Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Intelligent Design

Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 6:46:30 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
So I just watched this Ben Stein documentary called EXPELLED, which was essentially about how the science community is a big bad meanie for automatically dismissing the idea of Intelligent Design (favoring Darwinism instead, obviously), and as such has punished academics in the field who still have some skepticism about Natural Selection. Grr. This movie annoyed me to no end.

First, I agree with Stein entirely to the point where we shouldn't just ignore Darwinism's unanswered questions, and that we shouldn't punish those who merely contemplate what IF Intelligent Design were real. Of course it is a legitimate theory just like everything else is a theory. However, the evidence to support Natural Selection over ID is tremendous (!) which the movie so conveniently left out... and not to mention it grossly distorted several aspects of NS, etc.

However, admittedly I don't like the idea of a monopoly in science; it doesn't seem fair that we're ignoring every possibility that isn't Darwinism. Yet what really pissed me off was the fact that the movie took some dramatic and manipulative turn when it started comparing this controversy to the Berlin wall and communism -- no joke. Now, in visiting the website, there's actually even a poll called: Do you think Darwin's theory is out-dated? Almost 50% of the people said YES! Kenya believe it? That doesn't even make sense!

Anyway, I found way too many flaws with this movie in terms of its misrepresentation, use of the slippery slope, and incredible bias in order to take it seriously. There were some things that I agreed with; however, I was very annoyed that it made martyrs out of the scientists who were fired for mentioning ID in the classroom (which isn't true... I've done my homework); that it straw manned many of the physicists and people in support of NS; that it kept linking NS to HITLER and eugenics (ugh); and that it contained an abundance of quote mining and selective editing; etc.

Ya know, I was really hoping to walk away from this documentary with my foot in my mouth. I'm not close-minded to being set straight, and in fact, I'd like it if I could be proven wrong -- I don't want to be ignorant regardless of my opinions. However, I walked away from watching this thing completely aggravated and annoyed. Did anyone else have the same experience?
President of DDO
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 7:15:46 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I didn't see the show however Intelligent design presupposes a creator, which is where secularism comes into play and halts ID before it hits the launching pad.

I have no problem with ID, I think the people who believe in it are stupid, but freedom of speech and thought and all that. However, for it to be taught and be examined is teaching kids "Well, here's how God made us".

Also, a universal agreement on ID hasn't been made by Theists and Deists. Different religions have differing view on it. It's basically teaching religion in the classroom and leads to the slippery slope for things like YEC.

From a non-secular Atheist point of view, NS has far more evidence than ID.

So, No to ID in the classroom.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 7:19:05 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
There is several things wrong with what you described about the movie.

Firstly, I know few scientists, but I know none of them would automatically dismiss anything that isn't what their idea is. But the simple fact remains is that the theory of evolution - "Darwin's theory" so to speak, even though Darwin had originally gotten a lot of things incorrect - is what underlines a lot of modern science.

You can be skeptical about the theory of evolution, but you have the apply its principles regardless. The Intelligent Design "theory" cannot help you in understanding the backbone behind modern biology, in psychology, in a lot of things. I mean, we wouldn't have vaccines if we didn't understand the theory of evolution.

And, lets be serious; no one that is actually sane starts applying principles to their work, but then turns around and says they don't believe in them. How could they dismiss the very theory as false when they're applying it's principles successfully? They wouldn't even be able to do their work properly!

Secondly, science is all about the progression of facts and ideas. Intelligent Design has never come forward with an accurate fact or idea since its inception, especially in light of what we're learning every day about animals and the world. The facts simply have never added up, and if a theory cannot fit itself together with any known facts, how or why should other scientists even pay attention to it?

Too many people believe that a "theory" is just an abstract idea; theories are much more. Theories are ideas based off of evidence we can see and test. They are ideas, but they're ideas bound by reality and the evidence. Intelligent Design is none of those things. It is not based off any scientific evidence that I know of, and instead only seeks to fit reality into its box.. That isn't how things work; theories must fit into reality.

So, you tell me why scientists that believe in the theory of evolution should accept the false theory of Intelligent Design? I'm not advocating that they dismiss it right away, or any other theory - that is unscientific. But for God's sake, this idea has been here for ages. It isn't something brand new that has cropped up. It hasn't fit any facts, new or old, since its inception as a "theory." It is discredited; you don't see any scientists accepting that the world is flat still, because it is a discredited idea. Why should scientists reject that discredited idea, and then accept another?

Okay, I'm done. I've heard of that movie before, and I've heard it is terrible; it is a good thing you've posted this.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 7:29:07 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
You're both right. The movie tries to explain that ID has nothing to do with God (a Creator) but fails miserably... and THAT'S why you can't spend too much time teaching it in school, except to introduce it as a theory. Also, there's a reason that many people believe in NS. Of course every scientist is going to want to be the one with the break through and say AHA! Darwinism is false! However the evidence in its favor is overwhelming which is why no credibly or respectable scientist could ever outright say that. Now of course they can be skeptical and CHALLENGE Darwinism; however, in contrast ID could not even begin to compare to the theory of NS.

The academics who were "expelled" for believing in ID were whining about not receiving any grant money to do research on their theories. Hello! Grant money is a PRIVILEGE... Call your Republican or God-friendly friends and ask them for a donation! They believe in your cause, don't they? I mean it's easy to watch the movie and say you back up these scientists; however, why don't they put their wallet where their mouths are?

From a collegiate business standpoint, it's obvious why some of these professors didn't get tenure either; what college is going to want their school being represented by one who doesn't accept Darwinism? Like I said - research is okay, skepticism is okay, etc. However, there is always a status quo in science, and it's always going to be difficult to change it. Thank goodness science has progressed to the point where it can let people believe what they want to personally; however, in the class room, only things with FACTUAL BASIS should be considered... and like I said, the evidence stacks up MUCH higher (like... a lot) on one side of this issue.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 7:32:41 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Not to mention that what the movie kept trying to do was back Dawkins, Dennet and others into a corner by asking questions such as, "Well then why/how are we here?" The scientists were dumbfounded, of course, considering that neither ID or NS can answer those questions. Darwinism merely explains the EVOLUTION of species over time. It doesn't answer fundamental questions about human existence... sheesh. That was very unfair and the look on Ben Stein's face trying to be all serious and above them and crap (HaHa! People like Dennet, mind you) was just irritating beyond belief.
President of DDO
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 7:38:14 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/27/2009 7:29:07 AM, theLwerd wrote:
You're both right. The movie tries to explain that ID has nothing to do with God (a Creator) but fails miserably... and THAT'S why you can't spend too much time teaching it in school, except to introduce it as a theory. Also, there's a reason that many people believe in NS. Of course every scientist is going to want to be the one with the break through and say AHA! Darwinism is false! However the evidence in its favor is overwhelming which is why no credibly or respectable scientist could ever outright say that. Now of course they can be skeptical and CHALLENGE Darwinism; however, in contrast ID could not even begin to compare to the theory of NS.

The academics who were "expelled" for believing in ID were whining about not receiving any grant money to do research on their theories. Hello! Grant money is a PRIVILEGE... Call your Republican or God-friendly friends and ask them for a donation! They believe in your cause, don't they? I mean it's easy to watch the movie and say you back up these scientists; however, why don't they put their wallet where their mouths are?

From a collegiate business standpoint, it's obvious why some of these professors didn't get tenure either; what college is going to want their school being represented by one who doesn't accept Darwinism? Like I said - research is okay, skepticism is okay, etc. However, there is always a status quo in science, and it's always going to be difficult to change it. Thank goodness science has progressed to the point where it can let people believe what they want to personally; however, in the class room, only things with FACTUAL BASIS should be considered... and like I said, the evidence stacks up MUCH higher (like... a lot) on one side of this issue.

The government need to consult scientists on the issue. ID can't exist without presupposing a creator or God, like I said. I have absolutely no problem with ID being taught in the Religion classroom, that's where it truly belongs.

