RE: EXPELLED (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

Jhud -> RE: EXPELLED (4/26/2008 11:17:16 PM)

quote:

Quite honestly, anyone who disproves evolution will stand quite a lot to gain.. probably millions of dollars and nobel prizes etc etc. Hasnt happened and even if it did, creationism is still absurdly wrong.


There is nothing to gain by proven a theory wrong, though using the correct paradigm when conducting research is always beneficial.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: EXPELLED (4/26/2008 11:33:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11
I don't have any problem with questioning evolution at all.


Then you shouldn't have a problem with scientists and researchers who question evolution.

quote:


If evolution went the way of the dodo tomorrow, it still doesn't make creationism or ID any less incorrect than they are now.


ID and Creationism are correct.

quote:


Unfortunately, scientists claiming pseudoscience is actually science does speak quite heavily to their qualifications to teach people on matters of science.


So when they claim that a pseudoscience like UCD is science, they are not qualified to teach matters of science?

quote:


It looks pretty clear that the cases in expelled were trumped up and exaggerated, but I honestly wouldn't have a problem with them if they weren't. Its not discrimination... unless by discrimination you mean the good sense to make sure your employees are qualified for the roles you want them to fulfill.


So they should be qualified by believing in the pseudoscience of UCD?

quote:


And just FYI... going up against creationism and ID, is not going against God.. it is going up against some of his more misguided followers... who most definitely aren't omnipotent, omniscient, nor omnipresent. The Bible is so horribly misused by literalists, its really a shame to see.


That's not what I said. I said that, "Those who imply that the conspiracy is on Christians must realize the opposite is in fact true."

quote:


I hope you see reason one day.


I see no reason to believe that evolution is reasonable when it maintains itself by resorting to the censorship of criticisms and opposing views.

quote:


Quite honestly, anyone who disproves evolution will stand quite a lot to gain.


It is difficult to prove a negative. If someone wants to claim UCD is true, the burden of proof is on them.



drj11 -> RE: EXPELLED (4/27/2008 1:32:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Quite honestly, anyone who disproves evolution will stand quite a lot to gain.. probably millions of dollars and nobel prizes etc etc. Hasnt happened and even if it did, creationism is still absurdly wrong.


There is nothing to gain by proven a theory wrong, though using the correct paradigm when conducting research is always beneficial.


Well any discovery that is big enough to falsify a major component of TTOE would probably be extremely significant.... I would be willing to bet it would rank up there with any other discovery worthy of a nobel prize.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: EXPELLED (4/27/2008 1:41:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11
Well any discovery that is big enough to falsify a major component of TTOE would probably be extremely significant.... I would be willing to bet it would rank up there with any other discovery worthy of a nobel prize.


Again, it isn't for us to prove that UCD didn't occur (a negative), it's for evolutionists to demonstrate that it did. We don't need to prove a negative, you need to demonstrate a (falsifiable) positive. You claim that UCD is true, the burden is for you to show that it is, not for us to show that it isn't.



drj11 -> RE: EXPELLED (4/27/2008 1:43:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Then you shouldn't have a problem with scientists and researchers who question evolution.


I don't. But being a proponent of ID or creationism isn't worthy questioning. When there is some significant evidence for either 'theory', wake me up and we'll take it from there.

quote:


ID and Creationism are correct.


For the most part they are mutually exclusive. ID as I understand it now, would simply supplant natural selection/random mutation as the driving force for speciation, but the other major aspects of evolution would remain. Young Earth does not jive with ID, so how can both be correct at the same time?

quote:


So when they claim that a pseudoscience like UCD is science, they are not qualified to teach matters of science?

So they should be qualified by believing in the pseudoscience of UCD?


There are several avenues for falsification of UCD. Several have been talked about here ad nauseam. What is your particular beef with them and why do you reject them and continue to claim this?

quote:


That's not what I said. I said that, "Those who imply that the conspiracy is on Christians must realize the opposite is in fact true."


The conspiracy is from the folks at the DI, mostly. Wedge document...

quote:


I see no reason to believe that evolution is reasonable when it maintains itself by resorting to the censorship of criticisms and opposing views.


No one is censoring you. You just don't get to skip the whole winning of a concensus thing and go straight to a classroom. However, your free to do any reasearch you want. Judging by all the articles and studies over at trueorigins and religious institutions there is plenty of funding to go around.

quote:


It is difficult to prove a negative. If someone wants to claim UCD is true, the burden of proof is on them.


No, actually thats exactly how it works. The theory is posited, then people go about trying to disprove it. Every experiment or piece of evidence gathered that falls within its range of predictions is a failure to disprove it, and the theory becomes strengthened. There is quite the mountain of evidence for UCD. At this point, the burden is on you to disprove it. The burden is on every scientist to disprove it, actually. Thats how a hypothesis works its way to becoming a theory... attempts are made to disprove it, over and over again... and experiment with either disprove a theory or give you a piece of evidence that confirms its expectations.. but it will never actually prove it, in absolute certainty.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: EXPELLED (4/27/2008 1:56:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11
I don't. But being a proponent of ID or creationism isn't worthy questioning. When there is some significant evidence for either 'theory', wake me up and we'll take it from there.


I think that whatever one believes requires faith. ID is falsifiable, UCD is not. Creationism and ID are no less supported by the evidence than UCD.

quote:


For the most part they are mutually exclusive.


No they are not.

quote:


ID as I understand it now, would simply supplant natural selection/random mutation as the driving force for speciation, but the other major aspects of evolution would remain. Young Earth does not jive with ID, so how can both be correct at the same time?


ID says nothing about the age of the earth. Behe may say something about the age of the earth, but ID does not. ID also does not claim, "natural selection/random mutation as the driving force for speciation," though it does not contradict such a claim either. It also does not claim that, "the other major aspects of evolution would remain" and it doesn't necessarily contradict this (it depends on what aspects you are referring to, assuming you are referring to evolution independent of design).

quote:


There are several avenues for falsification of UCD. Several have been talked about here ad nauseam. What is your particular beef with them and why do you reject them and continue to claim this?


Darwin made predictions, many of his predictions were wrong, and it did not falsify UCD. This suggests that UCD is unfalsifiable. You simply change the alleged falsification schema, but again, if that were falsified, I see no reason why evolutionists wouldn't continue to change the falsification schema. There is no reason for me to believe UCD is falsifiable.

quote:


No one is censoring you.


They dishonestly censor it from the classroom.

quote:


You just don't get to skip the whole winning of a concensus thing and go straight to a classroom.


Science is not based on your alleged consensus.

quote:


However, your free to do any reasearch you want. Judging by all the articles and studies over at trueorigins and religious institutions there is plenty of funding to go around.


They do privately funded studies. However, evolutionists fund their studies and exposure with tax dollars and this gives them an unfair advantage. This unfair advantage should be eliminated. If evolution wants to show itself to be scientific, it must survive without stealing a free ride from taxpayers.

quote:


There is quite the mountain of evidence for UCD.


Claims like this are easy enough to make, substantiation is a whole different issue.

quote:


At this point, the burden is on you to disprove it. The burden is on every scientist to disprove it, actually


Again, Darwin was wrong about a lot which either means that UCD has been falsified or it is unfalsifiable.



drj11 -> RE: EXPELLED (4/27/2008 2:36:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
I think that whatever one believes requires faith. ID is falsifiable, UCD is not. Creationism and ID are no less supported by the evidence than UCD.


I don't believe in evolution the same way a religious person believes in faith. I really wish people would stop saying this, its pretty annoying. If evolution were disproved, I would no longer believe it to be a reasonably accurate depiction of the origins of species. What would it take to disprove God? If that happened, would you stop believing in him? I don't think so. Its not the same thing at all. I don't go home and pray every night to the the theory of evolution or natural selection. Its not faith... at least not in the way you use it here. Can we move beyond this misrepresentation already... once and for all?

quote:


No they are not.

ID says nothing about the age of the earth. Behe may say something about the age of the earth, but ID does not. ID also does not claim, "natural selection/random mutation as the driving force for speciation," though it does not contradict such a claim either. It also does not claim that, "the other major aspects of evolution would remain" and it doesn't necessarily contradict this (it depends on what aspects you are referring to, assuming you are referring to evolution independent of design).


ID generally says it predicts the same kind of UCD is a part of evolution that you dislike so much. In what ever manner you use the term 'ID'... it doesn't seem to mesh with what the rest of the ID'ists say.

quote:


Darwin made predictions, many of his predictions were wrong, and it did not falsify UCD. This suggests that UCD is unfalsifiable. You simply change the alleged falsification schema, but again, if that were falsified, I see no reason why evolutionists wouldn't continue to change the falsification schema. There is no reason for me to believe UCD is falsifiable.


So your contention is that a theory has to be immutable? C'mon, you know better... It has been shown that irreducible complexity is not evidence for ID, that it can be produced by evolution, and furthermore... all the systems Behe used as examples of it in court have been shown not to be irreducibly complex at all. Yet ID isnt falsified in your view... would that not be an example of 'changing the falsification schema'?

quote:


They dishonestly censor it from the classroom.


They correctly and justifiably keep it from the classroom. Behe had his day in court to provide evidence for ID and prove once and for all it was a valid theory.. and in a court that favored him. He couldnt do it. Show the people the evidence and you will waltz right into the classroom alongside evolution. But there isnt any.

As for creationism, what exactly would you have us teach? There is actually no grand unified theory of creationism. Creationism only has a few random factoids here and there based on tenuous ideas and bad science, many of which are actually mutually exclusive with one another.

quote:


Science is not based on your alleged consensus.


Scientific consensus plays a huge role in science... especially when it comes to determing what scientific ideas and theories we teach kids.

quote:


They do privately funded studies. However, evolutionists fund their studies and exposure with tax dollars and this gives them an unfair advantage. This unfair advantage should be eliminated. If evolution wants to show itself to be scientific, it must survive without stealing a free ride from taxpayers.


Evolution research bears fruit. As of yet, creationism nor ID have any to speak of.

quote:


Again, Darwin was wrong about a lot which either means that UCD has been falsified or it is unfalsifiable.


Again, theories aren't immutable, and you know this... It doesn't matter what Darwin said. Would it make you feel better if we re-name evolution to something else, the next time a new discovery is made that proves a portion of the theory inadequate?



mcp -> RE: EXPELLED (4/27/2008 6:16:20 PM)

Well, I finally saw the movie. I thought Stein did a good job to accomplish what he sought to do in the alloted time. I have to say that it was much like that characterized by the trailers . The movie is similar in key respects to many modern documentary styles, such as Frontline uses. It is a polemic propaganda piece so to speak to market Stein's case (as most docs do nowadays). But since one of his key points was that there were those who reject IDer's who then couldn't explain their own audacious reach into the unknown with science, I think his request for more critical thought on science models is founded.

I can't speak to the "he said, she said" controversies going on right now over the film's making, but I think the concerns stand on their own.

I also noted the credits given to the intercellular movie. Of course, now I see from pandasthumb, that Myers has retracted his charge (yet he still maintains that it is plagarism, b/c both renderings (Harvard and the Expelled versions) have the same lack of molecular complexity.

quote:

drj11: The Bible is so horribly misused by literalists, its really a shame to see. I hope you see reason one day.


Now an expert in theology and biblical lexicology, are we? There are times when language used is meant to be literal. How do you determine Genesis as illiteral? Oh, yeah, the evidence. Well then, how do you know that the "Genesis account" is not just purely error and not symbolism or allegory? You could then just call our faith not misinterpretation of factual revelation but all together false faith.


quote:

Can we move beyond this misrepresentation already... once and for all?


Not when some disagree it a misrepresentation (especially the ID vs. naturalism interpretations).

quote:

I don't believe in evolution the same way a religious person believes in faith. I really wish people would stop saying this, its pretty annoying. If evolution were disproved, I would no longer believe it to be a reasonably accurate depiction of the origins of species. What would it take to disprove God? If that happened, would you stop believing in him? I don't think so. Its not the same thing at all. I don't go home and pray every night to the the theory of evolution or natural selection. Its not faith... at least not in the way you use it here.


