Expelled - Ben Stein's creationism movie - Page 2

They are in the minority, I do agree with you. But it does not take much when honors programs are often made or missed by hundredths of a point.

I had some great professors that I disagreed with on almost everything. My mentor was a lesbian latina follower of Andrea Dworkin, who openly shared her Gramscian view of the world with anyone who would listen. She was respectful of others and what they brought to the table, and used disagreements as a jumping off point to some great debates that helped people on all sides of the argument. Differing opinions create opportunities for growth for everyone in the classroom. Some professors do not see it that way... they see it as a personal affront. The majority of people in the academe are indeed tolerant, but that does not mean that professors who are not tolerant cannot have huge effects at important times in a student's life.

One of the professors I disliked the most in college was a conservative. It's all the the way in which topics are approached. The higher-education classroom should be a place to exchange ideas and engage in open inquiry... rather than indoctrinate students to mimic the professor's ideology. I still laugh at the papers I wrote for my Political Economy class... there was not a single position paper I wrote for that class that I really believed in. "Free Market Failure: The State as Guardian of Morality."

I grant you there is not killing going on in respect to those in the academic world who are expelled from participating in a closed door scientific venue.

But if you think there is no opposition / force (fill in what ever word you like) to the ideas of those who study and discuss ID in the academic world you are seeing things in a different light than I see things.

Fellows

Jube I have to hand it too you that you in my estimation are the liberal here in the correct sense of the word liberal when it comes to understanding liberal or liberating principals within the scientific and educational venue.

It seems that some here who most likely view themselves as "liberals" are actually quite ancient and behind the curve of civil and liberal principles blinded by their own self serving bias.



Fellows

Gold Star for Hassan.

Classical Liberalism is almost always best, IMHO. I think the occasional problems in the academe represent a turning away from the value of the individual, and toward increased value in the State. Empowering the state is 180 degrees out of phase with Classical Liberalism. I agree with you that most people who are professed "liberals" are not acting in a "liberal" way at all... it's really the neo-liberalism of FDR and others who place more faith in government than in individuals.

In many cases, they do not have much in common with Classical Liberalism.

Thanks for your reply.

So you see no evidence in nature / creation of design which "could" be attributed to a "designer" / "creator" ? Is that what you are saying? I am not trying to put any words in your mouth if you will.

Do you not feel in your opinion that some people may very much so see evidence of a designer / creator?

Do you feel that science has to shut out the idea of a designer? If so why?

Thanks

Fellows

No, he's saying they're not even respectable enough to be called professors... they're thugs.

Hey, Dale. No, I don't see any evidence for a designer in nature, none at all. In fact, quite opposite!

In my opinion, people who see this evidence are mistaken, and it is their religion that causes them to see it rather than their knowledge of facts to be understood.

Good week end everyone!

This thread's being civil, despite my best efforts, and that's good. x

Very simple. Science can not be based on faith. It must be based evidence and testable ideas. Faith-based explanations have no place in the science classroom. This should be pretty obvious.

I won't ask you to prove the existence of your God to me. I know you can't. The lack of "proof" and the need for faith make the foundation for religion. Religion is all about faith. That's not a bad thing. Likewise, science is all about evidence. Why can't the creation crowd see this?

I thought this was funny. It's a post by PZ Myers, a scientist who blogs and who has become kind of famous in the science-creation debates. He went to a screening of the movie Expelled! and - he was Expelled! They didn't let him in, and the producers of the movie Expelled! called the cops and had him Expelled! from the theater. From a movie about how creationists are allegedly being Expelled! by scientists.

Fellows, we've obviously got an irredeemable impasse about creationism, but that doesn't mean we don't like you or don't respect you.

But seriously...

When you say that the fact that physical observation and scientific method doesn't prove anything with regard to creationism vs. evolution, not only do you discount the value of evolution related science, but of all science. Is that where you really want to stand?

Hassan is right. There is no argument for creationism or intelligent design that is supported by any science that hasn't been fully and intelligently proven to be unlikely or mistaken belief by the VAST majority of the scientific community. It therefore cannot be taught in a scientific context, and should be taught in theology or philosophy disciplines.

On the contrary, there is a mountain of evidence that supports evolution that has not been proven to be unlikely or mistaken.

Creationism is magic. Plain and simple. Not science. It's nice that that gives you some personal understanding and faith that helps you live your life as best benefits your style and path of living. But that's a subject for philosophical debate, not scientific debate.

For any who haven't seen it, Penn and Teller have a nice concise summary of the ID argument and their 'evidence' that backs it up. (possibly some NSFW language)

Personally, I believe the schools should teach that the Earth is flat and carried through space by four gigantic elephants on the back of a giant turtle.

Makes as much sense as Intelligent Design!

Why then does science entertain the flawed assumptions of evolution which has no evidence but rather a "faith" in an idea of creation which is one without a designer?

Why is this tolerated in the name of science which I do respect if it too is faith held by (far too often by a crowd which are hostile to the notion of God) "scientists"?

Put another way... Just because science can't address the creator does this in your mind rule out the possibility of a creator?


Fellows

Fellows, why can't there be intelligent design and evolution?

You're right. There is no evidence that proves the origin of life. But the origin of life and evolution are completely separate concepts, and there is plenty of evidence that supports evolution.

There is plenty of evidence that supports the fact that human beings evolved from lower forms, and were not "created", whole, in a single day, with two arms and two legs and ten fingers and and upright gait.

Can you not support the belief that God created life (origin of life), and that the life He created evolved (evolution)?

Many scientists believe it is entirely possible that some day we might be able to mix together some basic elements or chemicals, some energy and some time, and create life. Until they do so, they can teach their processes as science, but not their conclusions, simply because there still is no conclusion. If they do prove a chemical creation of life some day, then they can teach that knowledge as science. If they do not prove as much, they cannot.

I don't know if there are any theologists who believe we can proactively prove the existence of a higher being or conclusively disprove biochemical creation of life. If they do, then you will be able to teach creationism as science. Until then, you cannot.

Fellows why can't you see the separation between science and religion? Religion is not testable. There will never be physical evidence for religion. Don't you see that? Why do you need to be so defensive? Saying that religion does not belong in the science class room is not necessarily an indictment of religion. It is what is appropriate.

The scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming. My acceptance of evolution is based on knowledge, not faith. My acceptance of God is based on faith.

Of course not. But it does rule out the possibility that this can be taught in a science curriculum.

tonton you know I respect and like yourself and Hassan very much so and of course we differ on our takes of various subject matter but none the less I want to express my respect of you both.

I would ask you to consider what you are propping up here when you say:

"VAST majority of the scientific community"

Permit me to ask if the vast majority of the people thought Slavery was "ok" is it?

How can one prove it is ok and how can prove it is not ok ?

Or what if for example a vast majority of republicans say the Iraq war is "good for America" and all their evidence and data and generals sign on to the view that it is good does that mean to you that the war is good for America just because the vast majority of the party say so.

What if the vast majority of doctors in history and the medical community at the time thought bloodletting was the way to remedy a fever does that make it so?

If you suggest otherwise you are outcast etc.

Do you not see my points here?

Fellows

The first thing Fellowship needs to do is separate the two subjects of origin of life and development of life. He hasn't shown the capacity to do so, probably because it goes against his biblical beliefs to even try.

Um... You are trying to assign moral arguments to something that is intrinsically fact based.

This is a problem with creationists and IDers... they believe that this is a moral argument, to NOT believe in a designer is a sin.


It isn't at all about truth. It isn't at all about facts. It isn't at all about evidence. These things don't make sense in the context of the moral debate. This is why these arguments fall flat. This is why this argument is pointless, and creationist/iders should be ignored. The level of evidence needed to pass scientific muster will destroy the faith they depend upon. Beliefs backed by evidence aren't faith, they are a lesser (to people of faith) brand of belief...

Religion can not be proven. That's the basis of it Fellows. Only the faithless would ask for proof of religion. The "creation science" is sinful. Read your Bible.

That said, things that can not be studied through evidence and testing don't belong in the science classroom.

I'm out.

Whether slavery is ok or not has no basis in scientific evidence. With this in mind, I don't understand your point, as it is completely unrelated.
Likewise, there is no scientific evidence or measurement that can make such proof. It is not science. There is plenty of scientific evidence and measurement that supports evolution.
You see this belief was primitive science, based on anecdotal observation. But it was proven wrong by scientific proof and measurement. When you can disprove evolution in an equally conclusive way, then evolution can be removed as an accepted scientific explanation. Go ahead. I will fully support your nomination to the Nobel Prize if you succeed.


No. If you suggest otherwise, then you don't understand the scientific method.


I believed I've addressed your points.

You are? If so, how so? Give us some concrete examples.

I'm way older than most of you, and not once, was I ever been exposed to the type of behaviors that are being expressed in this thread.

Speech codes?

Professorial vendettas? Perhaps you meant student vendettas.

Who exactly has the "chip on their shoulder" to begin with, the teacher or the student? And if it's the teacher, is that course a requirement? And if so, are you being singled out, or is a group being singled out? If so, there are rulez of professional conduct, ethics, teaching credentials.

What curriculums would be more likely to be more subjectively involved?

Liberal Arts? Then get a degree in Conservative Arts! D'oh!

Political Science? Now there's an oxymoron, if there ever was one.

To you both I object to your use of sarcasm here. It's far less patronizing to attribute beliefs to someone (which I've done) than it is to attribute words to them.

Commnets like this drive me nuts. The vast, VAST majority of "scientists" as you put it, recognize the very simple fact the evolution and religion are, in absolutely no way, mutually exclusive.

They can, and do, coexist quite well.

Religion and evolution are altogether different topics. ID simply isn't science. That doesn't mean evolution rejects the possibility of God in any way. It doesn't. It is completely and utterly silent on the matter.

Sarcasm?

Many things throughout history have been corrected. Do you have any reason to think that the notions / assumptions of those who promote the evolutionist views / viewpoint could not be corrected at some future date as history has shown with other ill conceived notions?

Fellows

What created the creator?

Falling down on your belief sword, stops further testable scientific inquiry. No one has all the answers, we probably never will, but I for one do not want to stifle science for lack of the ultimate answer, which happens to be 42.

Now I need to find the ultimate question.

In 1846 hospitals still followed the teachings of Galen, advocate of bloodletting. A young doctor named Semmelweiss investigated a notorious maternity ward in which nearly all the patients admitted contracted a fatal case of childbed fever. What was notable was that women who came after her infant was born were likely to not become ill. A professor who had cut his finger in the middle of an autopsy had died of symptoms identical to those of the unfortunate mothers. Semmelweiss reasoned that the students doing the autopsies were somehow transferring the fever to the women in the ward. Semmelweiss made his students disinfect their hands before deliveries and the number of cases dropped, until Semmelweiss was fired. Although he tried to continue research he eventually deteriorated into mental illness and later died. Fourteen years later a famed doctor was scheduled to speak at a lecture in which he thoroughly denounced Semmelweisss ideas. He was interrupted by a man who proceeded to tell the audience that he had discovered the bacterium responsible for childbed fever. That man was Louis Pasteur .

It isnt just the quacks that can cause harm however; even educated doctors have made incredible errors of judgment. With this case it was well meaning doctors using new cures that resulted in harm to those they were trying to cure. When X-rays were first discovered by Rontgen, their discoverer foresaw that medicine would see it come into use as a useful tool. Though he did recognize the value of what he had found it was the companies that saw that they could profit from this newly discovered ray. X-Rays became a sort of novelty item, for example shoe shops would have them installed so people could watch shoes being fitted on their feet. In the medical field they were used less as a diagnostic tool and more like a cure-all, like something out of the days of quacks. Although the possibility that these rays could cause damage was known to those who had been frequently exposed and despite the warnings by more careful colleagues, many doctors used them recklessly.

Infants, children, and adults were treated for illnesses ranging from the simple ills, like birthmarks and acne to the more complex, such as shoulder pain and enlarged thyroid. These were not just treatments asked for by a gullible public buying from quacks and charlatans, these were treatments advocated in a good quantity of textbooks.

Fellows

Antecedent for your "he" please...

That is so true. It is presumptuous for evolutionists to pass on their "answer" / world view / pseudo science as science when it is nothing more than a bad attempt to "know" the answers to a subject matter which NOBODY will ever prove.

Fellows

Why is it not science?

The problem is that most religious people don't see it that way.

Honestly, I think it's a scientific (or perhaps just non-religious) view to say that religion and science are independent and separate. SJ Gould wrote an entire book based on this premise - he called science and religion "non-overlapping magisteria." But most religious people believe their religion is real, and not just a kind of spiritual philosophy that only involves faith or can't be proven. They believe (e.g.) that Jesus had a virgin birth, that he performed miracles and really came back to life, etc. They believe that God created the world and performs miracles and evidence of these miracles should really be present in the world.

So I think when people say creation isn't science, or isn't testable, and argue that religion and science are separate domains, that sounds right to people who aren't religious, but I don't think it's plausible at all to most religious people.

I think that's too bad, because I think the US was founded by the opposite types of religious people - enlightenment Christians who for the most part rejected miracles and the supernatural, but still considered themselves Christians. That type of religious person doesn't seem to be around much today.

Take a look at this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD6p8...eature=related

Needless to say

Sad..

Fellows

Rejected miracles and the supernatural?

Wow..

Fellows

This is the ethos of the secular/humanist Christian. "Jesus was a good guy, and I think he had a lot of good things to teach us... but I don't get into the whole 'resurrection' and hokey juju stuff." It's the reduction of Christ from Divine Messiah to, I dunno, an esteemed model of a social activist. Possibly an earlier incarnation of Ghandi? That "version" of Jesus is MUCH less demanding.

I can tell you for sure that there are certain taboo subjects - saying that black people have lower average IQ than white people, or even siding *at all* with nature on the nurture vs nature bit, will most likely get you booted from your university job. I have a book about it that I am about half way through, called "The Blank Slate".

I don't mind them trying to boot the loony religious people, but they also shut down ideas and speech about things when they don't like the consequences of something being true.

Well that's my field and I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. That particular book was written by a highly respected professor himself, and there are many formal behavioral genetics programs at universities who almost by definition "side with nature," so to say all those people are going to get booted is a bit much. Maybe 30 years ago in anthropology departments, they wouldn't have liked it. But it's almost on par with the nurture views today in the field. It always causes a ruckus among some (usually outside the fields in question), to be sure, but lost their job? That can't be true, given the widespread acceptance of it in the field.

It isn't falsifiable.