Expelled - Ben Stein's creationism movie - Page 11

If 'god' did not create Evolution, then 'gods' laws of thermodynamics would have rapidly made all life extinct.

haha! Game over!

Study Suggests Life On Earth Sprang From Borax Minerals


Artificial Life? Old News

Well, I managed to get through the first one.

If you actually cannot perceive what an utter pile of disingenuous, illogical, fatuous, glib and simply wrong nonsense that thing is, then I have to conclude that you can't think, very well.

Simple as that. There are basic logical frameworks that we're all obliged to at least pretend to adhere to, if we expect to be able to have a discussion beyond grunting excitedly. If that bit of sophistry strikes you as compelling, we might as well start banging pots and pans and call that debate.

addabox, I think it's time for you and your inner dogmatist to have a chat.

**bzzzt** ....that's as far as I got.

More cursing, please!

douchebag is cursing?

Let me ask my kids.

A couple of things. There is no way I'm going to argue the existence for a Creator; I don't particularly want to trick anyone out of their unbelief with philosophical argument. If you believe, that's great, if not, that's your choice.

Also, ID is not a viable theory in a lot of ways, there are some philosophical things that aren't handled -- or rather it's just not a holistic theory of life, morality, whatever. The observations of the information theory people, for example, are sound, because that represents a new informational context, as if we discovered FORTRAN in the wild -- something that needs exploring.

However, the problem is that Darwinism is being used as a one-stop shop; that it is being dogmatically protected, outside the Scientific Method. More importantly, when you guys conflate the information with the mechanism -- you are dabbling Spinoza's pantheism, whether you like it or not. Also, if Kuhn is right, the next scientific breakthrough -- not the next refinement -- will come from the freaks, or by accident; something outside the establishment. So, putting the "oh, darwinism did it" together with something as dramatic as digital code in the genome, complete with error correction, storage, transfer, and retrival systems -- I'm sorry, that sort of dogmatic provincialism screams Dark Ages! to me.

Not letting the DI people some space is a mistake, and could be knifing the baby. That's my problem, not my trying to convert you by stealth.

On Dawkins, his "who created God" argument is an embarrassment -- it's not to be taken seriously. I would suspect that is more for the unsuspecting public's consumption, and for selling books. I've been reading some philosophy, been over a iTunesU -- he'd be better off just coping to his determinism/materialism and not trying to project those notions onto other philosophies, with entirely different presuppositions. If not acknowledging any other POV is his goal, he's done it in spades.

And strictly speaking, when Dawkins pops off like that, he's blowing off people like Newton, Kant, Pascal, and Kierkegaard. He needs to put a lid on it, and show some humility. But then there's not a lot of money, power, or mammon to be had, there.

If by "inner dogmatist" you mean "that part of my brain that is capable of detecting egregious logical fallacy bordering on gibberish", we keep pretty good company, thanks.

Look, this happens a lot in these discussions: we are instructed to attend to an argument that is terrible on the face of it-- not by "Darwinist" standards but by human adult standards. Normative "how one persuades" standards. Plain simple logical standards.

And when we find that argument wanting, we get accused of being blinded by dogmatic adherence to "materialism" or "Darwinism" or whatever.

But the problem starts with the very structure of the argument, long before we get to any ostensible content.

Now, if you want to claim that "logic" is an artifact of "materialism", fine, but then what are you appealing to? What's the alternative thought structure outside of rudimentary logic that you can proffer? E-enlightenment? Some kind of cabalistic arrangement of words that induces direct experience of the divine in the reader? A secret system of non sequiturs which are magic?

We've had this discussion before, but I don't think you can make wild claims for the bankruptcy of the kind of systematic thought that undergirds "science" (wherein, apparently, things like "logic" are part of a "faith" no less than religion), and then make appeals (or at least something resembling appeals) to same to prove that bankruptcy.

You could stick with Zen koans, I guess (hmmm, maybe that accounts for some of the head scratchers), or lead a quiet life of sterling example, but you really can't "argue" what you're arguing without sawing off the branch you're sitting on.

Oh, stop it -- there was nothing wrong with the video -- he was spot on. If you aren't trying to keep the camel's nose out, those were exactly the sort of questions about 60% of the country is asking. Well, don't mind them.