So you think that religious people can't lose their faith? Many atheists are ex-religious people, especially in the US. Definition of faith b/w the opposing sides is always the point of contention. You can have faith as a worldview and acceptance of your current interpretations for the evidences you are cognizant of (this includes religion, science and history). We on my side believe you presuppose or interpret way more than your side gives acknowledment to. It is true that you could accept God and reject the interpretations used by Creationists for Genesis; but Darwin posited a purely undefended naturalist connection to the origins of life by observing physical differences in species and people have bought it as science ever since (with modifications of course). Note, I am not discounting is observations; they do mean something to all scientists. But Science didn't even understand much about cells, molecular structures or DNA for years. But that didn't stop anybody from teaching kids. The last time I saw Kenneth Miller defend the connection from whales to dog families, he offered 3 transitional forms; yet kids are taught this as quite fundamental evidence of the connections in the neoevolutionary tree of life.

I would much prefer that science just claim is still working on the matter of origins; that all animals, etc could be linked based on the current evol theories state; or may not be linked by common anscestory at all. It is OK for science to say it is too early to give a more definitive theory.



Real_Solitude -> RE: EXPELLED (4/28/2008 3:54:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
However, evolutionists fund their studies and exposure with tax dollars and this gives them an unfair advantage. This unfair advantage should be eliminated. If evolution wants to show itself to be scientific, it must survive without stealing a free ride from taxpayers.


Please correct me if I'm wrong, but ID and Creationism research get most of their funding from religious institutions, correct?
Am I also correct in remembering that major portions of religious operations (such as churches) are untaxable?
If both of these statements are true, then ID is already getting a free ride as far as taxes go. It's main contributors don't have to pay them (or at least as much). They may not be getting as much of a benefit as evolutionary study does, but evolutionary study, to date, has produced much more than ID research has. Should we be allotting equal tax money to both sides of the issue when one is a relatively new hypothesis, and the other is a time-tested theory?



Jhud -> RE: EXPELLED (4/28/2008 9:53:34 AM)

quote:

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but ID and Creationism research get most of their funding from religious institutions, correct?
Am I also correct in remembering that major portions of religious operations (such as churches) are untaxable?
If both of these statements are true, then ID is already getting a free ride as far as taxes go. It's main contributors don't have to pay them (or at least as much). They may not be getting as much of a benefit as evolutionary study does, but evolutionary study, to date, has produced much more than ID research has. Should we be allotting equal tax money to both sides of the issue when one is a relatively new hypothesis, and the other is a time-tested theory?


I don't think that this is true at all; I don't know any churches that fund ID, and churches would be just as able to send there money to universities which do evolutionary research (in fact, it is certain some institutions associated with churches do just that).



drj11 -> RE: EXPELLED (5/8/2008 11:27:08 AM)

Ken Miller, a Christian evolutionist and biology professor who has been at the forefront of the ID/Evolution controversy, just wrote a piece on Expelled. Of course, Expelled didn't feature him, even though there's few figures out there that have been more involved in preventing ID from being part of a school curriculum (that wouldn't play into the movie's who atheist conspiracy message). In his usual fashion, he hits the nail on the head.

More at: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/05/08/trouble_ahead_for_science/

quote:


The movie also uses interviews with avowed atheists like Richard Dawkins, author of "The God Delusion," to argue that scientific establishment is vehemently anti-God. Never mind that 40 percent of the members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science profess belief in a personal God. Stein, avoiding these 50,000 people, tells viewers that "Darwinists" don't allow scientists to even think of God.

Puzzled, the editors of Scientific American asked Mark Mathis, the film's co-producer, why he and Stein didn't interview such people, like Francis Collins (head of the Human Genome Project), Francisco Ayala, or myself. Mathis cited me by name, saying "Ken Miller would have confused the film unnecessarily." In other words, showing a scientist who accepts both God and evolution would have confused their story line.



1dblthnk02 -> RE: EXPELLED (5/8/2008 11:43:56 AM)

Thanks, drj11. Keep telling the truth.



Jhud -> RE: EXPELLED (5/8/2008 12:43:57 PM)

quote:

Ken Miller, a Christian evolutionist and biology professor who has been at the forefront of the ID/Evolution controversy, just wrote a piece on Expelled. Of course, Expelled didn't feature him, even though there's few figures out there that have been more involved in preventing ID from being part of a school curriculum (that wouldn't play into the movie's who atheist conspiracy message). In his usual fashion, he hits the nail on the head.


Miller is one of those guys Dawkins referred to in the movie who apologizes for evolution to religious folk and attempts to make it more palatable to them; I think it was PZ Meyers who called Miller a creationist because he didn't tow the atheist line; I'll have to look it up later.



drj11 -> RE: EXPELLED (5/8/2008 1:00:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Miller is one of those guys Dawkins referred to in the movie who apologizes for evolution to religious folk and attempts to make it more palatable to them; I think it was PZ Meyers who called Miller a creationist because he didn't tow the atheist line; I'll have to look it up later.


Which is partly why I think Dawkin's and PZ's continual brow beating steps far into the world of the irrational which they claim to despise, even though on occasion they do make some points for which I find myself sympathetic. Their modus operandi seems to be that if they just yell hard enough next time, religion will go away. They refuse to even recognize that there needs to be some ambassadorship on the scientific front to help those religious people understand, that evolution isnt an attack on God or faith. It's also one of the reason's I like Ken Miller, because he will actually engage in the debate over ID at a scientific level, without doing a 'reverse Stein' maneuver and turning the discussion into an anti-religion pulpit, for which he goes on to blame it for all the ills of the world (sure it can be blamed for lots of the ills of the world... but not everything ;)). If there's one person out there that honestly looks at what people like Behe say and addresses it directly, its Ken Miller.



Jhud -> RE: EXPELLED (5/8/2008 1:07:13 PM)

quote:

Which is partly why I think Dawkin's and PZ's continual brow beating steps far into the world of the irrational which they claim to despise, even though on occasion they do make some points for which I find myself sympathetic. It's also one of the reason's I like Ken Miller, because he will actually engage in the debate over ID at a scientific level, without doing a 'reverse Stein' maneuver and turning the discussion into an anti-religion pulpit, for which he goes on to blame it for all the ills of the world (sure it can be blamed for lots of the ills of the world... but not everything ;)). If there's one person out there that honestly looks at what people like Behe say and addresses it directly, its Ken Miller.


I always find it interesting, that evolutionists variously reject and welcome the likes of Dawkins and Meyers depending on the circumstances. The reality is the scientific community by and large has embraced Dawkins et. al., only offering mild rebukes to their obvious conflation of science and metaphysics, while castigating IDists for doing what they claim is the same thing. They do this apparently not because they think Dawkins is wrong, but because they feel he is a liability from a public relations standpoint. Were Dawkins not so noxious to significant portions of the public, I have no doubt the science community would bother at all.



drj11 -> RE: EXPELLED (5/8/2008 1:27:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
I always find it interesting, that evolutionists variously reject and welcome the likes of Dawkins and Meyers depending on the circumstances. The reality is the scientific community by and large has embraced Dawkins et. al., only offering mild rebukes to their obvious conflation of science and metaphysics, while castigating IDists for doing what they claim is the same thing. They do this apparently not because they think Dawkins is wrong, but because they feel he is a liability from a public relations standpoint. Were Dawkins not so noxious to significant portions of the public, I have no doubt the science community would bother at all.


Sometimes Dawkin's and Meyers are right. Sometimes they are wrong... they are certainly free to say what they want, but again we come back to the realization that what evolution says to them on a personal 'metaphysical' level, isn't what evolution actually says, and is really no consequence to TTOE.

But you have to admit Jhud.. regardless of your version of ID, the evidence suggests that your theory, when it reaches the classroom really isn't the same thing you talk about. That's why ID is considered by most to be a bait and switch scam, and a political maneuver to circumvent state and church separation. Examples abound of ID textbooks that were simply old creationist textbooks with the word 'creation', searched and replaced with 'design'.

Show me a significant amount of prominent ID'ists who arent tied to or work for the DI and I might believe it's not entirely motivated by the notion of re-centering science around Christianity. That is the mission of the DI, and we have written proof.



Jhud -> RE: EXPELLED (5/8/2008 1:40:40 PM)

quote:

Sometimes Dawkin's and Meyers are right. Sometimes they are wrong... they are certainly free to say what they want, but again we come back to the realization that what evolution says to them on a personal 'metaphysical' level, isn't what evolution actually says, and is really no consequence to TTOE.

But you have to admit Jhud.. regardless of your version of ID, the evidence suggests that your theory, when it reaches the classroom really isn't the same thing you talk about. That's why ID is considered by most to be a bait and switch scam, and a political maneuver to circumvent state and church separation. Examples abound of ID textbooks that were simply old creationist textbooks with the word 'creation', searched and replaced with 'design'.

Show me a significant amount of prominent ID'ists who arent tied to or work for the DI and I might believe it's not entirely motivated by the notion of re-centering science around Christianity. That is the mission of the DI, and we have written proof.


It really has nothing to do from my perspective with ‘classrooms’ or DI; it has to do with explanatory power. I personally could care less about the rest; and I am not sure what this has to do with the obvious acceptance by large numbers of evolutionists of the conflation between metaphysics and science practiced by Dawkins et. al.; it certainly serves as no defense of the practice.



drj11 -> RE: EXPELLED (5/8/2008 2:03:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
It really has nothing to do from my perspective with ‘classrooms’ or DI; it has to do with explanatory power. I personally could care less about the rest; and I am not sure what this has to do with the obvious acceptance by large numbers of evolutionists of the conflation between metaphysics and science practiced by Dawkins et. al.; it certainly serves as no defense of the practice.


I'm not sure either... you deflected my comments about Ken Miller by bringing up Dawkins and PZ.. and somehow bringing up Ken Miller.. I responded and that somehow makes me a Dawkins/Meyers apologist. Plenty of theistic evolutions sympathize and agree with Ken Miller's metaphysical conclusions of evolution. Whatever Dawkin's and Meyers say about Ken Miller, they cannot accuse him of misrepresenting evolution. If you read much of Ken Miller's research, you will see some very sound arguments that really and truly strike at the heart of ID, and might shed light on why it hasn't gotten anywhere. And you don't have to deal with any anti-religion message intertwined with the arguments.

And I don't think I've ever really praised or said any kind words about PZ or Dawkins on this site at all.

I find it kind of funny though, there is all this ridicule from ID'ers of Dawkin's for the bit in Expelled where he talks about alien's being intelligent designers, when it was the ID'ists who proposed that idea first, to make it more palatable to non-theists. That was the whole purpose of disambiguating the designer in the first place.



Jhud -> RE: EXPELLED (5/8/2008 2:09:35 PM)

quote:

I'm not sure either... you deflected my comments about Ken Miller by bringing up Dawkins and PZ.. and somehow bringing up Ken Miller.. I responded and that somehow makes me a Dawkins/Meyers apologist. Plenty of theistic evolutions sympathize and agree with Ken Miller's metaphysical conclusions of evolution. Whatever Dawkin's and Meyers say about Ken Miller, they cannot accuse him of misrepresenting evolution. If you read much of Ken Miller's research, you will see some very sound arguments that really and truly strike at the heart of ID, and might shed light on why it hasn't gotten anywhere.


Actually, while Miller has made a number of statements in response to ID, I haven’t seen all that much ‘research’ from him on the question. His response follows the typical “Well it’s possible it could have transpired this way…” sort of response, which I don’t find all that convincing.

quote:

And I don't think I've ever really praised or said any kind words about PZ or Dawkins on this site at all.

I find it kind of funny though, there is all this ridicule from ID'ers of Dawkin's for the bit in Expelled where he talks about alien's being intelligent designers, when it was the ID'ists who proposed that idea first, to make it more palatable to non-theists. That was the whole purpose of disambiguating the designer in the first place.


Actually, I think you misunderstand the ridicule of Dawkins vis a vis his alien intelligence response; it amounts to a tacit admission that ID has validity, it’s just that his metaphysical inclinations keep him from understanding that. It has nothing to do with the fact that he posits an alien intelligence.



drj11 -> RE: EXPELLED (5/8/2008 2:14:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Actually, while Miller has made a number of statements in response to ID, I haven’t seen all that much ‘research’ from him on the question. His response follows the typical “Well it’s possible it could have transpired this way…” sort of response, which I don’t find all that convincing.


Well, given that most ID arguments are "It couldnt have happened this way", I think they do quite well and address them convincingly ;)



Jhud -> RE: EXPELLED (5/8/2008 2:30:20 PM)

quote:

Well, given that most ID arguments are "It couldnt have happened this way", I think they do quite well and address them convincingly


Most good scientific statements are that way. Particles with mass can't exceed the speed of light. Matter can't be created or destroyed. Germs couldn't propogate by way of spontaneous generation, etc.



Method -> RE: EXPELLED (5/8/2008 3:33:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
I always find it interesting, that evolutionists variously reject and welcome the likes of Dawkins and Meyers depending on the circumstances. The reality is the scientific community by and large has embraced Dawkins et. al., only offering mild rebukes to their obvious conflation of science and metaphysics, while castigating IDists for doing what they claim is the same thing. They do this apparently not because they think Dawkins is wrong, but because they feel he is a liability from a public relations standpoint. Were Dawkins not so noxious to significant portions of the public, I have no doubt the science community would bother at all.


Personally, I could care less about Dawkin's and PZ's tirades against religion. They might be entertaining at times, but irrelevant to how I view the world.

What I find revealing is how ID institutes like DI and this film production try to make this into a PR battle. The strategy is obvious. The more they can distract people from the actual science the better. This is why we hear stories of poor little so-and-so who was persecuted (hardly) for their ID beliefs. Next, let's compare our opponents to the most heinous people of the 20th century. Hmm, that should work. Oh, and throw in some phony appeal to "academic freedom", as if scientific theories are fads instead of well supported scientific findings.



Method -> RE: EXPELLED (5/8/2008 3:35:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Most good scientific statements are that way. Particles with mass can't exceed the speed of light. Matter can't be created or destroyed. Germs couldn't propogate by way of spontaneous generation, etc.


By themselves, those are very poor scientific statements. Particles with mass would require infinite energy to attain the speed of light. Matter is destroyed, but it's destruction produces energy. Germs are observed to asexually reproduce.



Jhud -> RE: EXPELLED (5/8/2008 11:36:07 PM)

quote:

By themselves, those are very poor scientific statements. Particles with mass would require infinite energy to attain the speed of light. Matter is destroyed, but it's destruction produces energy. Germs are observed to asexually reproduce.


You do realize you didnt contradict a thing I said?

And the fact that you don't know the difference between asexual reproduction and spontaneous generation pretty much renders any claim you have ever made to having an education in biology suspect.



mcp -> RE: EXPELLED (5/9/2008 2:10:01 PM)

quote:

What I find revealing is how ID institutes like DI and this film production try to make this into a PR battle. The strategy is obvious. The more they can distract people from the actual science the better. This is why we hear stories of poor little so-and-so who was persecuted (hardly) for their ID beliefs. Next, let's compare our opponents to the most heinous people of the 20th century. Hmm, that should work. Oh, and throw in some phony appeal to "academic freedom", as if scientific theories are fads instead of well supported scientific findings.


Yeah, never been any PR battles on the TOE side. PR is how one lawyers their way into a conversation. When scientists accept the summary of science interpretations without some level of scrutiny on their own part, then how is science in the classroom any more than a 'fad' reflecting the consensus of the current industry? How much do the science classes offer in support of the theory? 3 transitional forms (part artist rendering) between whale and dog?

BTW, the nazis already believed in extermination; they could just use the eugenics theories that had co-developed with TOE to propogandize and justify their already held beliefs.



Page: <<   < prev  8 9 10 [11] 12   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI