freedom, ethics, or philosophy, but rather, equality."

 

How does the ID movement translate to equality?

Link to post
Share on other sites
It makes no sense that scientists should be ostracized if they hold the 'wrong' view.

 

They aren't being ostracized because they hold the "wrong" view, they are holding a view that is completely unsupported by the evidence. It's akin to holding the HYPOTHESIS that "2 + 2 = 5" and demanding that it is a valid THEORY despite all evidence to the contrary, then further demanding that it be taught in schools as an alternate and viable THEORY alongside the "2 + 2 = 4" THEORY (which has become a THEORY because the HYPOTHESIS has been repeatedly tested, altered, and retested, and realtered, discussed, critiqued, realtered, retested, etc. through the peer review process until it is an accurate description of what we see in nature, and is generally accepted by the expert community, and finally given the status of a THEORY) in schools. Further, because the "=5" HYPOTHESIS isn't receiving the equal time that =5ers believe it should, they are being ostracized.

 

If ID wants to sit at the same table with scientific theories, it needs to follow the same rules, stand up to the same critiques, the same review process, and address those issues that are shown to be false by the evidence, rather than just shouting, "It is too valid!" and "I'm being repressed!" and "ID really is a THEORY, despite the lack of supporting evidence, and deserves equal respect with other THEORIES!"

 

NS

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Big Bang Theory - The Only Plausible Theory?

Is the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences? No, it's just the most popular one. Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."4

Link to post
Share on other sites
They aren't being ostracized because they hold the "wrong" view, they are holding a view that is completely unsupported by the evidence.

have you read richard sternberg's paper, guillermo gonzalaz's documented observations or sat in caroline crocker's classroom when she discussed problems with darwinian theory and told her class that some scientist believe there is evidence of design in the universe?

if not how can you state their views are unsupported?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm enjoying this. Not because of the answers, we all have those, but because of the questions.

 

exactly.

 

imo - that is the point of the movie; to promote questions and discussion.

 

seems to be working

Link to post
Share on other sites
They aren't being ostracized because they hold the "wrong" view, they are holding a view that is completely unsupported by the evidence.

And the view that it all just happened is supported by what evidence?

Link to post
Share on other sites
have you read richard sternberg's paper, guillermo gonzalaz's documented observations or sat in caroline crocker's classroom when she discussed problems with darwinian theory and told her class that some scientist believe there is evidence of design in the universe?

if not how can you state their views are unsupported?

 

Okay, since you ask...

 

Unfortunately, I went to a church affiliated (accredited nonetheless) university (I used to also be affiliated with same church) which taught ID alongside evolution. It was actually the ID classes (required for a degree in Biology from this university) in which I realized what a bunch of unsupported crap ID really is and thus began my awakening which allowed me to step away from my then held religious beliefs and make an educated analysis of the evidence presented by both sides of the discussion. I have been formally educated on ID plenty and have read many of the books and papers written in support of ID. They don't hold up to scrutiny. And yes, it was a shock to my belief system that the evidence that is purported to support ID is typically taken out of context or is cherry picked from far greater numbers of similar studies that are unsupportive of the ID hypothesis. And in further full disclosure, in my senior year at said university, I transfered to a secular university in an attempt to finish my college education in an unbiased atmosphere. For the next 8 years, I continued my analysis of my own personal beliefs and eventually came to the conclusion that there is no evidence in nature or in the lab to support a deity and that logically, I must if I consider myself to be a person whose thoughts and actions are governed by reason, admit that my religious beliefs were unsupportable.

 

Now, have you?

 

NS

Link to post
Share on other sites
And the view that it all just happened is supported by what evidence?

 

Our study of the universe shows that we live in a universe that is governed by natural laws. All observed actions in the universe are the result of natural causes. There is no evidence of supernatural forces at work, and therefore no reason to postulate that any supernatural forces exist. That only leaves you with natural causes to all events, including the origin and development of life in the universe.

NS

Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, since you ask...

