Intelligent Design

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.."

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.

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.

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?

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.