RE: EXPELLED

RE: EXPELLED (Full Version)

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

Message

henny -> RE: EXPELLED (4/15/2008 2:01:35 AM)
It just looks to me like it's going to be a conservative version of your usual Michael Moore film. Which isn't a bad thing, necessarily, as Moore has a sense of humor and can be entertaining, so perhaps this film will be too. But, I doubt any serious discussion between ID'ists and Evolutionists will be featured. From what I've read of it it seems more like "entertainment for the choir" type stuff, than any sort of serious discussion of the issues.

Jhud -> RE: EXPELLED (4/15/2008 2:06:56 AM)
quote: But, I doubt any serious discussion between ID'ists and Evolutionists will be featured. From what I've read of it it seems more like "entertainment for the choir" type stuff, than any sort of serious discussion of the issues. Have you ever tried to have a serious discussion of the issues with the choir?

essentialsaltes -> RE: EXPELLED (4/15/2008 9:27:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/clinton-dawkins-guilty-as-charged/ http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/e06a27ab30dfd67b/a066ca282e1f8374?lnk=raot Seriously, Davidson was posting a way to illegally hack the Expelled website everywhere he could, it showed up regularly on a Google websearch If providing a URL link to a public website is "illegally hack"ing, then you illegally hacked twice in your own post. It was neither illegal nor a hack.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: EXPELLED (4/15/2008 10:53:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes If providing a URL link to a public website is "illegally hack"ing, then you illegally hacked twice in your own post. It was neither illegal nor a hack. Maybe it wasn't illegal or a hack, it doesn't matter. The point is that if the expelled people did not want this to happen they should have been paying more attention.

essentialsaltes -> RE: EXPELLED (4/15/2008 11:44:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize Maybe it wasn't illegal or a hack, it doesn't matter. Silly me and my fallible relativistic morals, I try to make sure of the matter before I accuse someone of a crime.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: EXPELLED (4/15/2008 11:57:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes Silly me and my fallible relativistic morals, I try to make sure of the matter before I accuse someone of a crime. The person posting did say quote: ORIGINAL: Glend Well hey, it's free, and I doubt that they can enforce any confidentiality agreement on anonymous web postings. So RSVP and go... http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/e06a27ab30dfd67b/a066ca282e1f8374?lnk=raot It seems like he acknowledged what he was doing wasn't legal but that it won't likely be enforced. Now, what I'm doing is not illegal because the problem is now resolved (the loophole on the site has been fixed). Plus, I'm not encouraging people to break the law.

essentialsaltes -> RE: EXPELLED (4/15/2008 12:30:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize It seems like he acknowledged what he was doing wasn't legal but that it won't likely be enforced. As far as I can tell, the only confidentiality agreement relating to Expelled is that those who viewed the movie at early screenings had to sign one stating that they wouldn't write a review until a certain date. So perhaps "Glend" was inciting people to break that agreement, but he didn't break it himself. (OTOH, the review I link to was published before Glend's message, so I don't see why expelled would continue to enforce confidentiality.)

Bettawrekonize -> RE: EXPELLED (4/15/2008 3:52:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes So perhaps "Glend" was inciting people to break that agreement, but he didn't break it himself. Enticing others to break the law sounds illegal. quote: (OTOH, the review I link to was published before Glend's message, so I don't see why expelled would continue to enforce confidentiality.) Even if there are other reviews, that doesn't change the legality of his actions. quote: As far as I can tell, the only confidentiality agreement relating to Expelled is that those who viewed the movie at early screenings had to sign one stating that they wouldn't write a review until a certain date. Your link says quote: At the time, all viewers had to sign a confidentiality agreement that precluded us from writing reviews about the movie. That restriction was lifted yesterday, however, so today I bring you my review of Expelled. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/02/expelled.html It doesn't cite where it got the notion that the restriction was lifted, but if the restriction was lifted before Glend's post, then Glend wasn't doing anything illegal (my mistake). However, he seems to have thought he was. quote: If providing a URL link to a public website is "illegally hack"ing, I'm not sure where you got the impression that it was a public link. Sure Glend posted it on a public forum, but that's not to say it's a public link.

essentialsaltes -> RE: EXPELLED (4/15/2008 5:13:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize It doesn't cite where it got the notion that the restriction was lifted, but if the restriction was lifted before Glend's post, then Glend wasn't doing anything illegal (my mistake). However, he seems to have thought he was. He seems to have thought that breaking the confidentiality agreement would be wrong (which it would have been) but he didn't break it himself. quote: I'm not sure where you got the impression that it was a public link. Sure Glend posted it on a public forum, but that's not to say it's a public link. Glend apparently found it on a public forum (dated before Glend's message).

