Richard Nixon's speech writer makes a stupid movie...

[djones520]

I read some of the rest of it, and it seems there's some mis-representation at work....

The new film, ” EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed” does not presume to bury the theory of evolution… but it declines to praise it, either.

To me it seems the film isn't to advocate a replacement for the Theory of Evolution, but to at least discuss something else.

Why is the idea of "Something else" pushed away so violently?

*Red*

That aspect of the film is fine.  It's the part where he starts pushing that Darwinism is the basis of everything that is wrong in this world that things go down hill.

[RedTail]

I read some of the rest of it, and it seems there's some mis-representation at work....

The new film, ” EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed” does not presume to bury the theory of evolution… but it declines to praise it, either.

To me it seems the film isn't to advocate a replacement for the Theory of Evolution, but to at least discuss something else.

Why is the idea of "Something else" pushed away so violently?

*Red*

That aspect of the film is fine.  It's the part where he starts pushing that Darwinism is the basis of everything that is wrong in this world that things go down hill.

So, we might have a overstatement.

Okay, I'll keep that in mind. If he can make a case that other theories deserve to be looked at, I'll consider this film worth it.

*Red*

[Chris_]

Big Science in this area has lost its way,” says Stein, who "is also a lawyer, economist, author and social commentator. “Scientists are supposed to be allowed to follow the evidence wherever it may lead, no matter what the implications are. Freedom of inquiry has been greatly compromised, and this is not only anti-science, it’s anti-American.”

There is not a scintilla of evidence that scientifically leads to an Intelligent Designer (much less God).  Many scientists do in fact believe in God (as do I), but we generally believe that God established the whole shebang.  To see the wonders of the Universe and NOT believe in God is actually pretty amazing. 

But God gave us an ordered Universe which follows Rules which he doesn't need to cheat on.  To suggest that He needs to manually tweak things (much less toss it all aside on a whim) is to diminish Him greatly.
 

[Chris_]

I read some of the rest of it, and it seems there's some mis-representation at work....

The new film, ” EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed” does not presume to bury the theory of evolution… but it declines to praise it, either.

To me it seems the film isn't to advocate a replacement for the Theory of Evolution, but to at least discuss something else.

Why is the idea of "Something else" pushed away so violently?

*Red*

That aspect of the film is fine.  It's the part where he starts pushing that Darwinism is the basis of everything that is wrong in this world that things go down hill.

So, we might have a overstatement.

Okay, I'll keep that in mind. If he can make a case that other theories deserve to be looked at, I'll consider this film worth it.

*Red*

There are no other theories.  Creationism/ID is not a scientific theory.  It is a belief.  And belongs in the domain of belief.

Evolution is one of the best understood scientific theories in all of science.  It is understood better than the (competing) theories of gravity, astronomy, light and others.

[DixieBelle]

But he kind of has a point about the whole "freedom of inquiry" thing and the dogma that is pervasive in the scientific community. Yes, plenty of scientists subscribe to the notion of a Creator but let's face it, it's not the most common theme throughout science. Especially with the whole ID debate.

Personally, I don't understand why there is such a fuss. I probably have always believed in a form of ID without knowing it was called "ID". I don't doubt science. But I also don't think science requires you to exclude God from the equation. I really dislike the either/or aspect. I guess that's why I shy away from entering into this particular debate subject. No matter what science explains, it doesn't chip away at my beliefs one bit. The experts can tell me how something was made but that doesn't mean I can't believe God wasn't the catalyst. And you can call it a "belief" or "theory" or whatever makes you feel comfortable. Science can explain, but only God can manifest.

[TheSarge]

There is none.  It is not possible to frame the controversy in any way that is not false.  There is no "debate" about Creationism or ID, since neither is science and cannot ever be science.  This is about allowing religion (and a particular BRAND of religion) to be taught as science. And that is unconscionable.

 

Ummm...you'd probably find a more friendly place to spout your crap here: www.darwincentral.org


Oh wait...nevermind.


You already laugh it up over there at those that believe in creationism as willing dupes and refer to us as Crevo's.

We should just accept Darwin's "theory" as fact and STFU right?

[Chris_]

There is none.  It is not possible to frame the controversy in any way that is not false.  There is no "debate" about Creationism or ID, since neither is science and cannot ever be science.  This is about allowing religion (and a particular BRAND of religion) to be taught as science. And that is unconscionable.

 

Ummm...you'd probably find a more friendly place to spout your crap here: www.darwincentral.org


Oh wait...nevermind.


You already laugh it up over there at those that believe in creationism as willing dupes and refer to us as Crevo's.

We should just accept Darwin's "theory" as fact and STFU right?

No, accept it as a scientific theory. 

Keep faith where it belongs -- in philosophy and related areas of study.  Faith is an important part of science -- in the Humanities.  It is not, nor can it ever be, part of the Life Sciences. 

Creationism is pure fantasy and has zero basis in science. You can believe whatever you want, up to and including the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  That belief system has no place to be plugged into science.

[Chris_]

But he kind of has a point about the whole "freedom of inquiry" thing and the dogma that is pervasive in the scientific community. Yes, plenty of scientists subscribe to the notion of a Creator but let's face it, it's not the most common theme throughout science. Especially with the whole ID debate.

Personally, I don't understand why there is such a fuss. I probably have always believed in a form of ID without knowing it was called "ID". I don't doubt science. But I also don't think science requires you to exclude God from the equation. I really dislike the either/or aspect. I guess that's why I shy away from entering into this particular debate subject. No matter what science explains, it doesn't chip away at my beliefs one bit. The experts can tell me how something was made but that doesn't mean I can't believe God wasn't the catalyst. And you can call it a "belief" or "theory" or whatever makes you feel comfortable. Science can explain, but only God can manifest.

There is no place to put God INTO the equation is the problem.  As science compiles evidence and data, it uses a very specific methodology to determine what it tells us, how it fits into the pattern of known evidence, how it can be useful (almost all of pharmacology is a direct result of TToE), etc.  There is no place in science to say "oh! We can't explain this! Goddidit!"  That wouldn't even make sense.  It is not useful, it doesn't further knowledge, it can't be applied, it can't be falsified, etc.  IT ISN'T SCIENCE.

There is a HUGE difference between a Scientific Theory and Faith.  The former is a very rigorous method used to explain a large body of interrelated data.  The latter is something that needs no basis in any fact. 

Your point about God isn't lost.  And most scientists do believe in God.  But it is as I said, as an external agent who is much more interested in our souls and how we live our lives than the Universe He started so long ago.   

[djones520]

But he kind of has a point about the whole "freedom of inquiry" thing and the dogma that is pervasive in the scientific community. Yes, plenty of scientists subscribe to the notion of a Creator but let's face it, it's not the most common theme throughout science. Especially with the whole ID debate.

Personally, I don't understand why there is such a fuss. I probably have always believed in a form of ID without knowing it was called "ID". I don't doubt science. But I also don't think science requires you to exclude God from the equation. I really dislike the either/or aspect. I guess that's why I shy away from entering into this particular debate subject. No matter what science explains, it doesn't chip away at my beliefs one bit. The experts can tell me how something was made but that doesn't mean I can't believe God wasn't the catalyst. And you can call it a "belief" or "theory" or whatever makes you feel comfortable. Science can explain, but only God can manifest.

There is no place to put God INTO the equation is the problem.  As science compiles evidence and data, it uses a very specific methodology to determine what it tells us, how it fits into the pattern of known evidence, how it can be useful (almost all of pharmacology is a direct result of TToE), etc.  There is no place in science to say "oh! We can't explain this! Goddidit!"  That wouldn't even make sense.  It is not useful, it doesn't further knowledge, it can't be applied, it can't be falsified, etc.  IT ISN'T SCIENCE.

There is a HUGE difference between a Scientific Theory and Faith.  The former is a very rigorous method used to explain a large body of interrelated data.  The latter is something that needs no basis in any fact. 

Your point about God isn't lost.  And most scientists do believe in God.  But it is as I said, as an external agent who is much more interested in our souls and how we live our lives than the Universe He started so long ago.   

First time I've given a H5 for a post.

[TheSarge]

No, accept it as a scientific theory. 

Theory yes.  Science never.

Keep faith where it belongs -- in philosophy and related areas of study.  Faith is an important part of science -- in the Humanities.  It is not, nor can it ever be, part of the Life Sciences.

 

The great scientists in history would probably disagree with your little "theory" of where exactly religion belongs.

Down through history it has played a large part in science.

Creationism is pure fantasy and has zero basis in science.

Your opinion.

 

That belief system has no place to be plugged into science.

Again your very short sighted opinion.

[TheSarge]

First time I've given a H5 for a post.

Look at your kids and then explain to me how God and religion should be left out of the equation.

Explain to me exactly how homosexuality fits into the whole equation of evolution?

[djones520]

First time I've given a H5 for a post.

Look at your kids and then explain to me how God and religion should be left out of the equation.

Explain to me exactly how homosexuality fits into the whole equation of evolution?

Thats not the point that is even being argued right now Sarge.  The point is that Creationism/Intelligent Design is not science.  It is a belief.  Whereas the study of evolution is science.  I can't explain it any better then Freedumb did.

[DixieBelle]

But does science have an answer for everything FD? I honestly don't know the answer to that. And, I have never heard anyone who believes in God as Creator say, "oh, it's a mystery! Must have been God!" To me, that implies that all Christians shun science for faith. I'm sure there are Christians who do shun science and take the bible literally. I know some Christians (not personally) who think the Earth is only several thousand years old. And those that do not choose to examine scientific theory and would rather believe the Word are free to do so. I'll fight for their rights all day long.

To me, this is part of a larger debate. The one concerning freedom of religion and state funded education. Put ID in whatever class you want to. Philosophy, Humanties, Religion, etc...pick one. Acknowledge the different ideas and let people choose for themselves.You can even add a section on every major religion and what they believe in terms of creation (in fact, that's the only way to do it IMO).

This whole notion of frothing at the mouth over things as simple as mentioning "there are people who believe in something called ID...." is preposterous to me. Both sides have their zealots and neither is willing to concede any ground.

[TheSarge]

The point is that Creationism/Intelligent Design is not science.

Who decided that?  The Godless evolutionists?

Who determines what is science and what isn't?  Religion has played a hand in science down through out the ages...who decied it should be removed and why?



 

It is a belief.

 

So is Evolution.



 

Whereas the study of evolution is science.

 

It's an unproven theory.

I can't explain it any better then Freedumb did.

Amazing...you'll laugh at the people who buy hook line and sinker into the "science" of Man Made Global warming.

Yet you sound just like them where evolution is concerned.  Another unproven "theory"

How do you square the two different views?
[/quote]

[rich_t]

Whereas the study of evolution is science.

Let me know when they find proof of the missing link.  You know that "creature" that bridges the gap between ape and human.

[djones520]

Who decided that?  The Godless evolutionists?

Who determines what is science and what isn't?  Religion has played a hand in science down through out the ages...who decied it should be removed and why?

sci·ence   /ˈsaɪəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sahy-uhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws

Where is the evidence of facts or truth?  Where are the fossil records?  Where is the evidence?  Where are the laws?  Religion has been a tool to explain what science at the time couldn't.  Meteorology and other physical sciences now gives sound reasoning for the whole belief of most of the Greek Pantheon.

So is Evolution.

Evolution is a science founded on gathered knowledge and evidence.  Everything is not yet know about it, so yes one could coin it a "belief".  But it does not take faith to know that evolution occurs.  Just the willingness to accept the evidence that is put forth to you.

It's an unproven theory.

How so?  5 million years of fossil records of progressive human evolution just didn't happen because the bible says otherwise?

Tell me how ID is a proven theory.  Show me your physical evidence of it.  Show me the theorems.  Show me the equations.

Amazing...you'll laugh at the people who buy hook line and sinker into the "science" of Man Made Global warming.

Yet you sound just like them where evolution is concerned.  Another unproven "theory"

How do you square the two different views?

I laugh at those who buy Global Warming hook line and sinker because they are the types who aren't looking into it themselves.  They don't truly understand the process, so they don't know it's impossible to really know the truth at this time.

I've studied meteorology.  

I've also extensively studied evolution.  I've seen the mountains of physical data that I can reach out and touch.  I've seen how things add up.  I've seen how theories are presented, accepted, disproven, through research, discussion, and reasoning.  Not taken simply on faith.

[Chris_]

The point is that Creationism/Intelligent Design is not science.

Who decided that?  The Godless evolutionists?

Who determines what is science and what isn't?  Religion has played a hand in science down through out the ages...who decied it should be removed and why?

No, the scientists over the last hundreds of years established what is and isn't science.  Science has a core of how it goes about approaching data. The same approach is used for TToE as astronomy, chemistry, physics, geology, etc.

Religion established the desire for the search for Truth, no matter where that leads.  It is because of the Enlightenment that the Scientific Method (only accepted by every single scientist in the last 400 years) was established.  And there is no place for "and here a miracle occurred."

 

It is a belief.

So is Evolution.

No it isn't.  It is a scientific discipline that stands astride physics, chemistry, geology, etc.  And it is very much advanced from the Theory of Gravity and others.

Whereas the study of evolution is science.

 

It's an unproven theory.

[/quote]
As a friend, I really suggest you stop making a fool of yourself.  A Scientific Theory is not a sanctified guess. There is not a hierarchy that goes Guess>Hypothesis>Theory>Fact. A Scientific Theory is a collective strucure which explains a large body of interrelated data.  In this case, BILLIONS of data points.  BILLIONS.

Ignorance is NOT a Conservative value.  Willful Ignorance is especially not one.

I can't explain it any better then Freedumb did.

No you can't.

Amazing...you'll laugh at the people who buy hook line and sinker into the "science" of Man Made Global warming.

Yet you sound just like them where evolution is concerned.  Another unproven "theory"

How do you square the two different views?

Because so-called "climatology" is an infant science.  Rather than being driven by data and facts, it started with the conclusion and then tries to fit the data to fit that conclusion (which is NOT what TToE has done -- witness the number of changes over the years).  If in 30 years, it can take the same data and go from Global Cooling to Global Warming, then its very mechanisms must be reviewed with great skepticism. 

And AGW has multiple physical explanations and no fantastic ones. AGW may or may not be happening, if it is it may or may not be a result of human activity or (more likely) it is the planet doing what planets do (which, BTW requires it be billions of years old, not 6,000).

Again, what NON-fantastic alternate theories has anyone proposed to TToE?  Answer: None.

[djones520]

Whereas the study of evolution is science.

Let me know when they find proof of the missing link.  You know that "creature" that bridges the gap between ape and human.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus

[rich_t]

Whereas the study of evolution is science.

Let me know when they find proof of the missing link.  You know that "creature" that bridges the gap between ape and human.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus

I don't view wikipedia as a valid source, since just about anyone can do an edit there.

But your link to it did prompt me to google Ardipithecus.

I found a few site worthy of checking into a bit more...  But at a surface glance, I am not prepared to declare it the missing link.

But thanks for the heads up.

[djones520]

Whereas the study of evolution is science.

Let me know when they find proof of the missing link.  You know that "creature" that bridges the gap between ape and human.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus

I don't view as a valid source, since just aobut anyone can to an edit there.

But your link to it did prompt me to google Ardipithecus.

I found a few site worthy of checking into a bit more...  But at a surface glance, I am not prepared to declare it the missing link.

But thanks for the heads up.

If your looking for the actual missing link, your going to wait a long time buddy.  We may never find fossil remains of the actual species that made the jump from ape to hominid.  But Ardipithecus is the closest thing found so far.  While maintaining most of the charecteristics of apes, it shows sides of bipedalism, which is the biggest differentiator between apes and hominids.

[rich_t]

Who decided that?  The Godless evolutionists?

Who determines what is science and what isn't?  Religion has played a hand in science down through out the ages...who decied it should be removed and why?

sci·ence   /ˈsaɪəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sahy-uhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws

Where is the evidence of facts or truth?  Where are the fossil records?  Where is the evidence?  Where are the laws?  Religion has been a tool to explain what science at the time couldn't.  Meteorology and other physical sciences now gives sound reasoning for the whole belief of most of the Greek Pantheon.

So is Evolution.

Evolution is a science founded on gathered knowledge and evidence.  Everything is not yet know about it, so yes one could coin it a "belief".  But it does not take faith to know that evolution occurs.  Just the willingness to accept the evidence that is put forth to you.

It's an unproven theory.

How so?  5 million years of fossil records of progressive human evolution just didn't happen because the bible says otherwise?

Tell me how ID is a proven theory.  Show me your physical evidence of it.  Show me the theorems.  Show me the equations.

Amazing...you'll laugh at the people who buy hook line and sinker into the "science" of Man Made Global warming.

Yet you sound just like them where evolution is concerned.  Another unproven "theory"

How do you square the two different views?

I laugh at those who buy Global Warming hook line and sinker because they are the types who aren't looking into it themselves.  They don't truly understand the process, so they don't know it's impossible to really know the truth at this time.

I've studied meteorology.  

I've also extensively studied evolution.  I've seen the mountains of physical data that I can reach out and touch.  I've seen how things add up.  I've seen how theories are presented, accepted, disproven, through research, discussion, and reasoning.  Not taken simply on faith.

There is a reason why it is still called "The Theory of Evolution".

It has yet to be proven as an uncontestable fact.

[Chris_]

There is a reason why it is still called "The Theory of Evolution".

It has yet to be proven as an uncontestable fact.

*sigh*

Please read my responses above.  A scientific theory is not the same as what lay people think is a theory.  A scientific theory will be a theory FOREVER.  It doesn't "grow up" into a "fact."

The Theory of Evolution is much better understood than The Theory of Gravity.  But that doesn't mean you will start floating off the planet.

And please don't tell me gravity is a fact.  The phenomenon of gravity is (only to some degree) observable.  That is only a tiny part of TTOG.

Oh, and if you don't think there is a factual basis for TToE, you shouldn't take any pharmaceuticals.  Almost every single drug on the market was a direct result of the knowledge and application of TToE.

[BEG]

I have a way to settle this.  Everyone for and against (and those of us who have no idea yet, like me), go see the movie...then come back and discuss it. 

[RedTail]

There are no other theories.  Creationism/ID is not a scientific theory.  It is a belief.  And belongs in the domain of belief.

Evolution is one of the best understood scientific theories in all of science.  It is understood better than the (competing) theories of gravity, astronomy, light and others.

The film, as far as I can tell isn't exclusively about Creationism or ID. From what I can tell, the film is about... let's look at other alternatives and see if there's any thing to them.

If there's a case for any alternative theories, I want to know.

People have said so much about previous theories that turned out not to be valid, why is it not appropriate to question this one? I want to see this movie b/c I want to know what else is out there.

*Red*

[Chris_]

I have a way to settle this.  Everyone for and against (and those of us who have no idea yet, like me), go see the movie...then come back and discuss it. 

I never saw F 9/11, nor shall I ever.  But I have been able to gather enough information to determine it is a fabric of lies. 

This is a r/w version of the same.  The trailer was enough to tell me that Stein is using the usual Straw Men to buttress his non-argument.  Unless someone can tell me that it concedes that Creationism (or its retarded cousin, ID) is not trying to elbow its way into the science table as an "alternate theory" then there is no point in seeing it.