Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bascule

Expelled!

Recommended Posts

I'm not exactly crying in my milk, antimatter, but I completely appreciate your desire to help. I know you are not as bitter as I, and recognize that you want the best. I thank you for it.

 

CDarwin raised a great point. Part of the problem is that I'm perfectly willing to respect their views as an individual, but don't sense the reciprocal coming from them.

 

I'm tired of it, frankly. This is the kind of view that would persist in 1008, yet in America, in 2008, this type of thing is not only accepted, it's viral. It makes me throw up a little bit... in my mouth. It's not my intention to be elitest, but when my views are put relative to such ignorance, they cannot help but be anything else.

 

I don't think the entire science community is as tolerant and respectful as you, but I don't know this as a fact, seeing as I only 'joined' the scientific community about a year ago.

I'm not sure how tolerant the rest are of I.D., but I do feel the same way about literally 100% of what you said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben Stein did an interview on O'reilly and he continues, as does most of the ID proponents I've debated with, to use the failure of science to "explain everything" or have an answer for everything as an excuse to make shit up and claim the high ground since they have now provided an answer for everything. :doh:

 

This is actually what disturbs me most about ID rationality. It confirms what I've always suspected, and I'm sure others, that the idea of deities comes from the human repulsion of the unknown. Science has no issues with "not knowing" something. Very freely admits we don't know this, or we don't know that. But some humans just can't deal with that. They MUST know. So, they make it up. Sounds ridiculous, yet we're seeing that in real time right now with ID.

 

And to take it a step further, not only are they promoting unsubstantiated beliefs to fill holes in our knowledge, they're commiting the logical fallacy that because science DOESN'T, means science is wrong. How many times have you heard an IDer point to science and say something like "They can't tell you how the first cell was created. They don't have those answers. But ID explains this...blah blah blah."

 

Ben Stein freely admits ID could be wrong "but at least we're trying to fill those holes". WTF?? Filling holes trumps substantiated filler?

 

This illogical propoganda trick of pointing to what science admits it doesn't know and using that as some sort of validation that science is inept, really bugs the hell out of me. Science is willing to be honest and humbled, whereas these idiots are proving to be the wingnuts Dawkins labels them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, ID promises to rid science of its precious uncertainty. Without that uncertainty there would be no science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More people probably believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories than ID, and I *know* more people believe that Kennedy wasn't killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, because a majority of Americans actually buy that one (F.U. Oliver Stone). I asked a classroom full of students ages 18-23 that one the other day and almost every student raised their hand. (sigh)

 

In a free society you take the bad with the good. It's just the way things are. I do agree with efforts to fight ID, though, and I'm not saying that should be stopped. That's what keeps stuff like that in crackpotland where it belongs. The fight also leads to better understanding and education itself -- the Dover, Delaware* case being an example.

 

So it's worth fighting over from time to time, but it's not worth losing sleep over. My two bits on it, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do agree with efforts to fight ID, though, and I'm not saying that should be stopped. That's what keeps stuff like that in crackpotland where it belongs. The fight also leads to better understanding and education itself -- the Dover, Delaware case being an example.

Just being pedantic, but Dover, Pennsylvania. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wups, thank you. My high-school-era rote memorization of US capitals leaping to my keyboard, there. Most embarassing. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Discussion on PZ Myers being expelled from Expelled:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is actually what disturbs me most about ID rationality. It confirms what I've always suspected, and I'm sure others, that the idea of deities comes from the human repulsion of the unknown.

 

It really incessantly comes from the right, and their incessant drive to keep things right through the fear of God, as if the law and simple morality is not capable of doing that. Fear of the unknown, just in case, just to be sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It really incessantly comes from the right, and their incessant drive to keep things right through the fear of God, as if the law and simple morality is not capable of doing that. Fear of the unknown, just in case, just to be sure.

No. It really incessantly comes from fundamentalists, not from the right. There are plenty of non-fundamentalists who have conservative points of view. Fundamentalists have hijacked the right, but that is a temporary circumstance (I hope).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. It really incessantly comes from fundamentalists, not from the right. There are plenty of non-fundamentalists who have conservative points of view. Fundamentalists have hijacked the right, but that is a temporary circumstance (I hope).
No. It really incessantly comes from the media, who give these whack-jobs so much air time. The media seems to prefer stories on fundamentalists because a) they're controversial, b) they don't require nearly as much thought and fact-checking as real science stories do, and c) they help the ratings. In this light, ID can be seen as a ploy by creationists to use the media to help spread their toxic sound bite message, "Teach the controversy!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few days ago, I was watching the discovery channel, and saw 3 adverts for expelled in less than an hour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone seen the movie Expelled? If so what are your thoughts on its impact on the debate on ID vs Darwin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Sparky

 

No, I have not seen that movie and have no intention of doing so. It was reviewed in the 12 April issue of New Scientist. They say ....

 

" endless clips of Nazis from the second world war. Nazis? What have Nazis to do with a film about the 'conflict' between evolution and intelligent design?"..." The film-makers logic is that by teaching evolution, the US public school system is telling children there is no God, morality or free will."

 

 

"Expelled is pure propaganda. Its style reminiscent of a sub-standard Michael Moore flick complete wiht voice-over narration and lots of aimless wandering around."

 

And so on.

 

After reading the view of New Scientist, I have drawn the conclusion that this film is a nonsense ranting by creationists, and I do not want to expose myself to its insanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To SkepticLance.

So you are not going to see the movie based only on the opinion of New Scientist who automatically have a bias? Shouldn't you form your own opinions instead of letting New Scientist form them for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To SkepticLance.

So you are not going to see the movie based only on the opinion of New Scientist who automatically have a bias? Shouldn't you form your own opinions instead of letting New Scientist form them for you?

Even FOX said it's shite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the drive behind this is for religious just keep in mind that intelligent design and evolution can both be true.

 

Let me second Paralith. No, evolution and ID cannot both be true. ID postulates a particular method of the origin of species: direct manufacture by deity. God somehow ("miracle") manufactures either whole species or at least parts of them (IC or CSI). Thus, the new species has no historical connection to the species that went before. It is a manufactured artifact.

 

The data unequivocally shows that this is not the case.

 

Now, can creation by deity and evolution both be true? YES. Darwin thought so and there has been no data since that overturns that.

 

I believe that God created simple life billions of years ago and let the earth bring forth life as life evolved, and saw that it was good.

 

HOW did "God created simple life billions of years ago"? Did God directly manufacture the first cell or the first several species? Darwin left open that possibility. However, today we think the first life came about by chemistry, not direct manufacture.

 

Does this mean deity is absent? No. It simply means, for theists, that chemistry is the "secondary cause" that deity used to create. That's a theological position, but it's one that is consistent with science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has anyone seen the movie Expelled? If so what are your thoughts on its impact on the debate on ID vs Darwin.
ID vs Darwin is appropriate, considering that ID keeps insisting that Darwinism = Theory of Evolution. More misinformation spread thickly over a thin crust of education.

 

But we have some threads discussing Expelled. Let's stay on topic here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has anyone seen the movie Expelled? If so what are your thoughts on its impact on the debate on ID vs Darwin.

 

It will tend to keep ignorant people ignorant(on this subject). No, I have not seen it, but will watch it - only for free. Spending money on it will only encourage more of the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sparky

 

I have a sister who is a creationist. I am thus very aware of their arguments, and how little (zero) scientific merit there is in those arguments. Why should I waste my precious liesure time at a movie reiterating those same idiotic arguments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their arguments appear to depend on evolution. If it wasn't for the theory of evolution, they wouldn't have a backboard to argue with. I would like to hear a creationist argument that doesn't refer to the theory of evolution at all.

 

From every commercial I've seen, and the little free preview on youtube, it's the same old contrarian song and dance. "We're right because they're wrong, and they're wrong because they don't know everything there is to know about everything."

 

Yeah I'm with you Lance, I'll watch an episode of BSG instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has anyone seen the movie Expelled? If so what are your thoughts on its impact on the debate on ID vs Darwin.

 

Since I can't readily find the other threads discussing the movie, I will say I've seen the trailers and parts on UTube. It is a recycling of already falsified arguments and strawmen.

 

I predict it will cause a small resurgence in ID and make a lot of work for those of us who try to give good science education to the public. We are now going to have to -- again -- correct all the mistakes and lies contained in the movie.

 

Did you notice that in the new ad Stein asks about the beginning of life and puts that in evolution? Any person educated in evolution will tell you that

1) The beginning of life is not part of evolution. Evolution assumes that life exists.

2) Abiogenesis is chemistry. And yes, there are experiments getting life from non-life. What is lacking is knowledge of how directed protein synthesis started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a sister who is a creationist.
My condolences, SkepticLance.

 

It's hard to imagine someone who lives in NZ that thinks it's more awesome that God just poofed your country into existence, rather than possibly arranging for the mechanics of the universe to sculpt it over billions of years. Having a fairly religious extended family myself, I feel your pain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I hate to derail the thread as well, but can someone tell me what that bit about the lightning and the mud puddle is supposed to be about?

 

Also, I want to test my skills at creating ID arguments...tell me how I do here:

 

1) The beginning of life is not part of evolution. Evolution assumes that life exists.

 

Ah, but Darwin's work was called "Origin of Species". Species are living things - thus origin of life.

 

2) Abiogenesis is chemistry. And yes, there are experiments getting life from non-life. What is lacking is knowledge of how directed protein synthesis started.

 

What is lacking is the divinity required for life. You can sift through God's cabinets and identify some of his ingredients, but you can't cook in his kitchen.

 

 

Well? Could I be an IDer? I think with a little work...

 

Oh yeah, I need to remember to throw in some drivel about being brave enough to question the scientific establishment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.