Expelled - Ben Stein's creationism movie - Page 5

No just some professors who love mental masturbation.

Fellows

Er...you don't like magic shows? Man, that's pretty hardcore puritan.

They are, I believe, atheists. Therefore, they are smarter than a God they don't believe exists. They're pretty screwed if they are wrong. On the other hand, there's a good number of evangelical preachers likely in the same boat.

I dunno that they mock God so much as some of the believers of God. And some are pretty whacked out. Creationists are IMHO in that category...including ID folks...not because of the idea that God might have been the originator of everything but the attempt to take something based on faith and make it pseudo-scientific.

It could be a "success" due to the merits

or

It could be the yang to the yin.

An alternative view that certain scientists can relate to in explaining origins and the diverse creation we see today presented in a way which would not require a "God".

Like the Democratic party is to the Republican party if you will.

Fellows

Evolution as theory and fact

Cheers.

design is faith?

Showing this design in a science / academic setting is making it pseudo-scientific?

I like magic tricks, I just don't have much respect for a couple of show boys who mock God in sin city.

I much prefer people to admire such as the late Mother Teresa but I know... she is not much in the way of entertainment and Americans love to be entertained and deceived.

Fellows

But Fellows, mocking God is cool, especially when we can piss off some person of the faith. It builds esprit de corps among people who share in their contempt for Big "C" Christianity. It helps draw out people who object, such that they can get the mocking and ridicule they "deserve" for believing in such a deluded system. Also, I'll take "Mohammed Cartoons" for $300, Alex.

I am wondering what happens to all of this "evolution" now that we have cracked the Genome and have assumed genetic power over every living thing on earth. Humans, not natural selection, are the big stick when it comes to the futures of species it seems. GMO makes Darwin so... yesterday.

I'm sure some will claim that God is Dead, once man has assumed the creative mantle for himself.

I did no such thing.

I simply found it odd that you went post after post before offering what was easily your best supporting evidence for the one example you cited.

You seem to be confusing the difference between examples and evidence.

Until one suggests the notion of a designer as opposed to random chance.

Sure.. everything gets along just fine...

Fellows

Yes, my belief in God is faith. There is no scientific evidence for His existence. If there were, then it wouldn't require any faith now would it?

If there were actual scientific evidence for ID then...gee...you've proven God exists.

*poof*

Ooops.


No, the "evidence" behind ID is pseudo-science.


From what I read about Mother Teresa I'm not too admiring. Millions that were for the poor ended up funding opening more of her own order's convents or sat in Vatican bank accounts. Practically nothing reached the poor. Her "hospitals" were nothing but warehouses for people to die in. She fed few people, lied about the number of centers she supported in Calcutta and supported brutal dictators.

Feh. I prefer Penn and Teller.

The fact that we will increasingly be able to manipulate the very stuff of our own "human-ess" will surely give rise to profound moral and ethical quandaries, and fundamentally change our sense of ourselves and our relationship to the universe.

None of that, however, has any bearing on the veracity of the theory of evolution.

Once again the whine of the dominant culture believing itself to be oppressed. Far more people in the US are Christians than non-Christians. Far more people call themselves conservatives than liberals. Far more people say they believe in creationism than evolution without God. And who is oppressed? The Christian conservative creationists, of course.

Richard Dawkins - Beware the Believers on YouTube (posted by randonslice on 3/28/08)
RandomSlice starts thread on RichardDawkins.net (3/28/08)

HD version of viral video shows up on P2P (3/28/08)

randomslice exposed? (4/8/08)

Vancover, you say? Why, that's just down the road from the Discovery Institute.

Sounds, like a neocons piracy to me!

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

[CENTER]
Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?[/CENTER]

... dead end strategy! It isn't science once you stop asking questions. It's belief in the unknown.

Do you think evoultionary theory and the tenets of the christian religion are mutually exclusive?

If so why?

Evolutionary theory in no way, shape, or form, rejects God. Do you think that it does?

I'll post this link again. you should read it.

http://www.ucc.org/not-mutually-excl...ral-letter.pdf

You continue to miss the point, Fellows. It really does not matter if our understanding of evolution is correct in its present form or not. Evolution can be studied using scientific methods. Creation can not be studied using scientific methods. Therefore, creation has no place in science education. Why can't you get that?

You need to look up "oppression." I don't think that is the word you are looking for.
My post related to a societal response in some circles, not "oppression."

So once we all believe in evolution, which I leave room for, and stop asking questions, then evolution will no longer be science.
<dale gribble> A-Ha! The way to win is to agree. </dale gribble>

Agreed.

