expelled:no intelligence allowed

[flyhalf87]

trailer for a new movie about the freedom of thought. i think ill give it a chance, it seems to make some pretty good points regardless of what you believe and seems like its trying to be fair too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGCxbhGaVfE

[Liquidtruth]

Zylark posted some good links about this movie in another thread that was recently created about this topic. I will share them again here.

http://www.expelledexposed.com/
http://richarddawkins.net/article,23...wkins-PZ-Myers
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/new...__4_9_2008.asp

For a link to the previous thread on this subject, Click Here.

[flyhalf87]

Originally Posted by Liquidtruth

Zylark posted some good links about this movie in another thread that was recently created about this topic. I will share them again here.

http://www.expelledexposed.com/
http://richarddawkins.net/article,23...wkins-PZ-Myers
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/new...__4_9_2008.asp

For a link to the previous thread on this subject, Click Here.

Maybe this is why PZ was expelled from expelled, he isnt open to debate, which is what the point of the movie is, to show that evolution is just as much of a theory as creationism or ID. what caused the big bang to happen? where is the proof? how is that any different from believing in God?-

"I have nothing but contempt for ID," Myers says. "The old-school creationists were people who just didn't know much and were sincere in their belief in their Bible. Fine. But the new school is people who have had training, scientists who know a little bit about biology and molecular biology and put on their lab coats and say all this ridiculous nonsense. I find that fundamentally dishonest."

http://citypages.com/databank/26/130...908.asp?page=2
this interview is from 3 years ago...

and sorry for starting up a new thread about this, i was out of town for a few days and missed out on the news

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by flyhalf87

"I have nothing but contempt for ID," Myers says. "The old-school creationists were people who just didn't know much and were sincere in their belief in their Bible. Fine. But the new school is people who have had training, scientists who know a little bit about biology and molecular biology and put on their lab coats and say all this ridiculous nonsense. I find that fundamentally dishonest."

Perhaps not dishonest. You can't know scientists' intent for sure. But you can estimate the faith they have in the theories they choose to accept through your own subjective and personal judgment. It's possible they might just subconsciously want to justify humans as being the highest, most intelligent, and rational form of life. Evolution theory will definitely lend itself to that desire. My signature contains a reference to that idea, actually.

I mean, the guy who made that quote seems like a contemptuous guy. Maybe he's not the most balanced... but then again, who is?

[Liquidtruth]

Originally Posted by flyhalf87

Maybe this is why PZ was expelled from expelled, he isnt open to debate, which is what the point of the movie is, to show that evolution is just as much of a theory as creationism or ID.

Creationism is ID. However, this has been stressed time and again, so excuse me if I get a little annoyed but... Evolution is a scientific theory. Which means...

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

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

In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the theory of general relativity.

http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html

Creationists argue that evolution is "only a theory and cannot be proven."

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.

A fact is something that is supported by unmistakeable evidence. For example, the Grand Canyon cuts through layers of different kinds of rock, such as the Coconino sandstone, Hermit shale, and Redwall limestone. These rock layers often contain fossils that are found only in certain layers. Those are the facts.

It is a fact is that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes. It is a fact that fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate in appearance between dinosaurs and birds.

Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves.

Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent. They may be well established by the factual evidence, or they may lack credibility. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to "peer review." This means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal in order to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the relevant factual information and publish their conclusions.

Creationists refuse to subject their "theories" to peer reviews, because they know they don't fit the facts. The creationist mindset is distorted by the concept of "good science" (creationism) vs. "bad science" (anything not in agreement with creationism). Creation "scientists" are biblical fundamentalists who can not accept anything contrary to their sectarian religioius beliefs.

So, as you can see, saying evolution is "just a theory" is rather inaccurate and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of science, the scientific method, and scientific terminology. I find such a misunderstanding odd in someone who speaks with such authority on the subject.

ID/Creationism is not a scientific theory. There is no science to it. At best it could be called an hypothesis, at worst, religious dogma. So, although the movie may try to say that ID is a theory just like evolution, that would be woefully inaccurate, incorrect, and a basic lie. Evolution, moreover, is not only a theory but it is also a fact. For more information, Click Here and Click Here. Also, check the previous links and you will clearly see the point of this movie is not debate at all.

Originally Posted by flyhalf87

what caused the big bang to happen? where is the proof? how is that any different from believing in God?

Why do I have to tell you what caused the big bang to happen? Because we do not know why it happened, we do not know it did? So, if we do not know why a murderer killed someone, no murder took place? Explaining the why would be nice, but is not necessary to know something took place. As for the proof of the big bang, perhaps you should look into it. The difference between accepting something like evolution and believing in god is, one has evidence to support it, the other does not.

Originally Posted by flyhalf87

"I have nothing but contempt for ID," Myers says. "The old-school creationists were people who just didn't know much and were sincere in their belief in their Bible. Fine. But the new school is people who have had training, scientists who know a little bit about biology and molecular biology and put on their lab coats and say all this ridiculous nonsense. I find that fundamentally dishonest."

http://citypages.com/databank/26/130...908.asp?page=2
this interview is from 3 years ago...

It is fundamentally dishonest. Why? Because they ignore evidence, or in some cases fudge it around to say what they want it to say, they use scientific understanding from half a century ago to dispute current day scientific understanding.

Creationist's Lie
Creationist's Lie
Creationist's Lie

Originally Posted by flyhalf87

and sorry for starting up a new thread about this, i was out of town for a few days and missed out on the news

No worries.

Originally Posted by bkadoctaj

It's possible they might just subconsciously want to justify humans as being the highest, most intelligent, and rational form of life. Evolution theory will definitely lend itself to that desire.

Oh, really? Now, why would evolution theory lend itself to that desire, because that one flew over my head like a 747?

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by Liquidtruth

Oh, really? Now, why would evolution theory lend itself to that desire, because that one flew over my head like a 747?

It's a theory, correct? We've never seen macroevolution, have we? There are difficult things in evolution theory that don't fit well with all people. I'm not saying it does certainly represent that desire, but I'm suggesting that subconsciousness is what drives us.

Oh Freud...

[flyhalf87]

Originally Posted by Liquidtruth

Creationism is ID. However, this has been stressed time and again, so excuse me if I get a little annoyed but... Evolution is a scientific theory. Which means...



So, as you can see, saying evolution is "just a theory" is rather inaccurate and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of science, the scientific method, and scientific terminology. I find such a misunderstanding odd in someone who speaks with such authority on the subject.

ID/Creationism is not a scientific theory. There is no science to it. At best it could be called an hypothesis, at worst, religious dogma. So, although the movie may try to say that ID is a theory just like evolution, that would be woefully inaccurate, incorrect, and a basic lie. Evolution, moreover, is not only a theory but it is also a fact. For more information, Click Here and Click Here. Also, check the previous links and you will clearly see the point of this movie is not debate at all.

Why do I have to tell you what caused the big band to happen? Because we do not know why it happened, we do not know it did? So, if we do not know why a murderer killed someone, no murder took place? Explaining the why would be nice, but is not necessary to know something took place. As for the proof of the big bang, perhaps you should look into it. The difference between accepting something like evolution and believing in god is, one has evidence to support it, the other does not.

It is fundamentally dishonest. Why? Because they ignore evidence, or in some cases fudge it around to say what they want it to say, they use scientific understanding from half a century ago to dispute current day scientific understanding.

Creationist's Lie
Creationist's Lie
Creationist's Lie
No worries.Oh, really? Now, why would evolution theory lend itself to that desire, because that one flew over my head like a 747?

creationism and intelligent design are not necessarily the same thing, creationism is that God just created everything, intelligent design allows for the possibility of evolution by God's hand.

i never claimed it was scientific theory, i just said it was a theory.

if you dont know what caused the big bang, and i dont know what caused God to exist, arent we both placing faith in the theories we believe? life works too perfectly, the world takes care of itself too well to be an accident. did a tree crawl out of a pool of sludge and plant itself at the same time as an oxygen inhaling, carbon dioxide exhaling animal so that they could both breathe? thats one "proof" of creationism in my mind

im not saying dont teach the theory of evolution in schools or whatever, im saying teach it as just that- a theory. its not proven. its not the LAW of evolution. maybe teach it alongside a few other theories, creationism included.

an intermediate stage doesnt mean anything. are blacks, whites, asians, or any other ethnicity on a different stage of the evolutionary process? i mean thats what evolution is right? very slight random mutations over thousands, millions, even billions of years right?

if there is a creator, and he designs humans with two eyes, ears, a nose and a mouth, thats because He thought it was a good design, so wouldnt it stand to reason that he would create similar animals (such as other primates) based off of the same basic design as well as create different ones to create a complete ecosystem?

im not in this discussion with a closed mind, i enjoy discussing my beliefs because thats how i learn more about them and what i think about them. thanks for taking the time to respond to that

[Chaohinon]

This is fucking embarrassing. I thought Ben Stein was smarter than this.

[Liquidtruth]

Originally Posted by bkadoctaj

It's a theory, correct? We've never seen macroevolution, have we? There are difficult things in evolution theory that don't fit well with all people. I'm not saying it does certainly represent that desire, but I'm suggesting that subconsciousness is what drives us.

Oh Freud...

Evolution is a fact and a theory, yes.

No, we have not seen it occur, well, actually, we are seeing it occur. Every single day. Every life form we see is in transition from one state to the next. Of course, I digress. We have not seen it occur in the way you are meaning, but that does not mean there is no evidence to suggest it occurs. Click Here. I have not seen an atom with my naked eye, should I then say atoms do not exist?

Evolution may indeed not fit well to some people. That, however, does not mean evolution is not fact, nor does it make the evidence go away.

Originally Posted by flyhalf87

creationism and intelligent design are not necessarily the same thing, creationism is that God just created everything, intelligent design allows for the possibility of evolution by God's hand.

No, ID does not allow for that possibility.

Watch the following, in it you will see how ID proponents took a creationism text book and changed every mention of the word creationism to Intelligent Design. So, quite frankly, ID is simply the new name for creationism.

Originally Posted by flyhalf87

i never claimed it was scientific theory, i just said it was a theory.

Well, if it is not a scientific theory, then what you are calling it is an hypothesis, really. In terms of science. Why are you not claiming it as a scientific theory when the proponents of Intelligent Design do. I mean... That is why people want it taught in science class, right? If it is not a scientific theory and does not pretend to be, why should it be taught in science class, eh? Why should be it given equal weight? Remember, a scientific theory does not mean "Something I came up with to explain something with no real good reason other then it sounds pretty cool."

Originally Posted by flyhalf87

if you dont know what caused the big bang, and i dont know what caused God to exist, arent we both placing faith in the theories we believe?

No. It comes back to my murderer example above. According to that logic, since I do not know why the killer murdered someone, I place faith in the fact he did? I certainly know he killed someone, but apparently I do not because I do not know why. Knowing the why, as I said, would be nice, but it is not necessary to knowing something happened.

Originally Posted by flyhalf87

life works too perfectly, the world takes care of itself too well to be an accident.

So, all the massive extinction events were simply perfect? The fact that life has been wiped out time and again is perfect design? Please.

Originally Posted by flyhalf87

did a tree crawl out of a pool of sludge and plant itself at the same time as an oxygen inhaling, carbon dioxide exhaling animal so that they could both breathe? thats one "proof" of creationism in my mind

No, a tree did not crawl out of a pool of sludge. No one is suggesting it did. Oxygen was around before trees... Can you guess where a good amount of the worlds oxygen comes from? If you guessed the oceans of the world, you would be correct. Life evolved, and the environment shaped that evolution. So, it should be obvious that life forms would evolve to use the environment around them. Bears eat berries and meat, cows eat grass... This is not a sign of a creator, because, how would you expect it to look if we were not created? We'd be breathing fairy dust and eating moon rocks?

Originally Posted by flyhalf87

im not saying dont teach the theory of evolution in schools or whatever, im saying teach it as just that- a theory. its not proven. its not the LAW of evolution. maybe teach it alongside a few other theories, creationism included.

Again, you completely failed to see what I said, you did not bother to click on the provided links (I will assume) and simply came out with this little gem. Evolution is fact. Your use of the term "law of evolution" also shows a misunderstanding of science... Since you will not go to the links I post that explain what you're asking, I will bring them to you.

Originally Posted by Stephen J. Gould

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

Originally Posted by flyhalf87

an intermediate stage doesnt mean anything. are blacks, whites, asians, or any other ethnicity on a different stage of the evolutionary process? i mean thats what evolution is right? very slight random mutations over thousands, millions, even billions of years right?

We are all the same species, yet we evolve based upon many factors, our environment being one of them. We are all in transition.

Originally Posted by flyhalf87

if there is a creator, and he designs humans with two eyes, ears, a nose and a mouth, thats because He thought it was a good design, so wouldnt it stand to reason that he would create similar animals (such as other primates) based off of the same basic design as well as create different ones to create a complete ecosystem?

The point?

Originally Posted by flyhalf87

im not in this discussion with a closed mind, i enjoy discussing my beliefs because thats how i learn more about them and what i think about them. thanks for taking the time to respond to that

Click the links and read, read, read.

EDIT: I have whored this video around a lot, but I believe it bears yet another posting.

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by Liquidtruth

Evolution is a fact and a theory, yes.

No, we have not seen it occur, well, actually, we are seeing it occur. Every single day. Every life form we see is in transition from one state to the next. Of course, I digress. We have not seen it occur in the way you are meaning, but that does not mean there is no evidence to suggest it occurs. Click Here. I have not seen an atom with my naked eye, should I then say atoms do not exist?

Evolution may indeed not fit well to some people. That, however, does not mean evolution is not fact, nor does it make the evidence go away.

Likewise, your care for distinguishing a "fact" from a non-"fact" may not be more important than care for all human life and ideas to be acceptable.

[Liquidtruth]

All ideas are not acceptable, however. There have been many people who have had many shitty ideas. Ideas like slavery, genocide, the final solution, alchemy, Scientology, etc... That, however, is a discussion for another topic.