 

Unfortunately, I went to a church affiliated (accredited nonetheless) university (I used to also be affiliated with same church) which taught ID alongside evolution. It was actually the ID classes (required for a degree in Biology from this university) in which I realized what a bunch of unsupported crap ID really is and thus began my awakening which allowed me to step away from my then held religious beliefs and make an educated analysis of the evidence presented by both sides of the discussion. I have been formally educated on ID plenty and have read many of the books and papers written in support of ID. They don't hold up to scrutiny. And yes, it was a shock to my belief system that the evidence that is purported to support ID is typically taken out of context or is cherry picked from far greater numbers of similar studies that are unsupportive of the ID hypothesis. And in further full disclosure, in my senior year at said university, I transfered to a secular university in an attempt to finish my college education in an unbiased atmosphere. For the next 8 years, I continued my analysis of my own personal beliefs and eventually came to the conclusion that there is no evidence in nature or in the lab to support a deity and that logically, I must if I consider myself to be a person whose thoughts and actions are governed by reason, admit that my religious beliefs were unsupportable.

 

Now, have you? oh and you did not answer my question.

 

NS

have i what?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, since you ask...

 

Unfortunately, I went to a church affiliated (accredited nonetheless) university (I used to also be affiliated with same church) which taught ID alongside evolution. It was actually the ID classes (required for a degree in Biology from this university) in which I realized what a bunch of unsupported crap ID really is and thus began my awakening which allowed me to step away from my then held religious beliefs and make an educated analysis of the evidence presented by both sides of the discussion. I have been formally educated on ID plenty and have read many of the books and papers written in support of ID. They don't hold up to scrutiny. And yes, it was a shock to my belief system that the evidence that is purported to support ID is typically taken out of context or is cherry picked from far greater numbers of similar studies that are unsupportive of the ID hypothesis. And in further full disclosure, in my senior year at said university, I transfered to a secular university in an attempt to finish my college education in an unbiased atmosphere. For the next 8 years, I continued my analysis of my own personal beliefs and eventually came to the conclusion that there is no evidence in nature or in the lab to support a deity and that logically, I must if I consider myself to be a person whose thoughts and actions are governed by reason, admit that my religious beliefs were unsupportable.

 

Now, have you?

 

NS

also, you did not answer my question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Our study of the universe shows that we live in a universe that is governed by natural laws. All observed actions in the universe are the result of natural causes. There is no evidence of supernatural forces at work, and therefore no reason to postulate that any supernatural forces exist. That only leaves you with natural causes to all events, including the origin and development of life in the universe.

NS

In your experience with these 'natural' laws are there any that explain how something can pop right out of nothing. If I saw something form from nothing (let alone everything forming from nothing) I think it would qualify as supernatural. Bottom line, we have no 'natural laws' that explain existance nor can we determine whether the 'natural' causes we do observe are random or 'designed'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
All this debate reminds me of this passage from the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.

 

“It's lovely to live on a raft. We had the sky up there, all speckled with stars, and we used to lay on our backs and look up at them, and discuss about whether they was made or only just happened. Jim he allowed they was made, but I allowed they happened; I judged it would have took too long to MAKE so many. Jim said the moon could a LAID them; well, that looked kind of reasonable, so I didn't say nothing against it, because I've seen a frog lay most as many, so of course it could be done. We used to watch the stars that fell, too, and see them streak down. Jim allowed they'd got spoiled and was hove out of the nest.”

 

It’s a timeless question and one we will never answer, neither can be proven. It makes no sense that scientists should be ostracized if they hold the 'wrong' view.

 

Funny You should quote Twain, he was an avowed atheist you know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
have you read richard sternberg's paper, guillermo gonzalaz's documented observations or sat in caroline crocker's classroom when she discussed problems with darwinian theory and told her class that some scientist believe there is evidence of design in the universe?

if not how can you state their views are unsupported?

C'mon Elle. Bang the rocks together.

Dog and Jo-Mama are lost to enlightenment and reason, but I am still holding out hope for you, and not just because I find your avatar entertaining. Yes I am familiar with their views. These folks are not scientists, they are creationists who would take one of the most inspired and meticulously conceived works of insight in the history of humankind, and replace it with a group of imaginary super-friends.