Win? Win what, exactly?

Believe in evolution? There is no such thing as a belief in evolution, it's a scientific fact, the observational evidence is indisputable.

I sure hope there is some room, somewhere, for belief in evolution. Demonstrable fact, among rational people, leads to belief.

Call it what you want - oppression, victimization, harassment, whatever. Your point is still clear, and it's the same as the point of the movie, that the poor, weak, defenseless dominant culture is being oppressed (victimized, etc.) by the minority.

Hell, it's almost as if white men started saying they were the victims... oh, nevermind, that's exactly what so many of them say.

No, that wasn't my point. The Christian culture is not poor, weak, or defenseless. Nor is it the victim of the minority. I was simply regurgitating some of the sentiment that comes up around here from time to time... and stating, correctly, the mechanism by which Christians are drawn out for the sake of making people who are hostile to Christianity feel better.

I hope that's not a personal dig at me, Fellows.

Because if it is, I'll stop being cordial, which I've tried to remain in this discussion, even though you, for some reason, seem incapable of a) depersonalizing this issue and b) understanding what is science and what is not. No matter how many contorted narratives about oppressed minority opinions in the sciences you cite, the fact of the matter is that ID is not science (and, frankly, I'm hard-pressed to think of any scientific valid, repeatable, testable, verifiable hypothesis/theory that was simply silenced by the scientific community at any point after the Enlightenment). ID is simply not testable. This is not a moral judgment. It is fact. You cannot conduct an experiment that will conclude that God exists and designed all of this.

Frankly, if you could, it would demean religion by removing it from the wondrous and rendering it simple facts and figures. Moreover, it would completely destroy the notion of faith as a key component of Christianity.

This is a deeply, deeply disappointing post.

The Scientific Pedestal is just the latest in the long line of sacred soapboxes that are, at present time, enjoying an aggressive defense when challenged. Before this there was the pulpit that, together with the lectern, made the Civil Rights Movement possible. All the way back to the days where people were willing to Kill/Imprison/Torture in the Name, in defense against the critiques against the Church. The scientific method, in a vacuum, is a pretty strong tool in understanding and making sense of the world. It's when you add those pesky, fallible people to the mix that suspicion and agenda can enter.

Fellows is correct in that, in the absence of other dogma, science can take on aspects of religion, including dogma. And suggesting its possible misuse can do *wonders*. The response to "climate deniers." The panic over Expelled! If you are confidently in possession of Truth, why be so outraged over, as you see it, delusion? Surely Truth will, based on its inherent nature, prevail among "rational" people, right?

Do most people believe in Global Warming? Yep.
Do most people believe in Evolution? Yep.
Is the world coming to a screeching halt because some people don't buy either or both? No.

Only if people actually argue for the Truth. If they just let propagandists have their way, as you suggest, I think it's clear what would happen (see below).


I don't know about global warming, but the polls I've seen pretty clearly show that the majority of Americans reject evolution. That's pretty amazing for something considered the foundation of all the earth and life sciences.

Example:

God created humans in present form: 55%
Humans evolved, God guided the process: 27%
Human evolved, God not involved: 13%

Huh? How is science, which is a field of knowledge, being challenged by anything. The last I checked, the scientific method is one of the few intellectual movements that has remained remarkably unchanged for millenia.... but don't let facts get in the way of your brain's whatever it is your brain does...


In a vacuum... heh. Unfortunately, science requires evidence, and evidence doesn't appear in a vacuum. So... while you might wish to associate science (and I am using it broadly here to apply to any and all evidence based intellectual output) with the loose criticism of all other fields of human thought as being within a vacuum, it is not.


um. what? science isn't about beliefs. It is a field of evidence based knowledge. There is NO dogma NEEDED unlike religion... Now it is true that certain individual scientists will take an aspect of science as dogma, this isn't the same thing as claiming that science can take on dogmatic aspects...


Are you ever correct?

Do most scientists think that there is the necessary evidence for the phenomena global warming? Yes

Do most people believe in Global Warming? Probably not.

Do most scientists think that there is the necessary evidence for natural selection, and thus Evolution? Yes.

Do most people believe in Evolution? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Is the world coming to a screeching halt? No.

Is a resounding defense of the scientific method NECESSARY to prevent humanity slipping into a long, dark, cold ignorance? Absofuckinglutely...

Jub, you do realize that one of most scientists favorite things is to prove that another scientist is full of shit? Seriously, read some of the letter sections in some scientific journals. They can be (in a polite way) catty as hell.

There's little a scientist loves more than proving another scientist wrong. They spend much of their time trying to knock each other off their own pedastels.

Panic? Yes, never forget to label the opposition as being in a state of "panic", regardless of the character or intensity of their opposition.


I don't see how believing a thing is delusional is the same thing as calmly accepting that the delusion can't prevail. Are you trying to suggest that a person would only object to delusional ideas being spread if that person secretly harbors a fear that what they call delusional is actually true? That a genuinely confident person would demonstrate his or her deep confidence by smugly assuming no effort is required to dispel or combat delusions?

The Scientific Pedestal is about making fallible humans allegedly infallible because they carry the title "scientist." Just like, in years past, you could not question the church without calls for your head.


Science, in and of itself, is all that you claim it is. But the findings and results are presented by people, and that *can* cause a problem. Especially considering the lofty position that science, as demonstrated by your post, holds.


Again, we're not talking about science in and of itself. We're talking about the ways in which it can become dogmatic with human beings.


Apparently not when I am talking to you.

I accept the previous correction on evolution. No problem with that.

As far as global warming:

The Harris Poll. Oct. 16-23, 2007. N=1,052 adults nationwide.
71% of people believe in global warming.


Again, no one is assaulting the scientific method. They are suspicious of those who use it. People- not method.

I know you are being sarcastic, but you hit the nail on the head with that one, this is exactly how I feel. The more that we make religious leaders look like fools in the public square, the more children will see through the facade and dump their religious training when they become adults.

And all this talk of "intelligent design"/"evolution is a theory" stuff in the news is making religious leaders look like fools in the public square, because evolution is so obviously true when you don't have some vested interest in it being false (i.e. if you are a school child learning in a public school, and you don't yet fear death or have any other reason to desperately need an afterlife).

Hopefully the religious orders that survive 100 years from now will be more like social clubs with strange antique customs than real religions where people believe in god and think that the bible is literally true.

No.


Would you argue with someone who claims vehemently that the world is flat? That the sky is green? ... when you are completely sure that he's wrong, and will have no choice but to accept the Truth in time? If evolution is the Only Way... then the overwhelming power of just being so correct should make any other approach of little real concern. After all, what good did it do the critics of Copernicus and Galileo? Instead, spend your energy moving forward with science, exploration, discovery, and empirical fact. And don't demand that all other people see it like you do. Because you're not going to win over all of them.

And why is "success" in "scare quotes"?

At least for the moment you seem to be allowing, albeit perhaps sarcastically, for the possibility evolution does indeed have some scientific merit. You're usually on the "junk science" rant, producing the standard litany of supposed failings of evolution, the claim that evolution is "just as much faith as religion is", etc.


I'm afraid I don't quite know where you're going here, but if you're trying to suggest an analogous relationship, my analogy would be more like this: evolution vs. ID in the scientific realm is like the Republican Party vs. a lawn mower in the political realm. Apples vs. oranges. ID is no more science than a lawn mower is a political party.

Michael Behe even admitted in his testimony during the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial that for ID to be considered science,the definition of science would have to be altered to such an extent that astrology would also count as "science".

... evolutionary thought over the pass 150 years (and earlier);

History of evolutionary thought
The eclipse of Darwinism
Evolutionary developmental biology

The fact of evolution was widely accepted soon after Darwin's On the Origin of Species.

[CENTER]
[/CENTER]

The mechanisms of natural selection in Darwin's theory were not understood or even accepted until much later, the theory of evolution is even now still rapidly evolving as new facts of these mechanisms come into wide scientific acceptance.

(others in PO with scientific experiences in the biological sciences may need to step in to more fully explain or correct any misconception(s) I may have).

By comparison, the science of climate change is very young, and has received much more coverage in the MSM, precisely because it is something that is occurring right before humanity's very eyes.

Only if he insists on teaching it to my kids as a scientific alternative to the world is a sphere and the sky is blue.

Why those satellite images are warped by God's power to make it LOOK spherical. Where in fact it is only 6000 years old...I mean flat.

If that person were part of a large and vocal movement that kept trying over and over to push for "equal time" for flat earth-ism or green sky-ism in public schools, occasionally successfully until courts have to step in and straighten their mess out, yes.

Would you accuse those who would fight against a flat earth curriculum of being "afraid" of what the flat earthers have to say? Of being unfairly prejudiced against an "alternative" view? Of being guilty of dark, ulterior motives for their "round earth agenda"?

I guess you have not been to Waterloo, Iowa.