I understand Religion and Science can stand side by side and hold hands while secretly wanting to rip out the eye balls of the other, but there needs to be a drawing line. Sure, religious people argue

"Oh! But NS has no space in the religion classroom!"

Which is false because Theists\Deists believe in Evolution while believing in a creator, as well as the fact Atheism is a *religion*, or a belief which goes in religion. Of course, Scientists believe in ID, but that's personal beliefs as opposed to fact. Because a History teacher believes in God doesn't mean when mentioning Israel as part of the Cold war he can say "God did promise the Middle East to Jews.."
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 7:41:02 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/27/2009 7:32:41 AM, theLwerd wrote:
Not to mention that what the movie kept trying to do was back Dawkins, Dennet and others into a corner by asking questions such as, "Well then why/how are we here?" The scientists were dumbfounded, of course, considering that neither ID or NS can answer those questions. Darwinism merely explains the EVOLUTION of species over time. It doesn't answer fundamental questions about human existence... sheesh. That was very unfair and the look on Ben Stein's face trying to be all serious and above them and crap (HaHa! People like Dennet, mind you) was just irritating beyond belief.

NS - WHy are w ehere:

Sh*t happens. Stuff explodes. Molten cools and planets form.

ID - Why are we here:

Well, at the start there was this really nice man who said "How about I make me a universe" when the term Universe hadn't been created.

Which gets into lots of logical arguments about.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 7:53:18 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I have this theory that ID isn't taught in school for a very specific reason, and that reason is because ID is just so deceptively simple.

Let's be honest; kids like simple. The less complicated something is, the more appealing. So when this theory of ID is introduced against the backdrop of science which is inherently complicated, it just seems to appealing. I mean, what is more simple than the big guy in the sky creating everything right away? Kids don't care about the logical questions surrounding the creator, and how silly it all seems to use, the ones who actually look past the veneer of simplicity.

So in order to keep kids on track and not following their need for simplicity, they have to keep ID away. It of course isn't the only reason, but it could be one.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 7:57:43 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/27/2009 7:53:18 AM, Volkov wrote:
I have this theory that ID isn't taught in school for a very specific reason, and that reason is because ID is just so deceptively simple.

Let's be honest; kids like simple. The less complicated something is, the more appealing. So when this theory of ID is introduced against the backdrop of science which is inherently complicated, it just seems to appealing. I mean, what is more simple than the big guy in the sky creating everything right away? Kids don't care about the logical questions surrounding the creator, and how silly it all seems to use, the ones who actually look past the veneer of simplicity.

So in order to keep kids on track and not following their need for simplicity, they have to keep ID away. It of course isn't the only reason, but it could be one.

Just imagine the tests:

"Choose one theory of how species came to be and write about it"

What do you think every one of them will choose?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 8:03:40 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/27/2009 7:57:43 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Just imagine the tests:

"Choose one theory of how species came to be and write about it"

What do you think every one of them will choose?

Exactly. I mean, parents and others believe that kids will make informed choice, but they won't. Children and even teenagers aren't going to look into something unless they're actually interested in it. They'll choose the easier route, because that is more appealing.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 8:08:44 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/27/2009 8:03:40 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/27/2009 7:57:43 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Just imagine the tests:

"Choose one theory of how species came to be and write about it"

What do you think every one of them will choose?

Exactly. I mean, parents and others believe that kids will make informed choice, but they won't. Children and even teenagers aren't going to look into something unless they're actually interested in it. They'll choose the easier route, because that is more appealing.

Exactly, and Openoffice pwns Microsoft Word.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 8:27:39 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/27/2009 7:57:43 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/27/2009 7:53:18 AM, Volkov wrote:
I have this theory that ID isn't taught in school for a very specific reason, and that reason is because ID is just so deceptively simple.

Let's be honest; kids like simple. The less complicated something is, the more appealing. So when this theory of ID is introduced against the backdrop of science which is inherently complicated, it just seems to appealing. I mean, what is more simple than the big guy in the sky creating everything right away? Kids don't care about the logical questions surrounding the creator, and how silly it all seems to use, the ones who actually look past the veneer of simplicity.

So in order to keep kids on track and not following their need for simplicity, they have to keep ID away. It of course isn't the only reason, but it could be one.

Just imagine the tests:

"Choose one theory of how species came to be and write about it"

What do you think every one of them will choose?

Add in a minimum word count and it'll reverse, it's much simpler to turn the more complex theory into the same word count
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 8:28:47 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/27/2009 8:27:39 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Add in a minimum word count and it'll reverse, it's much simpler to turn the more complex theory into the same word count

"Evolution is good. ID is bad."

Seems simple to me.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 8:33:30 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
And btw the academic community right now IS seriously entertaining what's essentially a Lamarckian resurgence. Why? Because evidence is being found for it. There are a few people who don't like it, like any theory that goes against the established pretty much anywhere, but the reaction to the "New inheritance of acquired characterisics" research, not the reaction to ID, is the measure of the academic biology community's tolerance for evidenced heterodoxy. And these people are publishing in mainstream journals... Newsweek, a center-left-orthodox magazine if ever you've heard of one, is publishing articles about it...

Unless of course one wishes to argue that all today's geneticists watched DBZ as little kids and so they were predisposed to Lamarckianism by THAT (Without their churches having the same effects!"
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 8:36:13 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/27/2009 8:28:47 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/27/2009 8:27:39 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Add in a minimum word count and it'll reverse, it's much simpler to turn the more complex theory into the same word count

"Evolution is good. ID is bad."

Seems simple to me.

Meh, then conservatives will be crying foul and grabbing campaign money from Big corporations to stop it.

Anyway I could BS about ID for 500 words probably .
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 8:56:17 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/27/2009 8:28:47 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/27/2009 8:27:39 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Add in a minimum word count and it'll reverse, it's much simpler to turn the more complex theory into the same word count

"Evolution is good. ID is bad."

Seems simple to me.

Your grade for that purpose is gonna suck.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 8:57:27 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/27/2009 8:56:17 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Your grade for that purpose is gonna suck.

You never know, I could get a sympathetic grade.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 8:59:10 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/27/2009 8:57:27 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/27/2009 8:56:17 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Your grade for that purpose is gonna suck.

You never know, I could get a sympathetic grade.

Uniqueness criterion. If your teacher sucks ***, he's gonna suck *** whether you teach both theories or not.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 9:01:57 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/27/2009 8:59:10 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Uniqueness criterion. If your teacher sucks ***, he's gonna suck *** whether you teach both theories or not.

Lol. How could I disagree with that?
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 9:16:35 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
The problem with the ID dispute is that this irrational concept of "fairness" poisons people's minds. Especially the typical ignorant Americans who believe in free speech, free will, but who also believe in dedicating their lives to serving an invisible sky man, and his South Park Kenny-like son.

The obsession with the self, the unfounded arrogance of the ignorant masses, this is what pisses me off. The typical user of computers, the recipient of health care, these people have a tendency to be the most opinionated jackasses in the country, but also the least educated.

This is what I hate most about the American attitude: The idea that a person's opinions are holy and sacred without any justification whatsoever.

This is what powers Intelligent Design. Ignorance and arrogance in a perfect combination.

Like you said, there's a poll on the website. 50% of people believe something, and 99.9% of that 50% is made up of people who are burger flippers, janitors, telemarketers, every occupation under the sun except scientific research.

I'd like to walk up to Ben Stein and slap him across the face with a copy of my Biochemistry textbook, and that would be the longest interaction he has had with higher academia in his lifetime.

Intelligent Design exists, because people who have no f*#%ing idea of what they are talking about, decide that their opinions are worth something in a field where opinions are useless.

I have yet to see *one* productive researcher explain to me how his research shows that Intelligent Design is a valid conclusion.

Six years of my life, I have tried to find a suitable argument for Intelligent Design, I've gone on philosophy forums, science forums, myspace forums, Christian forums, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, I've gone to Christian professors and teachers.

SIX YEARS, and every single person I have met who supports Intelligent Design has failed, and failed *miserably*. No one has made anything *close* to a rational, possible, coherent argument for Intelligent Design, whatsoever.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
LB628
Posts: 176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 1:06:39 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Saying that evolution unfairly dominates biology is like saying that Newton's Laws, or atomic theory, unfairly dominate physics. Its the basis of the science.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 1:37:58 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/28/2009 1:06:39 AM, LB628 wrote:
Saying that evolution unfairly dominates biology is like saying that Newton's Laws, or atomic theory, unfairly dominate physics. Its the basis of the science.

... Actually, Newtonian laws used to dominate physics, until this fellow named Albert Einstein came along and introduced the concept of relativity (among other theories) which completely trumped Newton's and improved or entirely disproved his theories and the former basics of physics.
President of DDO
LB628
Posts: 176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 6:40:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/28/2009 1:37:58 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 9/28/2009 1:06:39 AM, LB628 wrote:
Saying that evolution unfairly dominates biology is like saying that Newton's Laws, or atomic theory, unfairly dominate physics. Its the basis of the science.

... Actually, Newtonian laws used to dominate physics, until this fellow named Albert Einstein came along and introduced the concept of relativity (among other theories) which completely trumped Newton's and improved or entirely disproved his theories and the former basics of physics.

Precisely. Newtonian ideas have simply been improved on, not completely overturned or destroyed. They can still be used when precision is not of high value. Likewise, Darwin's original ideas have been improved on, but still remain perfectly valid.
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 6:56:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I've seen "Expelled."

I thought it was a much better "documentary" than anything from Michael Moore (except maybe "Roger & Me"); but its primary flaw was the absence of details as to how---as they claim possible---schools can teach ID from a purely scientific standpoint, based on collected evidence.

I understood the Eugenics point in the movie, but perhaps it was presented as too much a direct, inherent effect of Darwinism from all minds, not just from those of maniacs (Hitler).

Nevertheless, the movie championed those who've been blacklisted by elitist colleges and universities---all in the interest of "just getting a chance to present the evidence." But then, even in their own movie, they omitted their specific evidence!

In all fairness, the true purpose of the movie was to expose the situation itself, more than to inform of scientific ideas; nevertheless, they could have certainly advanced their argument more persuasively, in my opinion, had they included some hard data.

(...as they claimed was possible; for all of you ready to pounce on this saying they have no data, I get it. I'm not arguing for (or against) ID'ers here.)
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2009 1:06:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
You make some good points, USA, but:

1) The flaw you cited is indeed a MAJOR flaw. At the core of ID is the idea that there is some type of Creator, i.e. God. There's really no way to sugarcoat that and teaching that in public schools is indeed controversial for a plethora of legit reasons.

2) I also submit that the proponents of ID seemed whiney about their theories not being given enough attention. However, and I quote - In truth, the arguments of intelligent design have been examined by the scientific community and found to be lacking in both utility and accuracy. If mainstream science declines to accept intelligent design, it is the fault of the intelligent design advocates who have not performed the research and theory-building demanded of everyone in the scientific enterprise. And, like I said about grant money and stuff like that, neither individual universities nor the government is required to fund such a seemingly fraudulent theory. These individuals can very easily (and probably successfully) ask their Christian advocates to help them raise funds... the same way other scientists in the past have had to get supporters to pay for their research, etc.

3) While Michael Moore's documentaries may be one-sided, they don't seem to completely misquote people a whole lot. At least not in the few that I've seen. It's my experience that most people who hate his films simply just disagree with his opinion and not necessarily with his film making.

4) The problem with their reference to Eugenics was that they focused too much in igniting people through relation to HITLER and COMMUNISM. That's retarded. In truth, I agree with a lot of Hitler's (biological) theories... to an extent... as well as the Darwinist ideology which can be considered harsh, unfair, etc. (though no more than capitalism can be, I s'pose).

5) The problem about those who have been blacklisted is that in addition to not providing any evidence for their theory, they also failed to present evidence that they were even "blacklisted." Take Richard Sternberg who was the main cry baby about his life being terrorized after he submitted his idea in support of ID.

"He was the voluntary, unpaid editor of PBSW (small academic journals rarely pay editors), and had given notice of his resignation as editor six months before the Meyer article was published. After the Meyer incident, he remained an employee of NIH and his unpaid position at the Smithsonian was extended in 2006, although he has not shown up there in years. At no time was any aspect of his pay or working conditions at NIH affected. It is difficult to see how his life 'was nearly ruined' when nothing serious happened to him. He was never even disciplined for legitimate violations of policy of PBSW or Smithsonian policy."

That's just one example of BS about these people but I've looked up all of their sob stories and it turns out that their claims are unsupported. Anyway, I appreciate your input and very much agree with many of your points.
President of DDO
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2009 1:13:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
ID have alot of roadblocks:

1) First they have to have their theory recognised by the Scientific community as a legitimate alternative to Evolution.

2) The have to get passed the Secular roadblock (No matter how much they whine, they still insist here is a god in this theory). I love it when constitutional freaks have the constitution used against them, throw their hands and claim the country was founded by Christians and god allows them to it pick at the constitution.

3) The educational system has to then be amended to fit the teaching of intelligent design

If they can get passed this, I'm nearly convinced they have some sort of deity on their side.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2009 4:40:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/29/2009 1:06:13 PM, theLwerd wrote:
You make some good points, USA, but:

The flaw you cited is indeed a MAJOR flaw.

I agree. Maybe I was unclear, but that's what I was trying to say.

If mainstream science declines to accept intelligent design, it is the fault of the intelligent design advocates who have not performed the research and theory-building demanded of everyone in the scientific enterprise.

Exactly. That's my point. They made this movie to help their cause, but forgot (or neglected) to bring their best evidence/support.

It's my experience that most people who hate [Mike Moore's] films simply just disagree with his opinion and not necessarily with his film making.

I disagree with most of Moore's opinions; but I don't like his film-making, either. I gave credit for "Roger & Me" (which, in my opinion, is his decent movie); but F-9/11 was terrible and "Bowling for Columbine" was terribly overrated. I've yet to see "Sicko" so I won't comment on that. I bet his capitalism movie basically portrays rich people as a-holes at the expense of all poor people. If I'm wrong, let me know.

The problem with their reference to Eugenics was that they focused too much in igniting people through relation to HITLER and COMMUNISM.

I understood the connection with Hitler more than with communism. I mean, I get it (eliminating class diversity, etc.), but it's definitely a stretch (at least, within the purpose of this movie). As I said, perhaps it implied too directly that evolution theory inherently leads to eugenics (rather than when the theory is manipulated by a psychopathic sociopath with power).

I appreciate your input and very much agree with many of your points.

Thanks!
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 12:35:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/27/2009 6:46:30 AM, theLwerd wrote:
However, admittedly I don't like the idea of a monopoly in science; it doesn't seem fair that we're ignoring every possibility that isn't Darwinism. Yet what really pissed me off was the fact that the movie took some dramatic and manipulative turn when it started comparing this controversy to the Berlin wall and communism -- no joke. Now, in visiting the website, there's actually even a poll called: Do you think Darwin's theory is out-dated? Almost 50% of the people said YES! Kenya believe it? That doesn't even make sense!

I don't know if you can call Darwinism a monopoly... There are several different versions of the Theory of Evolution. There is Punctuated Equilibrium, there is Neo-Darwinism (gradualism), and some others. There is constant discussion/debate between them.

I suppose you could say there is a monopoly on biology in the field of biology... Or a monopoly of science in the field of science. So what? ID is not a science. The major points of the concept are not falsifiable. It is just another version of "god of the gaps" that religion was founded on. How does the sun rise? Must be god. How does x? Must be god. What guides evolution? Must be god.

I don't think so.