That kind of derision poured out on a video, that made every attempt at some tough love, isn't believable. (Except from some Jesuitesque firebase position.) If I had seen reasoned argument -- that might have been one thing -- but the "asshat/stupid shit/douchebag/you're-barely-an-adult-if-you-believe-this" line of argument? Come on.

Technically, the inner dogmatist is that part of the brain that accepts Descartes' "cogito, ergo sum."

Seriously, I didn't know that.

And here I am an expert Fortran programmer with more than 30 years of coding experience under my belt in Fortran and I never knew where it came from. Didn't have a clue!

And all this time I've been told that Fortran was a creation of HAL;

[CENTER]
[/CENTER]

Fortran

dmz, you're losing really badly now, it's time to pack up your ID baggage and go prey to HAL.

Critique of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed at WikipediA

This should be required reading for everyone. A day doesn't go by without this particular critique becoming stronger and stronger.

It's almost like survival of the fittest, in this case, the movie will be retitled;

Expelled: No Survival Allowed

Since it will go extinct in the not too distant future at movie theaters (you know like forty days is my guess for some odd reason ).

It will then be resurrected again as a DVD, will go through several evolutionary revisions, you know, kind of like Loose Change.

We have had this discussion before, two or three times, at least.

In fact, I've used the exact same tactic, as I've always used, I've avoided the "philosophy" argument you continuously present. I've avoided the "dogmatic" argument you continuously present, and I've avoided the "ideological" argument you continuously present.

Do I need to resurrect the Mr. Peabody and Sherman graphic one more time?

Where you then can call me a "rank" intellectual anarchist?

Seriously? \

Ha! I'm not so sure, it's looking like some sort of filter that renders the other guy as the devil incarnate -- or at least some sort of intellectual earmuffs.

for the rest of you guys:

**scans the page**


When a garden variety polemic like Expelled can't be seen in any postive light, that it doesn't raise any valid points, that it's all "lies," "shit," etc. Uh.... guys? Really?

There's a great big world out there, with a long history, both of which are full of really smart people who have a variety of ideas on Being, Existence, etc. Even a guy who once wrote both theology and the Principia -- lots of possibilities. It's not all "lies, asshats, and shit."

Also, it's not all cursing -- but not being able to go without the diminutives should raise warning flags; the combativeness and sour demeanors limit the the level of discussion, and the sort of people willing to associate/argue with you. Lighten up, suspend some disbelief sometime, put yourself in the other guy's shoes. Think it through. If I can read Heidegger and Kierkegaard, you should be able to see some point in a polemic like Expelled. At least tell the truth about the movie. If they don't say so-and-so worked somewhere, don't say otherwise; if they didn't say this or that caused something, don't put words in their mouths.

But it doesn't look like we are there yet -- or are we? What's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?

Ciao.

That was one of my sister and I's favorite phrases growing up. Frankly it never gets old.


Since you haven't answered the question, I'll ask it again.

Do you think the theory of evolution denies god?

A simple yes or no will be sufficient.

DI should have boatloads of their own money to do their own ID pseudoscience, instead the only thing they spend their money on is political persuasion, of the worst kind.

I think this propaganda film will actually do more damage to the IDiots, then anything the scientists could have ever accomplished.

It's now been in release for 17 days, and less than a million people total have seen it to date, in other words it won't survive at the theater for much longer.

[CENTER]
[/CENTER]

Polemics is the practice of disputing or controverting religious, philosophical, or political matters. As such, a polemic text on a topic is often written specifically to dispute or refute a position or theory that is widely viewed to be beyond reproach.

The scientific method is beyond reproach, but it is definitely not beyond revision, in fact I'd say it's in an ever continuous state of convolution.

If one of the underlying functions is forever unknown, scientific inquiry stops. \

And since the scientific method doesn't fit the above definition, this propaganda film clearly goes beyond "polemics" and right straight into bold faced lies. \

In fact your attempt at apologia is noted, however your dodgy and obtuse style, has also been a determinate. and detriment, to an honest discussion of the subject matter in this thread.

You reap what you sow.

Ooh, good points.

dmz?