Open the door of ID and follow the path. Inevitably you will be lead to a land of magic, arbitrary constructs, deus ex machina, leaky logic, dizzy recursions, superstition, the supernatural, and to paraphrase a previous poster, "the answer to every question on the test is: god did it".

The ID cow gives no milk, only a rancid gruel of repackaged dogma that anesthetizes the lazy mind, but provides no intellectual nourishment for those hungry for enlightenment regarding the biological diversity of the natural world around us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
also, you did not answer my question.

 

I answered your question by explaining that for better or worse, I have studied ID and have taken an in depth look at the "supporting data". Have I read the authors you mention? I dunno, I'll have to go back and look. Have I sat in Caroline Crocker's classroom when she discussed problems with Darwinian theory and told her class that some scientist believe there is evidence of design in the universe? No, I've sat in plenty of other lecture halls, and have had ID and Creationist scientists tell me what they see are the problems with Darwinian theory. I have further found that while ID and Creationist scientists are very ready to point out the problems in Darwinian theory, they cannot or will not hold ID to the same standard.

 

Now, my question to you, more clearly explained, have you made a similiar study of ID vs. Evolution, looked at the data, in context, and not just the cherry picked stuff?

 

NS

Link to post
Share on other sites
In your experience with these 'natural' laws are there any that explain how something can pop right out of nothing. If I saw something form from nothing (let alone everything forming from nothing) I think it would qualify as supernatural. Bottom line, we have no 'natural laws' that explain existance nor can we determine whether the 'natural' causes we do observe are random or 'designed'.

 

Once again, go back, reread, comprehend, think, analyze. You missed the point, again, either deliberately, or otherwise. There is no evidence of supernatural forces, therefore there is no reason to postulate that one exists or furthermore, interacts with the natural world. Good day.

NS

Link to post
Share on other sites
C'mon Elle. Bang the rocks together.

Dog and Jo-Mama are lost to enlightenment and reason, but I am still holding out hope for you, and not just because I find your avatar entertaining. Yes I am familiar with their views. These folks are not scientists, they are creationists who would take one of the most inspired and meticulously conceived, works of insight in the history of humankind and replace it with a group of imaginary super-friends.

Open the door of ID and follow the path. Inevitably you will be lead to a land of magic, arbitrary constructs, deus ex machina, leaky logic, dizzy recursions, superstition, the supernatural, and to paraphrase a previous poster, "the answer to every question on the test is: god did it".

The ID cow gives no milk, only a rancid gruel of repackaged dogma that anesthetizes the lazy mind, but provides no intellectual nourishment for those hungry for enlightenment regarding the biological diversity of the natural world around us.

you are holding out for hope for in what way?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I answered your question by explaining that for better or worse, I have studied ID and have taken an in depth look at the "supporting data". Have I read the authors you mention? I dunno, I'll have to go back and look. Have I sat in Caroline Crocker's classroom when she discussed problems with Darwinian theory and told her class that some scientist believe there is evidence of design in the universe? No, I've sat in plenty of other lecture halls, and have had ID and Creationist scientists tell me what they see are the problems with Darwinian theory. I have further found that while ID and Creationist scientists are very ready to point out the problems in Darwinian theory, they cannot or will not hold ID to the same standard.

 

Now, my question to you, more clearly explained, have you made a similiar study of ID vs. Evolution, looked at the data, in context, and not just the cherry picked stuff?

 

NS

i was just wondering if you had experience with these specific individuals as you claimed that they are being ousted because they had no supportive evidence for their views.

i am not sure how you can say that without having read or listened to them.

edit to add, no i do not study intelligent design, if you mean that as creationism (as in god created the universe).

 

i don't cherry pick anything.

i neither know nor do i care if there is "god(s)". evolution is pretty clear, the evidence cannot be denied. as to where it all came from, theories all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
i was just wondering if you had experience with these specific individuals as you claimed that they are being ousted because they had no supportive evidence for their views.

i am not sure how you can say that without having read or listened to them.

edit to add, no i do not study intelligent design, if you mean that as creationism (as in god created the universe).

 

i don't cherry pick anything.

i neither know nor do i care if there is "god(s)". evolution is pretty clear, the evidence cannot be denied. as to where it all came from, theories all.

 

 

Sorry I didn't make the connection before, I was a bit distracted yesterday morning. You mean these guys...

 

Robert Sternberg:

From the previously posted Scientific American article

Expelled then trots out some of the people whom it claims have been persecuted by the Darwinist establishment. First among them is Robert Sternberg, former editor of the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, who published an article on ID by Stephen C. Meyer of the Discovery Institute. Sternberg tells Stein that he subsequently lost his editorship, his old position at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History and his original office. Looking a bit smug in his self-martyrdom, Sternberg also reports that a colleague compared him with an "intellectual terrorist."

 

What most viewers of Expelled may not realize—because the film doesn't even hint at it—is that Sternberg's case is not quite what it sounds. Biologists criticized Sternberg's choice to publish the paper not only because it supported ID but also because Sternberg approved it by himself rather than sending it out for independent expert review. He didn't lose his editorship; he published the paper in what was already scheduled to be his last issue as editor. He didn't lose his job at the Smithsonian; his appointment there as an unpaid research associate had a limited term, and when it was over he was given a new one. His office move was scheduled before the paper ever appeared.

 

 

Caroylyn Crocker: It turns out I have read her arguments as they are pretty standard in the stuff published by the Discovery Institute, and she does cherry pick and takes things out of context. I did read parts of the text of a lecture that she subsequently gave(it was after my time in college) which she said was the same lecture that she claims got her fired. As for her getting fired,

GMU spokesman Daniel Walsch denied that the school had fired Crocker. She was a part-time faculty member, he said, and was let go at the end of her contract period for reasons unrelated to her views on intelligent design. "We wholeheartedly support academic freedom," he said. But teachers also have a responsibility to stick to subjects they were hired to teach, he added, and intelligent design belonged in a religion class, not biology. Does academic freedom "literally give you the right to talk about anything, whether it has anything to do with the subject matter or not? The answer is no."

 

Guillermo Gonzalez: Searched all over for his documented observations and never found anything relating them to ID, That could be because astronomy is not my strong suit and I now have a headache after trying to wade through some of his technical writing. But in said technical writing, I did not find any mention of implications for ID.

 

What I did find is that he was denied tenure at Iowa State (though he is still an employee there) because he couldn't raise grant money despite a huge academic head start. He claims that the other professors are just out to get him because he publicly supports ID. The fact that he raised about 2% of the average of other tenure applicants is apparently irrelevant. Now, to his His book, The Privileged Planet, another one published by the discovery institute, I searched for reviews from the astronomic community that were published in sources that could not be considered biased, and found none. What I did find were several reviews from the Discovery Institute, republished verbatim on several blogs, and quite a few other reviews from other astronomers on pages that could be considered biased, that described it in the line of "an assault on education" and condemned him for his efforts towards "undermining quality science education in the primary and secondary public schools". Not glowing peer reviews I would say.

 

Now since I have mentioned the Discovery Institute several times, I'll throw some links for this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

 

NS

Link to post
Share on other sites
Once again, go back, reread, comprehend, think, analyze. You missed the point, again, either deliberately, or otherwise. There is no evidence of supernatural forces, therefore there is no reason to postulate that one exists or furthermore, interacts with the natural world. Good day.

NS

You put a lot of faith in ‘natural laws’ so you might consider what they really are. Natural laws are not absolute truths that the universe conforms to. They are theoretical constructs that we impose on the universe to try to make sense of what we observe. We devise them, manipulate them, twist and turn them trying to make them fit and in the end we usually discard them. Natural laws are the product of our imagination; they are tools that help us make predictions. What is considered ‘supernatural’ is simply that which our laws fail to explain. There is plenty of supernatural around.

Link to post
Share on other sites