RE: EXPELLED (Full Version)

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



Message

essentialsaltes -> RE: EXPELLED (4/20/2008 5:09:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11

Too bad you've been totally mislead. One of their interviewees who got 'expelled' wasn't even an employee in the first place. The others had questionable situations as well. Of course, the film plays off all of you're predispositions to believe in 'big science' conspiracies against ID. Its not that it lacks evidence... its a conspiracy!! Sure it is.


Which interviewee was not an employee of the organization of which he claimed to not be an employee?


I haven't seen the film, and I can't read drj11's mind, but I'm guessing it was Sternberg, who was "an unpaid Research Associate – not an employee – at the Smithsonian" who served out his full three year appointment without being dismissed, and was later given another three year appointment with the Smithsonian. The Expelled Exposed site provides, let's say, an alternate view of the expelled people. I encourage you to fact-check any claims you may distrust with news searches.



essentialsaltes -> RE: EXPELLED (4/20/2008 5:30:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mcp

As a slight aside-

for those on this forum that disagree with ID being a viable assumption on which to bounce science off or just reject God (as wholly unevidenced), how do you feel about Dawkins? I know some in agreement with his stance feel he isn't the best spokesman or PR rep for atheism or evolution, but what about his arguments & evolutionary explanations?


Speaking as an atheist, I don't think Dawkins is always the best public face to put on atheism. I honestly don't know what the actual focus of his own research is, but his popular science books about evolution are excellent. The God Delusion was, in many ways, a disappointment.

quote:

but he seems to be the forefront in the critique of this movie (that is, of the anti-IDer experts interviewed for the movie


No, most of them are a bit upset about being interviewed for "Crossroads: The Intersection of Science and Religion" and winding up in "Expelled". PZ Myers has bellowed long and lustily about it in his Pharyngula blog, and Eugenie Scott's NCSE organization has created the Expelled Exposed site to rebut certain of its claim.



Aphobos -> RE: EXPELLED (4/20/2008 8:14:10 PM)

I saw the movie on Friday. It's objective is to demonstrate the stifling affects of entrenched dogma on scientific inquiry and intellectual freedom. The situation is not unlike that of the Copernican Revolution of the Sixteenth Century -- only this time, the expurgating 'church' is that of materialistic atheism. Galileo was placed under house arrest by the intelligentsia of his day for challenging their geocentric dogmata. Likewise, their modern counterparts are trying to place Stein and the producers of 'Expelled' under virtual house arrest lest anyone consider their work, look into their telescope, and fall under a spell.

Is it a propaganda piece? Most certainly. In the sense that the producers are trying to persuade the audience to join their cause, it is propaganda. But is that ipso facto a bad thing? Were it not for the sometimes over-the-top propaganda of the Office of War Information during the Second World War, domestic support would not have endured long enough to see the defeat of Nazism.

The real question, then, isn't whether or not the documentary is unbiased. (Were any of the Michael Moore documentaries purely objective? Nontheless, they received lavish exposure and accolades from the very same voices that now decry 'Expelled' as propaganda.) No, the real question is whether the propaganda is justified. And in my opinion, it is.

Whether or not "ID" is science is irrelevant. It is a hypothesis -- one that provides a reference point from which to conduct scientific exploration. It seemed to work exceptionally well for men like Newton, Pasteur, and Einstein. Far from stultifying scientific advancement, the supposition of an Intelligent Designer inspired and motivated their work.

In the opinion of many (and we're talking legitimate scientists, not the Wesboro Baptists), ID provides a better hypothesis for the complexity in the universe. It matches the observable world much better than its neo-Darwinian rival (viz. abiogenesis).

That ID is a threat to true scientific endeavor is without any basis in fact. And 'Expelled' aptly demonstrates this, exposing the real reasons for academic censurship and modern-day witch hunts against it. Ironically, the hugh and cry from the Darwinian elite and the cacophany of their left-wing cheerleaders only serve to punctuate the premise of the movie. Well done, Ben Stein. Well done.


~Aphobos



essentialsaltes -> RE: EXPELLED (4/20/2008 10:19:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aphobos

Whether or not "ID" is science is irrelevant.


It becomes relevant when it is suggested that ID be taught in science classes.



benelchi -> RE: EXPELLED (4/20/2008 11:03:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aphobos

Whether or not "ID" is science is irrelevant.


It becomes relevant when it is suggested that ID be taught in science classes.



Did you not read his entire post, or did you just not understand it?

I am just trying to understand whether this completely out of context quote was a deliberate misrepresentation of what was said, or were you just trying so hard to pick apart his post that you missed the point entirely?

==============================================

Aphobos, Great post!



drj11 -> RE: EXPELLED (4/20/2008 11:14:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames
Which interviewee was not an employee of the organization of which he claimed to not be an employee? Please tell me because you're basically saying that Ben Stein and ALL the producers of this documentary are liars. And what's with the waving of the hand? "The others had questionable situations." So basically none of these people were fired because of their relationship with ID? Who are they, who were their employers, and what were the situations under which they were fired? Have you seen the movie? Did you see the letters from their employers? Should I just be more skeptical?


EssentialSaltes was correct a few posts above. I was talking about Sternberg. By all appearances so far, they are either liars or incredibly inept. As far as Ben Stein is concerned, I would be willing to hazard the guess he is just inept. I came to that conclusion after watching various interviews of him on youtube, where he starts trying to make a case for how ridiculous evolution is by saying absurd things like evolutionists believe life just sprang out of a lightning strike in a mud puddle and voila.. a fully functional cell. He displays an amazingly astounding amount of ignorance on the subject, that could easily be alleviated by reading a beginners laymen's book on the subject (hell a few web articles even). He doesn't even know what he's fighting against.



drj11 -> RE: EXPELLED (4/20/2008 11:29:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mcp

As a slight aside-

for those on this forum that disagree with ID being a viable assumption on which to bounce science off or just reject God (as wholly unevidenced), how do you feel about Dawkins? I know some in agreement with his stance feel he isn't the best spokesman or PR rep for atheism or evolution, but what about his arguments & evolutionary explanations? I only know of his main contributions and have only read short paragraphs of his books in the past; but he seems to be the forefront in the critique of this movie (that is, of the anti-IDer experts interviewed for the movie, not ny times editors and such). I haven't seen the movie yet, but am more interested now that I have seen the angst, increased tensions and the he said, she said non-sense.


I consider Dawkin's to be more of a spokesman for atheism now, than evolution. That seems to be his gravy train these days. He is in the forefront of criticism because he was featured in the film, I would think, and quite disagreeable about how he was portrayed and the pretenses used to get him to do the interview.

I have heard quite a few evolutionists speak negatively of him, because he doesn't seem to be that interested in evolution anymore, as much as he is in being anti-religion.



Jhud -> RE: EXPELLED (4/20/2008 11:33:29 PM)

I saw the film today, and I have to say it is the most comprehensive exploration of the issue of academic freedom I think I have ever seen. Whatever those who haven't seen the film will say (and they are inevitably influenced by their own biases) it is not a light treatment of the issue, nor a deceptive one - it obviously has a point of view, but it gives opponents of intelligent design a lot of time to have their say. And when those opponents have their say, they don't say anything new, but they do make it clear their opposition goes far beyond any science.

I think anyone who has the slightest concern about freedom, truth, or science should go see this movie.



drj11 -> RE: EXPELLED (4/20/2008 11:37:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

I saw the film today, and I have to say it is the most comprehensive exploration of the issue of academic freedom I think I have ever seen. Whatever those who haven't seen the film will say (and they are inevitably influenced by their own biases) it is not a light treatment of the issue, nor a deceptive one - it obviously has a point of view, but it gives opponents of intelligent design a lot of time to have their say. And when those opponents have their say, they don't say anything new, but they do make it clear their opposition goes far beyond any science.

I think anyone who has the slightest concern about freedom, truth, or science should go see this movie.


Does it not hurt their case for 'big science' conspiracies against ID, when at least one of the interviewees used to make that case, by all appearances, is lying?



Jhud -> RE: EXPELLED (4/20/2008 11:51:13 PM)

quote:

Does it not hurt their case for 'big science' conspiracies against ID, when at least one of the interviewees used to make that case, by all appearances, is lying?


Have you seen the film?



essentialsaltes -> RE: EXPELLED (4/20/2008 11:59:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aphobos

Whether or not "ID" is science is irrelevant.


It becomes relevant when it is suggested that ID be taught in science classes.



Did you not read his entire post, or did you just not understand it?

I am just trying to understand whether this completely out of context quote was a deliberate misrepresentation of what was said, or were you just trying so hard to pick apart his post that you missed the point entirely?


I had no objection to much of Aphobos' post. I quite agree that Expelled is biased propaganda. I had no desire to pick it apart.

I couldn't care less if ID were discussed as philosophy or religion. But if ID is to be taught as science (as many in the pro-ID camp have declared) I think it is obviously relevant whether it actually is. Sadly for it, it isn't.



drj11 -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 12:06:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Does it not hurt their case for 'big science' conspiracies against ID, when at least one of the interviewees used to make that case, by all appearances, is lying?


Have you seen the film?


Nope, havnt been able to yet. I'm just going off of what I have read about it. Having seen it yourself, would you agree that the film portrays Sternberg as a victim of the 'evolution establishment'?



Jhud -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 12:28:16 AM)

quote:

Nope, havnt been able to yet. I'm just going off of what I have read about it. Having seen it yourself, would you agree that the film portrays Sternberg as a victim of the 'evolution establishment'?


The film documents many people, who for their criticism of evolution, lost jobs, positions, tenure, and reputation because the current state of academia countenances no criticism of evolution.



mcp -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 12:33:51 AM)

quote:

essentialsaltes: Speaking as an atheist, I don't think Dawkins is always the best public face to put on atheism. I honestly don't know what the actual focus of his own research is, but his popular science books about evolution are excellent. The God Delusion was, in many ways, a disappointment.


quote:

drj11: I consider Dawkin's to be more of a spokesman for atheism now, than evolution. That seems to be his gravy train these days. He is in the forefront of criticism because he was featured in the film, I would think, and quite disagreeable about how he was portrayed and the pretenses used to get him to do the interview.

I have heard quite a few evolutionists speak negatively of him, because he doesn't seem to be that interested in evolution anymore, as much as he is in being anti-religion.


Interesting the different tacks you both took to answer on Dawkin and evol/atheism. I was just wondering cause from my memories of hearing him or reading excerpts of his, I thought his points to be quite the conjecture and seemed more philosophical/determinate than scientific (including info on the meme). Of course, I know that defense of the evolutionary model or offense on ID doesn't have to always be a scientific one, I just wondered how the methodological-minded saw his approaches.

Thanks.

--Based on the feedback, I may have to see the movie for sure now; just to have some context on all the hubbub [sic].



mcp -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 12:42:42 AM)

quote:

I couldn't care less if ID were discussed as philosophy or religion. But if ID is to be taught as science (as many in the pro-ID camp have declared) I think it is obviously relevant whether it actually is. Sadly for it, it isn't.


Why don't we just move both the ID/evolution classes over into the history depts? They will probably accept. After all, history is supposedly founded on evidence too. Then science can pull from the rigorous discipline of history whenever they need a platform for organizing the current laws and data into a neat coherent (or not) paradigm.



drj11 -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 1:05:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mcp

quote:

I couldn't care less if ID were discussed as philosophy or religion. But if ID is to be taught as science (as many in the pro-ID camp have declared) I think it is obviously relevant whether it actually is. Sadly for it, it isn't.


Why don't we just move both the ID/evolution classes over into the history depts? They will probably accept. After all, history is supposedly founded on evidence too. Then science can pull from the rigorous discipline of history whenever they need a platform for organizing the current laws and data into a neat coherent (or not) paradigm.


History generally just deals with human history. The history of all biological organisms isn't very relevant in that subject.

ID can be taught in science class as soon as there is some substantial evidence for it. They tried to take it straight to the classroom's without it, and Behe himself didnt even bother to perform experiments or do any study on the claims he was making about irreducible complexity. Scientists the world over rightly questioned their intentions and summarily rejected their arguments, because there was nothing to back them up. Given all the buttloads of money Christian organizations have in this country, I have a hard time seeing how anyone who wanted to conduct ID research wouldn't have any resources to tap into, and would somehow be silenced or stopped by 'big science'. They just haven't done the science, and seem more interested in working towards political agendas, not scientific ones.

I really admire Kenneth Miller, and the ideas he talks about on this topic. Take a second to watch some of his videos on youtube. Here's a good one:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=aO5us0qHcwc



Jhud -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 2:26:29 AM)

quote:

Given all the buttloads of money Christian organizations have in this country, I have a hard time seeing how anyone who wanted to conduct ID research wouldn't have any resources to tap into, and would somehow be silenced or stopped by 'big science'. They just haven't done the science, and seem more interested in working towards political agendas, not scientific ones.


That's not true; in fact there is currently a lab (Biologic Institute) doing just that.



Sartrian -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 2:37:31 AM)

I have this nagging feeling that Mr. Stein is rabble-rousing, if you'll forgive the cliché. For starters, Christians make up seventy-or-more percent of the country-- I think some "evil atheist conspiracy" would have a hard time persecuting the religious wing of our nation.

Secondly, scientists are allowed to dismiss ID and Creationism a priori, due to the fact that creationists and ID-enthusiasts don't apply the scientific model to their work. It's not bias, it's just good science. And if college students want to learn about religion, they can take courses on religion, or get a Divinities degree.



Jhud -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 2:49:22 AM)

quote:

Secondly, scientists are allowed to dismiss ID and Creationism a priori, due to the fact that creationists and ID-enthusiasts don't apply the scientific model to their work. It's not bias, it's just good science. And if college students want to learn about religion, they can take courses on religion, or get a Divinities degree.


I think you should really see the movie before commenting.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 3:14:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
I couldn't care less if ID were discussed as philosophy or religion. But if ID is to be taught as science (as many in the pro-ID camp have declared) I think it is obviously relevant whether it actually is. Sadly for it, it isn't.


They should have a specific class (or classes if more than one is needed) teaching ID, teaching creationism, and teaching criticisms of evolution (and criticizing ID and creationism too). They don't have to call it "science" as long as it teaches the strongest non - strawman arguments criticizing evolution and supporting ID and creationism (and vice versa). Secondly, all students who are required to take evolution or some related classes (ie: OET) should be required to take a related opposing class (or classes, as long as both the strongest non - strawman criticisms and opposing views get in) teaching criticisms and opposing views. For example, if they are required to take classes promoting OET, they should be required to take at least one class criticizing OET with the strongest non - strawman criticisms and giving the strongest non - strawman arguments for YEC. If they are required to take classes promoting evolution, they should be required to take a class giving the strongest non - strawman arguments for ID and against evolution (this does not just apply to biological evolution, it applies to cosmological evolution as well). Again, they do not have to call it "science" as long as the strongest arguments get in. Let them explain to students what we argue the purpose of science is and how we argue the dangers of limiting science to materialism (the purpose of science is to find the best explanation/best explanations. If we limit science to finding the best "naturalistic" explanation that doesn't include design, and the evidence suggests that the best explanation includes design or is non - naturalistic, then science would be unable to discover what the evidence really shows. Science will be unable to find the best explanation no matter what the evidence. They are then free to criticize this argument all they want, as long as students are exposed to it. The problem is that the secular community knows that students may see past any attempted criticisms). Furthermore, scientists should not be discriminated against just because they are creationists or ID advocates. They should be allowed to do research and given (tax funded) grants just like any other scientist, even if his/her interpretations of the evidence may contradict materialism (and even if the evidence found may support ID or creationism). They don't have to call this kind of research "scientific" research. For example, business professors do research on new business trends and get them published in business magazines. Their research gets funded from tax grants. They can publish it in some other peer review journal that they don't label science.

Of course, when I mention this possibility (of teaching students the strongest non - strawman criticisms and opposing views of evolution and not labeling it science but requiring students who take evolution and such to take classes on criticisms and opposing views) then some materialists get mad and say that not even this should be done (and they give a bunch of garbage excuses). The fact that they do this reassures me that they aren't interested in science, truth, or academic freedom; they are only interested in promoting materialism and censoring criticisms and opposing views. What do you think?



drj11 -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 10:36:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Given all the buttloads of money Christian organizations have in this country, I have a hard time seeing how anyone who wanted to conduct ID research wouldn't have any resources to tap into, and would somehow be silenced or stopped by 'big science'. They just haven't done the science, and seem more interested in working towards political agendas, not scientific ones.


That's not true; in fact there is currently a lab (Biologic Institute) doing just that.


Thats what I'm saying. There is no stifling of research... anyone is free to partake in ID research, and would probably not have any trouble tracking down funding... whether you go to a Discovery Institute funded lab like Biologic Institute or try and go somewhere else. Aside from the DI and maybe a few individuals, there is just no one even trying to do research in the area. A bunch of laypeople certainly support it, but god help us if science ever starts taking orders from them on what is or isn't good science.

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

"According to a New York Times article, The Templeton Foundation, who provided grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, later asked intelligent design proponents to submit proposals for actual research. Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, was quoted as saying "They never came in." He also said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned. "From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said.[70] The Templeton Foundation has since rejected the Discovery Institute's entreaties for more funding, Harper states. "They're political - that for us is problematic," and that while Discovery has "always claimed to be focused on the science," "what I see is much more focused on public policy, on public persuasion, on educational advocacy and so forth."[20][71]"



drj11 -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 10:44:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
I couldn't care less if ID were discussed as philosophy or religion. But if ID is to be taught as science (as many in the pro-ID camp have declared) I think it is obviously relevant whether it actually is. Sadly for it, it isn't.


They should have a specific class (or classes if more than one is needed) teaching ID, teaching creationism, and teaching criticisms of evolution (and criticizing ID and creationism too). They don't have to call it "science" as long as it teaches the strongest non - strawman arguments criticizing evolution and supporting ID and creationism (and vice versa). Secondly, all students who are required to take evolution or some related classes (ie: OET) should be required to take a related opposing class (or classes, as long as both the strongest non - strawman criticisms and opposing views get in) teaching criticisms and opposing views. For example, if they are required to take classes promoting OET, they should be required to take at least one class criticizing OET with the strongest non - strawman criticisms and giving the strongest non - strawman arguments for YEC. If they are required to take classes promoting evolution, they should be required to take a class giving the strongest non - strawman arguments for ID and against evolution (this does not just apply to biological evolution, it applies to cosmological evolution as well). Again, they do not have to call it "science" as long as the strongest arguments get in. Let them explain to students what we argue the purpose of science is and how we argue the dangers of limiting science to materialism (the purpose of science is to find the best explanation/best explanations. If we limit science to finding the best "naturalistic" explanation that doesn't include design, and the evidence suggests that the best explanation includes design or is non - naturalistic, then science would be unable to discover what the evidence really shows. Science will be unable to find the best explanation no matter what the evidence. They are then free to criticize this argument all they want, as long as students are exposed to it. The problem is that the secular community knows that students may see past any attempted criticisms). Furthermore, scientists should not be discriminated against just because they are creationists or ID advocates. They should be allowed to do research and given (tax funded) grants just like any other scientist, even if his/her interpretations of the evidence may contradict materialism (and even if the evidence found may support ID or creationism). They don't have to call this kind of research "scientific" research. For example, business professors do research on new business trends and get them published in business magazines. Their research gets funded from tax grants. They can publish it in some other peer review journal that they don't label science.

Of course, when I mention this possibility (of teaching students the strongest non - strawman criticisms and opposing views of evolution and not labeling it science but requiring students who take evolution and such to take classes on criticisms and opposing views) then some materialists get mad and say that not even this should be done (and they give a bunch of garbage excuses). The fact that they do this reassures me that they aren't interested in science, truth, or academic freedom; they are only interested in promoting materialism and censoring criticisms and opposing views. What do you think?


Again, ID claims to work with in the methodical naturalism framework, by not implying characteristics of the designer. Its a little catch 22 for you guys here, who want to stop the 'materialism' of evolution. You don't even seem to care to much on whether evolution is right or wrong, you just want to end 'materialism' and what you see as the atheist agenda. But ID, as is pitched makes no claims that fall outside the world of materialism. The designer can be just as natural or material as anything else that exists. Why don't you have a problem with this? Because its really veiled religion (or not-so veiled, depending on who is being pitched on ID). And by proxy, you think this will solve all of societies ills automatically if it can just wedged into the classroom... from teen pregnancy, to drug use, to school shootings, and everything else. When you say it out loud it really does sound quite silly.

Sorry... I would like to find real solutions to these problems. Killing evolution isnt going to do it.



Jhud -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 11:03:43 AM)

Thats what I'm saying. There is no stifling of research... anyone is free to partake in ID research, and would probably not have any trouble tracking down funding... whether you go to a Discovery Institute funded lab like Biologic Institute or try and go somewhere else. Aside from the DI and maybe a few individuals, there is just no one even trying to do research in the area. A bunch of laypeople certainly support it, but god help us if science ever starts taking orders from them on what is or isn't good science.

Even if we buy this all at face value, it doesn't have anything to do with what the movie chronicles, that is individual professors, facing opposition in their careers, often to the point of dismissal, for asking tough questions or criticizing evolutionary theory. This has plainly happened.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 11:12:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11
You don't even seem to care to much on whether evolution is right or wrong, you just want to end 'materialism' and what you see as the atheist agenda.


We just want to introduce academic freedom and open inquiry. I would be upset if only creationism or ID were taught with tax funded dollars while criticisms and opposing views were censored. You are in no position to tell us what we do or don't care about.



essentialsaltes -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 12:49:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

What do you think?


I think making these mandatory classes would be a big waste of time. It really does bring up the spectre of classes that provide arguments against relativity, the atomic theory, the migration of Native Americans from Asia, the theory that the Egyptians built the pyramids unaided by our space brothers, etc.



Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI