Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Darwin himself states that evolution is seeable looking at changes within a species. He also says that there is no evidence of evolution creating a species.

This is among the issues with calling evolution "Darwinism" and relying solely on words ONLY Darwin himself wrote. You'd have to remember that at the time of Darwin, DNA had not even been understood; today it is. The evidence of evolution goes straight down to the level of DNA and is, in fact, traceable.

Evolution is far more than simply Darwin's words.

Fair enough but, it still remains far from my point

So what is your point?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Conversly, there is nothing proving ID is not a reason (I dont care about the funding angle here)

There is nothing that proves that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not real, either. Should we teach about FSM in Biology class?

There is no evidence supporting ID (or FSM), and neither is testable in such a manner as to allow them to be disproved. Thus, they are not science, by science's very definition. Science starts with zero assumptions. A scientific conclusion is found through observation and logic, and is subject to be disproved through observation and logic at any given time.

You play word games.

Science is the investigation of theory.

You wish to limit it based on your perceptions only? Or groups with which you agree?

So tell us of the predictions made by ID "Theory" which can be and have been objectively verified in accordance with accepted scientific methodologies.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,111]

>Science is the investigation of theory.

No, it's not. I could have a theory that Shakespeare is better than Whitman. The investigation of that question is not science, it's literary analysis.

Likewise, I could have a theory that Christ is more "godlike" than Allah (or vice versa.) The investigation of that question is not science, it's religion.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

You play word games.

Not at all. Science uses words very precisely so that interpretations of statements are not subjective.

Quote

Science is the investigation of theory.

No, science is about testing hypotheses. A theory is something completely different. See above statement about precise use of words.

Quote

You wish to limit it based on your perceptions only? Or groups with which you agree?

How did you reach that conclusion? Science is limited to that which can be tested by way of experiment and observable (directly or indirectly) evidence. It doesn't matter what I wish.

No, but neither side has any in hand evidence to prove or disprove. At least at the DNA beginning of life level

In any event, I feel the debate here is misleading. To many this is a church state issue. One which has been contorted and twisted to not be what is really is. But, this is where it is. So be it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

• Quote

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Science is the investigation of theory.

No, it's not. I could have a theory that Shakespeare is better than Whitman. The investigation of that question is not science, it's literary analysis.

Likewise, I could have a theory that Christ is more "godlike" than Allah (or vice versa.) The investigation of that question is not science, it's religion.

this is the way it has to be discounted to make your position.

As for your theory response, I do not agree. All investigative science starts with an observation that brings forth and idea or theory. Scientists investigate them to prove or disprove. Predictions are used and results must be repeatable to indicate probability is not the only possibility.

Does theory exists within your definition? Sure, but not so much as to discount the way I put it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,111]

>All investigative science starts with an observation that brings forth and
>idea or theory.

Yes. However, all ideas/theories are not amenable to scientific investigation, as I pointed out above. Is Coke better than Pepsi? Can you use science to prove that statement? Nope. But you can take polls and say "51% of people in our test preferred Coke to Pepsi." That says absolutely nothing about the relative chemistry of the two drinks, although it does indicate public opinion on which they prefer.

Unfortunately, far too many people confuse public opinion with science.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You play word games.

Not at all. Science uses words very precisely so that interpretations of statements are not subjective.

Quote

Science is the investigation of theory.

No, science is about testing hypotheses. A theory is something completely different. See above statement about precise use of words.

Quote

You wish to limit it based on your perceptions only? Or groups with which you agree?

How did you reach that conclusion? Science is limited to that which can be tested by way of experiment and observable (directly or indirectly) evidence. It doesn't matter what I wish.

No, but neither side has any in hand evidence to prove or disprove. At least at the DNA beginning of life level

In any event, I feel the debate here is misleading. To many this is a church state issue. One which has been contorted and twisted to not be what is really is. But, this is where it is. So be it

Every court that has been asked to rule on the issue has ruled that ID is not science. And they're correct.

And you haven't answered the question about what predictions ID "theory" makes that can be or have been tested objectively, using accepted scientific methods.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>All investigative science starts with an observation that brings forth and
>idea or theory.

Yes. However, all ideas/theories are not amenable to scientific investigation, as I pointed out above. Is Coke better than Pepsi? Can you use science to prove that statement? Nope. But you can take polls and say "51% of people in our test preferred Coke to Pepsi." That says absolutely nothing about the relative chemistry of the two drinks, although it does indicate public opinion on which they prefer.

Unfortunately, far too many people confuse public opinion with science.

Agreed, and when neither side can claim any backing evdiense but claim they have science behind it then it is political

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,111]

>Agreed, and when neither side can claim any backing evdiense but
>claim they have science behind it then it is political.

I agree. The only things that should be taught in science classes are things that have solid experimental backing.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Agreed, and when neither side can claim any backing evdiense but
>claim they have science behind it then it is political.

I agree. The only things that should be taught in science classes are things that have solid experimental backing.

It this were truly the case I can think of few topics that should be dropped

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[KidWicked 0]

Quote

Admittedly, I know nothing about the "scientific merit" of ID

Actually it's your posts that provide the "belly laughs". By your own admission you are ignorant of the subject.

Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

Quote

>Agreed, and when neither side can claim any backing evdiense but
>claim they have science behind it then it is political.

I agree. The only things that should be taught in science classes are things that have solid experimental backing.

It this were truly the case I can think of few topics that should be dropped

And they are?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Channman 2]

Quote

>Agreed, and when neither side can claim any backing evdiense but
>claim they have science behind it then it is political.

I agree. The only things that should be taught in science classes are things that have solid experimental backing.

http://www.theory-of-evolution.net/

I've always found this discussion very interesting because I think I've learned more reading the views from those that post here in reference to this topic. More to the point I think I've found over time Bill either speads way to much time in books, or he's a hell lot smarter than me, and I'm leaning more to the latter.

I found the above referenced web site helpful as far as to the differences between ID Vs Evolution.

I have no dog in this fight, simply because I really don't care. I for one don't believe in Evolution due in part I believe, oops...or shall I say know their is a creator. I look at this incrediable planet and find it more difficult to think it all happened by some accident if in fact that is what evolutionist believe. But that just me, I know its a heavy burden I carry but it's a burden I must carry alone.

The joy of having a simple mind, is not having to bang my head with all those who appose my truth.

All in all, its been a good read, especially you'r replies Bill.

Cheers

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

No, but neither side has any in hand evidence to prove or disprove. At least at the DNA beginning of life level

To prove? No. Science rarely proves anything. They find the most likely (i.e. most probable) explanations, explanations that can be shown to be incorrect at any time with appropriate evidence. However, genetics has substantial evidence supporting evolution. There is no evidence of ID. To consider ID an alternative scientific explanation to evolution is disingenuous and shows an ignorance of how the scientific method works.

Quote

In any event, I feel the debate here is misleading. To many this is a church state issue. One which has been contorted and twisted to not be what is really is. But, this is where it is. So be it

While there is certainly a church/state aspect to the controversy, at its center is an attempt to teach religion as science without regard to what science actually is. ID proponents suggest assuming a divine creator until it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that such a creator does not exist. Scientists and proponents of science assume nothing for which there is not evidence. Since there is zero evidence of a divine creator, science has zero reason to consider a divine creator to explain the existence of anything.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[auburnguy 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

...all I do is call him on his constant string of PA's of which most get ignored...

We know what you mean. Quite common from Mr. Kallend.

Mr. Kallend says, "Maybe he'll get a cut of the box office take so he won't have to rely on hand-outs from his family. "

A direct slap in the face to most college students throughout the nation.

!

Not at all, if you'd been reading another forum, you would have seen his gloating about being supported by his parents.

Next time you want to make a personal attack, don't. You know nothing about me. I said that "my parents fund me" in jest. I work my ass off, I bought and paid cash for a 21k car at 19 years old out of my own pocket, no assistance from anyone. Keep your mouth shut when you don't know who your talking about. I really hope I get to meet you face to face one day.
Even if I was funded solely by my parents why would that matter?

At no point have I been defending ID over evolution, I simply posted things I saw in the movie for conversation sake, then you have to get carried away and make personal attacks that are completely unwarranted and have nothing to do with why this thread was started.

"If you don't like your job, you don't strike! You just go in every day, and do it really half assed. That's the American way."
- Homer Simpson

[billvon 3,111]

Both of you cut it out.

[chinagirl 0]

Might I add that the idea of ID came from what else...the Bible. And there is no doubt that the stories in this book has been proven false time and time again. The book contradicts itself! So how in the world do you expect funding for a "theory" that stemmed from a piece of literature that has been PROVEN incorrect?

Although I find it a responsibility to view /read materials that opposes my own view, I can not respectfully endorse a movie that BANNED one of their guest speaker from the premiere. If you have the audacity to interview a person and use the footage for the movie, you owe him the respect to attend the premiere!! Let me reiterate...BANNED!!!! How pathetic is that? I'll watch it when it comes out on video and let you know what I think.

One last note...Hitler was a proclaimed Christian. I wish they would stop using him as an example of an atheist or agnostic.

~Built for Abuse
www.skydivethefarm.com

[Amazon 7]

MMMMM I like popcorn......

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Both of you cut it out.

BOTH of them???

That is rich.....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jsaxton 0]

Quote

A scientific conclusion is found through observation and logic, and is subject to be disproved through observation and logic at any given time.

I was taught that that the scientific process consists of observation experimentation and reason.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

A scientific conclusion is found through observation and logic, and is subject to be disproved through observation and logic at any given time.

I was taught that that the scientific process consists of observation experimentation and reason.

Yes, and the observation of evidence & logical conclusions drawn from those observations.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[auburnguy 0]

Quote

Both of you cut it out.

Last I checked I was the one being personally attacked. I am completely entitled to defend myself.

"If you don't like your job, you don't strike! You just go in every day, and do it really half assed. That's the American way."
- Homer Simpson

[billvon 3,111]

> I am completely entitled to defend myself.

No, you are not. If you don't like that, don't post here.

[GeorgiaDon 379]

There is a website, "Expelled Exposed" (http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth), that systematically debunks each and every claim put forth in the movie. The level of disinformation and outright lies in this "documentary" are in my opinion so extreme that anything Ben Stein (and his co-conspirators) put out after this should be considered complete crap. He has completely ruined his credibility.

The central premise of the movie is that there is a materialistic, atheist cabal of entrenched Darwinists that viciously destroy the careers of anyone who dares question evolutionary theory. They present the "stories" of several alleged victims of this conspiracy.
Here is the summary of one case, that of Dr. Richard Sternberg, from the Expelled Exposed website:
"Expelled claims that Sternberg was “terrorized” and that “his life was nearly ruined” when, in 2004, as editor of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, he published a pro-intelligent design article by Stephen C. Meyer. However, there is no evidence of either terrorism or ruination. Before publishing the paper, Sternberg worked for the National Institutes of Health at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (GenBank) and was an unpaid Research Associate – not an employee – at the Smithsonian. He was the voluntary, unpaid editor of PBSW (small academic journals rarely pay editors), and had given notice of his resignation as editor six months before the Meyer article was published. After the Meyer incident, he remained an employee of NIH and his unpaid position at the Smithsonian was extended in 2006, although he has not shown up there in years. At no time was any aspect of his pay or working conditions at NIH affected. It is difficult to see how his life “was nearly ruined” when nothing serious happened to him. He was never even disciplined for legitimate violations of policy of PBSW or Smithsonian policy."

Some more interesting distortions regarding this specific case: the movie (or is associated web site) claims Dr. Sternberg was forced to turn in his keys, and was kicked out of his office at the Smithsonian, implying this was a result of his involvement in the "intelligent design" movement. In fact, all personnel had to turn in their keys as the Smithsonian converted to a keyless pass-card security system; he was given a pass just like everybody else, and he still has it. The whole area of the Smithsonian where he had his first office was reorganized and everybody was moved to another area. Dr. Sternberg asked for an office in a specific area of the museum, he was given that, and he still has that office. So, Expelled takes 2 totally innocent events, unrelated to the "ID" issue (changing from traditional to electronic keys, and reorganizing office space resulting in a move from one office to another of his own choosing), and makes into a major deal that supposedly "destroyed his career".
Same sort of lies and exaggeration regarding the other cases of "harassment" presented in the movie. All complete crap.

There is also an interesting editorial written by the conservative columnist John Derbyshire in the National Review Online (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGYwMzdjOWRmNGRhOWQ4MTQyZDMxNjNhYTU1YTE5Njk=&w=MA). In part he says "It’s pretty plain that the thing is creationist porn, propaganda for ignorance and obscurantism. How could a guy like this [here he's referring to Ben Stein] do a thing like that?" With regard to the dishonesty of the whole production, he offers the opinion that "These dishonesties do not surprise me. When talking about the creationists to people who don’t follow these controversies closely, I have found that the hardest thing to get across is the shifty, low-cunning aspect of the whole modern creationist enterprise. Individual creationists can be very nice people, though they get nicer the further away they are from the full-time core enterprise of modern creationism at the Discovery Institute. The enterprise as a whole, however, really doesn’t smell good. You notice this when you’re around it a lot. I shall give some more examples in a minute; but what accounts for all this dishonesty and misrepresentation?
My own theory is that the creationists have been morally corrupted by the constant effort of pretending not to be what they are. What they are, as is amply documented, is a pressure group for religious teaching in public schools."
There's quite a lot more worth reading in that editorial.
One more kind of trivial but I think telling indication of the level of honesty in the movie, they are being sued by a number of graphic designers and music publishers (including Yoko Ono!) for allegedly using other peoples music and graphics without acknowledgement, permission, or payment of royalties.

Don

edited to correct National Review Online

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

I found the above referenced web site helpful as far as to the differences between ID Vs Evolution.

You'd find talkorigins.net even more helpful.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?