Bettawrekonize -> RE: EXPELLED (4/15/2008 8:21:09 PM)
Well, a lot of people seem to be under the impression they were doing something illegal which is where I got the inference they were. If they weren't doing anything illegal, I apologize for saying otherwise. It doesn't really matter, the point I was trying to make is irrelevant.

drj11 -> RE: EXPELLED (4/17/2008 11:53:07 AM)
Another piece from SCIAM. There's not a whole lot of information we didn't know already, but I especially liked this tidbit: quote: 5) Science does not reject religious or "design-based" explanations because of dogmatic atheism. Expelled frequently repeats that design-based explanations (not to mention religious ones) are "forbidden" by "big science." It never explains why, however. Evolution and the rest of "big science" are just described as having an atheistic preference. Actually, science avoids design explanations for natural phenomena out of logical necessity. The scientific method involves rigorously observing and experimenting on the material world. It accepts as evidence only what can be measured or otherwise empirically validated (a requirement called methodological naturalism). That requirement prevents scientific theories from becoming untestable and overcomplicated. By those standards, design-based explanations rapidly lose their rigor without independent scientific proof that validates and defines the nature of the designer. Without it, design-based explanations rapidly become unhelpful and tautological: "This looks like it was designed, so there must be a designer; we know there is a designer because this looks designed." A major scientific problem with proposed ID explanations for life is that their proponents cannot suggest any good way to disprove them. ID "theories" are so vague that even if specific explanations are disproved, believers can simply search for new signs of design. Consequently, investigators do not generally consider ID to be a productive or useful approach to science. There you have it... can people stop confusing methodical naturalism for atheistic, materialist conspiracies now? Rest of the article: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know

Jhud -> RE: EXPELLED (4/17/2008 11:57:36 AM)
quote: There you have it... can people stop confusing methodical naturalism for atheistic, materialist conspiracies now? Rest of the article: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know Well the reality is, the criteria for detecting design (apart from knowledge of the designer) already exist in science; it is only the reduction of science to materialist philosophy that keeps these criteria from being applied to biology.

drj11 -> RE: EXPELLED (4/17/2008 12:11:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: There you have it... can people stop confusing methodical naturalism for atheistic, materialist conspiracies now? Rest of the article: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know Well the reality is, the criteria for detecting design (apart from knowledge of the designer) already exist in science; it is only the reduction of science to materialist philosophy that keeps these criteria from being applied to biology. Are you speaking of IC and SC here? I have found both Behe and Demski quite unconvincing in their arguments for these design detection criteria, as well as their rebuttals to their critics.

cow451 -> RE: EXPELLED (4/17/2008 12:18:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: There you have it... can people stop confusing methodical naturalism for atheistic, materialist conspiracies now? Rest of the article: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know Well the reality is, the criteria for detecting design (apart from knowledge of the designer) already exist in science; it is only the reduction of science to materialist philosophy that keeps these criteria from being applied to biology. Where "design" becomes a problem for me is that, first, it is inferred without any way to connect to a designer or designing entity. The world is now living in an age of design in that humans can design biological structures. But we can prove human design now. But were humans designed? Well, certainly it is easy enough to infer based on the fact that humans can and do design. But that's where ID comes to a dead stop, IMHO.

Jhud -> RE: EXPELLED (4/17/2008 12:25:11 PM)
quote: Are you speaking of IC and SC here? I have found both Behe and Demski quite unconvincing in their arguments for these design detection criteria, as well as their rebuttals to their critics. I am speaking of the means already employed by science to determine the artificiality of a structure or system.

drj11 -> RE: EXPELLED (4/17/2008 12:28:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: Are you speaking of IC and SC here? I have found both Behe and Demski quite unconvincing in their arguments for these design detection criteria, as well as their rebuttals to their critics. I am speaking of the means already employed by science to determine the artificiality of a structure or system. There a method or a process with a name you can specify here? In all cases I am aware of, pre-existing knowledge of the designer (or sets of designers) is the key piece of the criteria used in all such processes. IC and SC are the only two ways I have ever heard of attempt to detect design without knowledge of the designer.

Jhud -> RE: EXPELLED (4/17/2008 12:28:46 PM)
quote: Where "design" becomes a problem for me is that, first, it is inferred without any way to connect to a designer or designing entity. The world is now living in an age of design in that humans can design biological structures. But we can prove human design now. But were humans designed? Well, certainly it is easy enough to infer based on the fact that humans can and do design. But that's where ID comes to a dead stop, IMHO. Well, it is also based on the fact that we have never observed evidence to indicate nature can originate such designs unguided; so their is the positive evidence that intelligence can do something, and there is our observation that nature alone seems not able to do something. That would seem to address the issue form both ends, and it is a notion that is eminently falsifiable.

Jhud -> RE: EXPELLED (4/17/2008 12:31:05 PM)
quote: There a method or a process with a name you can specify here? In all cases I am aware of, pre-existing knowledge of the designer (or sets of designers) is the key piece of the criteria used in all such processes. I think the methodology of Systematic Flaking, which allows us to tell artefacts from geofacts is a good example of this.

drj11 -> RE: EXPELLED (4/17/2008 12:41:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: There a method or a process with a name you can specify here? In all cases I am aware of, pre-existing knowledge of the designer (or sets of designers) is the key piece of the criteria used in all such processes. I think the methodology of Systematic Flaking, which allows us to tell artefacts from geofacts is a good example of this. Wouldn't that be an example where the designer (or a set of possible designers) is already known? Edit: In this case, we are looking for evidence of behavior... we know humans/primates will use/have used stone's in certain ways, so we look for patterns that would result from those behaviors.

Jhud -> RE: EXPELLED (4/17/2008 12:44:42 PM)
quote: Wouldn't that be an example where the designer (or a set of possible designers) is already known? Well, no, the whole point is you have a rock and you don't know if it is manufactured to look like a tool, or if the structure occurred naturally - Systematic Flaking is the schema that allows you to tell the difference.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: EXPELLED (4/17/2008 1:22:22 PM)
IC and SC systems do originate from human designs. Look at cars, if you remove a tire it loses great functionality. The point here is that they were put together as an integrated unit and whenever we do observe a functioning IC system and the origins are known, they were not the result of an incremental process like evolution. Thus, when we see such systems in living organisms, where the origins are unknown, we can infer the components were manufactured to function as an integrated unit, not in a stepwise manner like Darwin proposed. Design is the best explanation for this since forethought is the only observable mechanism of creating IC and SC systems. This is a completely falsifiable statement. quote: ORIGINAL: drj11 Wouldn't that be an example where the designer (or a set of possible designers) is already known? Why should it be? We know of characteristics that are only seen in designed objects where the origins are known. It doesn't matter who the designer is, we know these characteristics arise from design and, where the origins are known, these characteristics are only observed in designed objects. So when we see them in objects where the origins are not known, we can infer those objects were the product of design, even if we don't know who the designer is (because we know certain characteristics are only observed to emerge in designed objects). These characteristics are never observed to emerge independently of design, regardless of who the designer is, so it can be reasonably inferred that when we see such characteristics and the origins are unknown, they are the product of design, even if we don't know who the designer is.

Veritas -> RE: EXPELLED (4/17/2008 3:57:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: There a method or a process with a name you can specify here? In all cases I am aware of, pre-existing knowledge of the designer (or sets of designers) is the key piece of the criteria used in all such processes. I think the methodology of Systematic Flaking, which allows us to tell artefacts from geofacts is a good example of this. In your example, we not only have a known designer, but also known methods. When ID is applied to biological structures, we have neither a know designer nor any know methods.

Nothingman -> RE: EXPELLED (4/17/2008 4:03:24 PM)
henny....you're picture is the creepiest thing. Why on earth do you have it?

Jhud -> RE: EXPELLED (4/17/2008 4:04:58 PM)
quote: In your example, we not only have a known designer, but also known methods. When ID is applied to biological structures, we have neither a know designer nor any know methods. Partly true. In fact, I would say one of the reasons ID arises now in the manner that it does is that for the first time in history we have some ideas about what it takes to program sophisticated information systems, produce molecular micro-machinery, and manipulate the structures of genomes. Contrary to what Darwin understood, the cell isn't a simple protoplasmic structure, but a sophisticated information driven molecular machine factory, and as we grow ever more sophisticated in our own knowledge of what is required to produce them, we can begin to discern how intelligence played a role.

Nothingman -> RE: EXPELLED (4/17/2008 4:09:59 PM)
Jhud, you seem an interesting fella. One day I would love to pick your brain. (btw all you literalist, imagine if we took this sentance as literal as you do genesis ! both senerios end badly...)

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI