Expelled

[Autodidact]

Look, I don’t have a dog on this fight. My theology works better with evolution than without. I just don’t like the unfairness of the “scientific” community. Science proceeds by continually questioning its theories: if B, C, and D happens and are incongruent with our understanding of what happens in A, either the theory pertaining to A is wrong or is in need of revision. Science is no longer science when questioning the prevailing theory of A with the facts is called "lying."

Yes, that's all true, but is not what's going on here. What's going on here is that there is no B, C, or D that is incongruent. Quite the contrary, at this point B, C, D...T, U, V have been found and are all congruent. In that case, just stomping your foot and pouting does not get you to call the prevailing theory into question. You need to actually find actual incongruence. If you do, bingo, you get published. That's what scientific journals live for. ID is trying to get the reward without doing the work. I say that's because it can't be done, because they're wrong. If they're right, then they need to do this work.

All the critics are saying is, "Let's take another look. Something is happening we don't understand. Let's go where the evidence leads, even if it contrary everything we want to believe."

Actually, there is nothing happening that we don't understand. If they think there is, they need to do the research and show this is the case. And please don't whine that they can't get published; they have millions of dollars that they spend instead on litigation and propaganda, because they're not scientists, they're propagandists.

 

[Autodidact]

False? even a child knows randomness is not a causative effect. And please don't come up with the "chaos theory" or how it's been shown that order can come from chaos. All those things involve rules and are therefore not chaotic at all.

Please, Mestemia, if there is something else at work other than mechanism, let the biologists know. I'm sure they'd like to know. (And if you believe that, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.)

There is. It's called natural selection, and I'm pretty sure the biologists are familiar with it.

 

[McBell]

False? even a child knows randomness is not a causative effect. And please don't come up with the "chaos theory" or how it's been shown that order can come from chaos. All those things involve rules and are therefore not chaotic at all.

Order can come from chaos.
I sometimes suspect that this whole "order cannot come from chaos" is something that people like to toss out because they think it makes them look smart.
Autodidact demonstrates order out of chaos quite nicely with the snowflake.

Please, Mestemia, if there is something else at work other than mechanism, let the biologists know. I'm sure they'd like to know. (And if you believe that, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.)

It is not my fault that you were in error with the example you presented.
However, this does not mean that what you claim is not happening.
I do suspect that it does happen.
I also suspect that it does not happen nearly as much as you would like to believe.

But back to the topic: is there any truth in what Ben Stein says in the trailor? No? Then show where he is lying or follow the advice Dawkins gives.

you are funny.
You failed at showing there is any truth and now want others to show it is lies?
Don't give up so easily.

Look, I don’t have a dog on this fight. My theology works better with evolution than without. I just don’t like the unfairness of the “scientific” community. Science proceeds by continually questioning its theories: if B, C, and D happens and are incongruent with our understanding of what happens in A, either the theory pertaining to A is wrong or is in need of revision. Science is no longer science when questioning the prevailing theory of A with the facts is called "lying."

I think it interesting that the first and only "example" of this 'unfairness' you present was not an example of the unfairness you claim.

You have made several statements in this above quote yet have not been able to provide any evidence to back it.
I sincerely hope the movie does a better job.

All the critics are saying is, "Let's take another look. Something is happening we don't understand. Let's go where the evidence leads, even if it contrary everything we want to believe."

Actually, the critics are making claims that the scientific community is engaged in some kind of conspiracy to suppress the belief in Creationism.
The seven minute trailer for that movie was a whine fest about just that.
Hopefully the actual movie will not be as big a disappointment as the trailer.

 

[Autodidact]

More beautiful snowflake images can be found at snow crystals

If you are religious, you can enjoy them as examples of God's glory. If not, you can just enjoy them. Either way, you don't have to believe that God cut each one out of spun sugar individually.

 

[Popeyesays]

Intelligent Design is not really a scientific theory because one cannot experiment on it to prove or disprove it.

One cannot test a theological argument by means of the scientific method.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Popeyesays]

Actually, I think it provides a good countering perspective to the evolutionistic propaganda that permeates our society. And I believe that is really the whole point of the film. It's not so much about ID vs. evolution as it is about freedom of speech, and freedom of ideas.



Question: why is merely considering the possibility that there is a Higher Intelligence not science? If that's where the evidence leads, then why stifle such a conclusion? It has nothing to do with religion. Religion says this is such and such a deity that one must believe in on faith. Merely admitting the evidence points to a non-specific higher intelligence is not religion and perfectly in line with science.

Define science.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Popeyesays]

It's actually pointless to discuss it since you have shown an immediate prejudice to the question.

"Actually, I think it provides a good countering perspective to the evolutionistic propaganda that permeates our society. And I believe that is really the whole point of the film. It's not so much about ID vs. evolution as it is about freedom of speech, and freedom of ideas." Hope

Your bias makes the discussion propagandistic in your intent. That makes it a "strawman" argument at best for your real agenda.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Smoke]

You make fair points. But in the particular instance I was referring to, simple logic tells me that the opposite of deliberate order and design is randomness and chance. Even a child could figure that out.

But the child would be wrong.

 

[Hope]

Your bias makes the discussion propagandistic in your intent. That makes it a "strawman" argument at best for your real agenda.

Regards,
Scott

My agenda?? Pray tell, what is my agenda?

 

[Hope]

But the child would be wrong.

In this case, the child isn't.

Wisdom often proceedeth from the mouths of babes......

 

[Autodidact]

Perhaps you're right. And I'll readily admit that. And maybe that's why all these arguments, based on what I do know of science and evolution, seem so convoluted to me.

Well, science is hard. Smart people work for years to understand this stuff. The idea that their view prevails because there is some kind of evil scientific conspiracy to deny God is just delusional paranoia. It prevails because it has passed the gauntlet of the scientific method--around 100 years ago. If ID wants to overturn this theory, they're going to have to do the hard work of science to show where it is wrong. They haven't. I say it's because they can't. They say they can, so they should do so. There is no such conspiracy, they're just trying to game the system.

 

[Smoke]

In this case, the child isn't.

No, in fact, deliberate order and design is not the opposite of randomness and chance. A child could be excused for thinking that it was, but an adult should know better.

For instance, when a teenager who was looking for a CD on the floor of the car ran into me at a stoplight, he certainly didn't design the damage to my truck and his father's car. The damage wasn't random, either. It had a lot to do with the shape of his father's car, the shape of my truck, the speed at which he was traveling, and angle at which his father's car hit my truck. Dents didn't just appear randomly at various points around my truck, or on surrounding vehicles.

We often hear believers claiming that evolution is random; it's nothing of the kind.

 

[camanintx]

False? even a child knows randomness is not a causative effect. And please don't come up with the "chaos theory" or how it's been shown that order can come from chaos. All those things involve rules and are therefore not chaotic at all.

If chaos is void of any rules then is there anything truly chaotic in this universe?

 

[Popeyesays]

My agenda?? Pray tell, what is my agenda?

Your agenda is that you've already made up your mind and offer the question so you can persuade others to accept it.

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory, it is a theological theory. Theology does not offer a chance for scientific method to determine truth.

I believe that all that is is the result of Creation by a Primal Cause, Whom we may as well call God. I agree with you in essence, but that does not mean my opinion leans on any scientific theory.

To me it is just obviously true.

Science and religion are the two eyes we possess to pierce the mysteries of reality. If you cover one eye, you are half-blind.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Autodidact]

Hope: More on why ID is not science. As long as God is included as one of the possibilities for a "higher intelligence", then we can never make a falsifiable prediction about anything It may do. That is because God is both omnipotent and unknowable. So if you said, for example, "If God made the universe, we would not expect it to be made of 99.99% nothing." (which it is.) Because for some reason unknown to us, God could have wanted a universe that's only .01% something, and 99.99% nothing. You can't say: "If God created all living creatures, we would not expect some of them to be carnivorous, and eat the others," because a cruel God might have wanted to create life just that way, for reasons unknown to us. You can't generate any specific prediction whatsoever from the hypothesis of an all-powerful, unknowable creator. That means that the hypothesis cannot be falsified, even theoretically, which means that is not science. There is no way to test it, and therefore no way to gather evidence in support of it. That doesn't mean that it's necessarily false, just that the qustion of its truth or false-ness is not a scientific question.

That is why ID does no research and does not publish. It's not because scientific journals refuse to publish them. It's because you can't research a non-specific hypothesis such as God.

 

[Godfather89]

I will say what I have said on the comment. Religion quite essentially tells us how our BEING came to Be, Science tells us how our BODIES came to be. Not Our Being, whether Evolution or Creationism is correct I could careless, I'm not worried whether my body came from Apes or God! What I am worried about is where my BEING came from...

 

[logician]

I will say what I have said on the comment. Religion quite essentially tells us how our BEING came to Be, Science tells us how our BODIES came to be. Not Our Being, whether Evolution or Creationism is correct I could careless, I'm not worried whether my body came from Apes or God! What I am worried about is where my BEING came from...

There is no BEING separate from the body.

 

[Godfather89]

Thats a subjective view like mine... Which means its debatable, Im just saying my beliefs

 

[Rolling_Stone]

You seem to assume the opposite of randomness is design. That's a false dichotomy.

And you seem to believe in magic. Order without rules = magic. From chaos, chaos; no rules, no order.

 

[Blentyn chan Celi]

You have somehow become confused about what science is, because the definition you just gave to disqualify science is pretty much exactly what science is: "useful speculation".

Sorry, I’m still getting use to all of the semantic noise in here. I thought I had a good grasp on English, but have felt lacking recently.

I am gaining a stronger understanding of the distinctions that can be drawn between Chaos and ID as theories. I also agree that saying “God did it,” is not enough even for me. Even though as Solomon said “wisdom is folly,” we were made to be curious, and we will never stop looking for answers about how things work. Now, don’t think that I am saying that Evolution isn’t an interesting framework to work in. I am simply questioning its veracity.

I also agree that there is significant evidence that can be drawn on to support the different models of evolution, but from what I have read, it is all based on inductive reasoning. In my formal logic training I was taught to prefer deduction over induction. Can you please recommend a site where sound reasoning is used to correlate material data to models in current use?