|
|
|
|
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/25/2008 4:31:51 PM |
Ben Stein simply was basing his views on well documented information about Hitler, which was obviously unknown to quite a few of the posters here, in spite of WWII documentaries in past also having mentioned it.
On the contrary, I think just about everyone here but you was aware of them or similar...I know I was. They just didn't bring them up because of the glaring irrelevancy of "social darwinism" because it is a massive non-sequitur and Stein's use of it is part of his fraud being committed on his viewing audience as the expelledexposed site and Dawkins make quite clear.
Artificial selection and natural selection are as related as fish and lightbulbs in the context of this argument as is the appropriateness of comparing Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection and Nazi eugenics. They are simply non-related...except to those grabbing at straws.
Again I have to ask, why the fear from Stein's camp in dealing face to face with devout Christian scientists who support evolutionary theory and debunk ID thoroughly like Kenneth Miller... answer? Because they know they have no real argument. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/25/2008 7:29:55 PM | Ben Stein has no idea what evolution is about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiNGK3y5Ypg
After 2 years of interviewing scientists Ben Stein doesn't know the difference between evolution, abiogenesis, and cosmology. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/25/2008 10:39:29 PM | Very good video...in fact,
Game, set, match to the creators of this series.
F - to Stein and his "argument from ignorance" combined with fraud.
Part 23... It is necessary to get behind someone before you stab them in the back...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X8aifay678&feature=related
Stein is, based on his own quotes in televised interviews on Fox News as shown in these videos, either a delusional or hopelessly ignorant liar or a deliberate and insidious prevaricator of the first order. There is no other conclusion that can be drawn. Sad to say a first year college student with a dictionary or someone with access to Wikipedia could outdo this colossal putz. Tragic.
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_movies_blog/2008/02/is-ben-stein-th.html | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/25/2008 11:07:00 PM | ROTFLMAO Bravo. That was hysterical. Stein really needs to return to the game show circuit and return the bible to the hotel room where he found it.  | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/25/2008 11:45:05 PM | You have to watch the whole twenty-two part series "Why do people laugh at creationists?" I am up to part 5 dealing with Kent Hovind's crackpot nonsense...
The real scientific analysis of his retarded cretinism is so damn funny I am literally hurting myself with the laughter...that someone could be allowed out in the streets unattended in this day and age and be so ignorant of science that is taught in most high school physics classes is beyond all comprehension...
The thought that Ben Stein is coming to the defense of this poppycock is just too much.
Marching boldly forward into the 12th century.
As Scrooge said "I shall retire to Bedlam!" | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/25/2008 11:54:19 PM | | I know it's pretty amazing. As they say - "some people drink of the fountain of youth and some merely gargle". I'll check out the whole series. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/26/2008 1:02:06 AM | message #96
That's a load of crap ancientmuse. There are documentaries that show Hitler persecuted Christians and closed their churches everywhere he could.
Hitler and his henchmen/cronies persecuted many people....some of them christians.....mainly for their actual or perceived opposition to his dictatorship, not merely because of the faith that they held. Hitler did not have much time for christian doctrine, but was prepared to tolerate churches and christians in so far as they supported his regime's aims and interests and did not oppose him or his party. Indeed, he relied on the collaboration of churches and believers in the furtherance of his regime's objectives.
I don't think he had any objection to people praying to god....so long as the prayers were for German victory....and not to get rid of him as the country's Fuhrer.
http://www.claremontmckenna.edu/hist/jpetropoulos/church/keithpage/protesta.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism_and_religion | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/26/2008 4:59:55 AM |
Artificial selection and natural selection are as related as fish and lightbulbs in the context of this argument as is the appropriateness of comparing Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection and Nazi eugenics. They are simply non-related...except to those grabbing at straws.
Social Darwinism is to Darwinism what the Inquisitions were to the Gospels. A corruption.
Again I have to ask, why the fear from Stein's camp in dealing face to face with devout Christian scientists who support evolutionary theory and debunk ID thoroughly like Kenneth Miller... answer? Because they know they have no real argument.
No fear, just no reason to deal with them specifically. They are for all intents and purposes Evolutionists who are more confused then Darwinist Fundamentalists in that they have no consistent thought or pattern as to where God actually steps into the picture. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/26/2008 5:44:22 AM |
No fear, just no reason to deal with them specifically. They are for all intents and purposes Evolutionists who are more confused then Darwinist Fundamentalists in that they have no consistent thought or pattern as to where God actually steps into the picture.
Perhaps it's less a matter of not allegedly having a consistent thought or pattern as to where God actually steps into a picture, than being able to eloquently debunk the spurious claims of the ID snake oil peddlers.....and being able to do it resoundingly whilst still holding to a belief in God.
The ID gambit of "creationism strikes back in funkier pseudo scientific guise" reminds me a lot of the fable of "The Emporer's New Clothes" I doubt that the swindlers that managed to convince the emperor that he had the finest clothes that money could buy, would want some empricist to discredit their claim, and break the news that the emporer was buck naked.....it would spoil a good little earner. So they sold the scam to snivellling courtiers who fluffed up the claims to the emporer.... | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/26/2008 8:27:41 AM |
They are for all intents and purposes Evolutionists who are more confused then Darwinist Fundamentalists in that they have no consistent thought or pattern as to where God actually steps into the picture..
Is that why the pope believes in evolution then - he's confused about God?
When I see a christian who accepts evolution I see someone who has the courage to try to understand the beautiful world that his/her creator made for him/her, someone who can accept the meanings of the stories in the bible rather than adhere to a dogmatic literal interpretation, and someone who realizes that believing in God doesn't mean you have to tell lies about this world and tell more lies about those who prove you wrong. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/26/2008 9:25:42 AM |
You have to watch the whole twenty-two part series "Why do people laugh at creationists?" I am up to part 5 dealing with Kent Hovind's crackpot nonsense...
I've seen those videos, it's pathetically hilarious how elementary and off in left field Hovind was. He's just another example of a creationist who desperately attempts to twist commonly known science facts to suit his own purpose/agenda.
The sad thing is, some people fall for it whole heartedly rather than do their own homework and get their facts straight.
The thought that Ben Stein is coming to the defense of this poppycock is just too much.
Are you kidding me ? Stein is actually giving this guy credit ?! Ok, now I've heard it all.
Stein has undoubtedly cut off his legs. He will now be lumped in with the Kirk Camerons and Ray Comforts of the world.... the source of good jokes.
From what I've seen thus far, this film is getting slaughtered in the public ring... which means Stein's career will also go down with it.
 | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/26/2008 1:27:17 PM |
No fear, just no reason to deal with them specifically. They are for all intents and purposes Evolutionists who are more confused then Darwinist Fundamentalists ......
I guess now we know who didn't watch the youtube videos debunking everything mentioned in the film...
If we are to believe that there are people who are "Darwinists" then that would make you a.... Benedictist...? | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/27/2008 8:20:32 PM |
I guess now we know who didn't watch the youtube videos debunking everything mentioned in the film...
Yeah, I was silly enough to watch 23 segments of thunder-moron refute a kid's home-made creation video and Hovind's weird flood science. Most creationists with a bit of knowledge about the bible and science could have done it in 5 minutes rather 200. I hope thunder-mouth has got a good day job. It was cute when the putz attempted to take down Stein. He really had to grab for straws there. Doesn't he realize that the only reason fundy Darwinians don't deal with abiogenesis is because they can't do it without looking even less credible then they already do? Even Dawkins admits that abiogenesis probably was as a result of intelligence...just not God....space aliens maybe...
Then thunderfoot tries to imply that Stein is an idiot for his comment about lightning striking mud puddles even though one of the scientists in the film says as much. Guess TF didn't bother to watch the film himself and only relied on the information from interviews.
His rants about ID being silly and a waste of time is interesting when you consider that Intelligent Design was believed to be a fact by a great majority of the Founding Fathers of Modern Science. Men like:
1. Isaac NEWTON – founder of Classical Physics and Infinitesimal Calculus
2. Galileo GALILEI – founder of Experimental Physics
3. Nicolaus COPERNICUS – founder of Heliocentric Cosmology
4. Johannes KEPLER – founder of Physical Astronomy and Modern Optics
5. Francis BACON – founder of the scientific inductive method
6. Rene DESCARTES – founder of Analytical Geometry and Modern Philosophy
7. Blaise PASCAL – founder of Hydrostatics, Hydrodynamics, and the Theory of probabilities
8. Michael FARADAY – founder of Electronics and Electro-magnetics
9. James Clerk MAXWELL – founder of Statistical Thermodynamics
10. Lord KELVIN – founder of Thermodynamics and Energetics
11. Robert BOYLE – founder of Modern Chemistry
12. William HARVEY – founder of Modern Medicine
13. John RAY – founder of Modern Biology and Natural History
14. Gottfried Wilhelm LEIBNIZ – German mathematician and philosopher, founder of Infinitesimal Calculus
15. Charles DARWIN – founder of the Theory of Evolution
16. Ernst HAECKEL – German biologist, the most influential evolutionist in continental Europe
17. Thomas H. HUXLEY – English biologist and evolutionist, famous as “Darwin’s bulldog”
18. Joseph J. THOMSON – Nobel Laureate in Physics, discoverer of the electron, founder of atomic physics
19. Louis PASTEUR – founder of Microbiology and Immunology
20. Wernher von BRAUN – rocket engineer, founder of Astronautics
21. Francis COLLINS – Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute
Or these Nobel Prize winning Scientists:
1. Albert EINSTEIN – Nobel Laureate in Physics
2. Max PLANCK – Nobel Laureate in Physics
3. Erwin SCHROEDINGER – Nobel Laureate in Physics
4. Werner HEISENBERG – Nobel Laureate in Physics
5. Robert MILLIKAN – Nobel Laureate in Physics
6. Charles TOWNES – Nobel Laureate in Physics
7. Arthur SCHAWLOW – Nobel Laureate in Physics
8. William PHILLIPS – Nobel Laureate in Physics
9. William BRAGG – Nobel Laureate in Physics
10. Guglielmo MARCONI – Nobel Laureate in Physics
11. Arthur COMPTON – Nobel Laureate in Physics
12. Arno PENZIAS – Nobel Laureate in Physics
13. Nevill MOTT – Nobel Laureate in Physics
14. Isidor Isaac RABI – Nobel Laureate in Physics
15. Abdus SALAM – Nobel Laureate in Physics
16. Antony HEWISH – Nobel Laureate in Physics
17. Joseph H. TAYLOR, Jr. – Nobel Laureate in Physics
18. Alexis CARREL – Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
19. John ECCLES – Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
20. Joseph MURRAY – Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
21. Ernst CHAIN – Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
22. George WALD – Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
23. Ronald ROSS – Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
24. Derek BARTON – Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
25. Christian ANFINSEN – Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
26. Walter KOHN – Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
27. Richard SMALLEY – Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
The creme de la creme in the scientific field and all strongly acknowledging an Intelligent Designer in one way, shape or form according to recorded statements or writings.
http://nobelists.net/ | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/27/2008 9:01:07 PM |
The creme de la creme in the scientific field and all strongly acknowledging an Intelligent Designer in one way, shape or form according to recorded statements or writings.
Wow, all those brains, and not one can refute the assertion that the Intelligent Designer of the universe is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/27/2008 11:45:07 PM | E.Kyro, your list of famous scientists who "believe in ID" is a bunch of hogwash. To list Huxley, Darwin, and Einstein, just to name three, as believers in ID is, to put it mildly, a bunch of bullshit. Neither believed in ID. (To think the guy who came up with the theory of evolution and one of its main defenders believed in ID is rather ridiculous on its face.) Your list is probably more accurately labeled as a "list of scientists who believe in God", which is a far cry from ID. Acknowledging the existence of God is NOT the same thing as acknowledging the soundness or validity of Intelligent Design. To argue otherwise is specious and ignorant, and is an obvious grasping of straws. ID is a position that amounts to doubting the truth of evolution, not to belief in God, which is demosntrated by the fact that most who accept evolution also believe in God. To say belief in God is equivalent to belief in ID is utter nonsense, and is a horrible equivocation of the worst sort. I can only hope you are not willfully manipulating the word in this sense, and only do so out of complete ignorance.
Furthermore, a lot of those scientists and philosophers lived before the theory of evolution was proposed, so naturally the fact that they didn't accept evolution can't really be used as a relavant appeal to scientific authority. If I were trying to disprove atomic theory, for instance, to list off a bunch of presocratic Greek philosopher/scientists as doubters would hardly make for a compelling argument.
Finally, merely listing scientists is not disproof of a scientific theory. In scientific disciplines where genuine disputes are present, for instance, the situation is not settled by democratic vote, wherein the side with the most scientists on its side wins. Scientific positions are determined by appeals to evidence, and because ID has none, obviously it fails miserably.
One more thing. Composing dubious "lists" of scientists who doubt evolution/accept intelligent design is a common tactic that creationists use, and it is a rather misguided appeal to authority, because any creationist appeal to authority is bound to be completely obliterated when the same sort of appeal to authority is made in support of evolution. As an example, consider Project Steve (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/), in which a huge list of professors or scientists whose name is a Steve, Stephen, or Stephanie variant have signed their assent to evolution, and which far outnumbers your palty list of those who accept ID, in spite of the obstacle of a "Steven" name prerequisite. (Not to mention the fact that your list doesn't actually show scientists who support ID, because it blatantly equivocates on the meaning of that term by using "belief in God" as a synonym, as if belief in God implies a belief in ID and a disbelief in evolution.)
E. Kyro, elsewhere I've shown you why ID doesn't make testable predictions, I've explained why it is silly because it amounts to nothing more than an argument from ignorance, and you have yet to address my claims. I can only reason that you must not be too concerned with the truth of the matter, then, and simply wish to cling with an absurd neo-creationism even in spite of the obvious erroroneousness of the position. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/28/2008 12:09:49 AM |
Even Dawkins admits that abiogenesis probably was as a result of intelligence...just not God....space aliens maybe...
This is a bunch of nonsense and is a result of selective quoting by creationists. What Dawkins said is that it is a logical possibility that aliens seeded or created life on Earth, not that it was probably a result of this. Furthermore, Dawkins would add the additional caveat that, had we been products of design by aliens, then our designers were almost certainly products of some sort of evolutionary process, because positing them only leaves us with the burden of explaining their origin. This is why Dawkins does not think we were "probably" seeded by aliens, because there is no need to posit them and eventually we'd reach a point where we'd have to posit life evolving from nonlife.
And scientists don't address abiogenesis in debates about evolution, not because they don't want to look less credible, but because it is irrelevant to the truth of evolution. If, for instance, we were debating whether an egg could go through a process that left it a scrambled, edible, yellow substance, to assert that I can't explain whether the chicken or the egg came first is irrelevant to the fact that the process of scrambling an egg can be adequately explained. This is called a red herring. Similar mistakes are made when Ben Stein seemingly pairs the Big Bang theory alongside evolution, taking a critique of the former to be applicable to the latter.
One of the biggest reasons scientists avoid the subject, though, is because there is no consensus or solid evidence for a viable theory of abiogenesis. Scientists have a few hypotheses, and some of these hypotheses seem to be possible candidates in that they can produce organization and such, but there is not yet enoughe evidence to choose which among them is actually true. Believe it or not, scientists have no problem admitting when they don't actually know something. They aren't scared by their ignorance, but see it as a chance for more fruitful research.
And as for lightning striking mud puddles, the hypothesis is a bit more complex than that. For instance, experiments have shown that passing electricity through various types of atmosopheres end up producing the types of proteins we commonly find in life. Other experiments show that clay crystals have organizational capacities that naturally occur. (Think of it like a protein hitching a ride on a crystallization process to produce order, not being complex enough to organize itself yet.) If you've never seen crystallization in order, take my word for it, it is an incredibly organizational process that requires no intelligent input. To use an obvious example, brilliant patterns are formed in snowflakes everytime water in the atmosphere gets chilled to a certain extent. As another example, a solution supersaturated with some ingredient will immediately crystallize in an amazing burst if even a tiny extra bit of the ingredient is then added to the supersaturated solution. This just goes to show that organizational processes involving crystals that are ultra-simple and require no intelligent input could have been the fuel for proto-life, which would obviously be incapable of self-organization in such a primitive form. And best of all, unlike appeals to unknown designers, we can simulate and test these hypotheses in various ways. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/28/2008 12:24:46 AM |
His rants about ID being silly and a waste of time is interesting when you consider that Intelligent Design was believed to be a fact by a great majority of the Founding Fathers of Modern Science. Men like:
saintgasoline has deftly pointed out the basic irrelevancy fallacies, worthless authority appeal fallacies, et. al going on here so we can move on.
From seeing the content of the replies to the posts that I and others have made, none of which have provided substantive or responsive challenges to any of the rebuttals we have posed, I am left with four possible conclusions:
1.Somehow the poster is actually an alpha version of a script used to mine and regurgitate logical fallacies...extra digi-cookie for whomever spots the most in the most recent post.
2.The poster really is completely lacking clue #1 about basic reasoning and construction of a proper argument, standards of evidence, etc. Use of the term "Darwinians" seems to suggest this is likely as is the assumption anyone needs to "take down" Ben Stein, who as anyone can plainly see as a former speech-writer for Tricky****Nixon - who likely wasn't even fond of this one "kept token Jew" he had on staff (he was a notorious anti-Semite) - is used to wallowing in the muck...and laying the blame for the Shoah at the feet of the teaching of natural selection surely places the man below the lowest dungheap there is.
3. Some horrible hybrid of the two! 
4. And the most probable...at this point, since we have seen that despite its manic protestations, it's apparent the poster has no rebuttals ready or planned and is just trotting out all the same old debunked ID nonsense and at this point is just trolling for attention...and we are sadly providing it with a food source...hard to resist because they are sort of cute when this small and one also doesn't want them running around spreading ignorance or other diseases. You can spray for them or set traps but they will just keep coming back as the shiny screen seems to attract them. We'll have to make an effort to resist responding...sigh.
Oh for additional reading pleasure...from those evil babyeating Sodomites over at Scientific American a review from those scum on Mr. Stein's "piece"
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-john-rennie
Ben Stein's Expelled: No Integrity Displayed
A shameful antievolution film tries to blame Darwin for the Holocaust
TEXT SIZE: By John Rennie
In the new science-bashing movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Ben Stein and the rest of the filmmakers sincerely and seriously argue that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution paved the way for the Holocaust. By "seriously," I mean that Ben Stein acts grief-stricken and the director juxtaposes quotes from evolutionary biologists with archival newsreel clips from Hitler's Reich. Prepare for an intellectual night at the cinema.
No one could have been more surprised than I when the producers called, unbidden, offering Scientific American's editors a private screening. Given that our magazine's positions on evolution and intelligent design (ID) creationism reflect those of the scientific mainstream (that is, evolution: good science; ID: not science), you have to wonder why they would bother. It's not as though anything in Expelled would have been likely to change our views. And they can't have been looking for a critique of the science in the movie, because there isn't much to speak of.
Rather, it seems a safe bet that the producers hope a whipping from us would be useful for publicity: further proof that any mention of ID outrages the close-minded establishment. (Picture Ben Stein as Jack Nicholson, shouting, "You can't handle the truth!") Knowing this, we could simply ignore the movie—which might also suit their purposes, come to think of it.
Unfortunately, Expelled is a movie not quite harmless enough to be ignored. Shrugging off most of the film's attacks—all recycled from previous pro-ID works—would be easy, but its heavy-handed linkage of modern biology to the Holocaust demands a response for the sake of simple human decency.
Full review at link. How do you need to "bring down" a man who perpetrates such a massive fraud upon his audience never mind such a disgraceful assault on human decency as to level such a charge to begin with and use the mass murder of his own people to capitalize on the feeling of outrage against human suffering for a talking point in an essentially fallacious argument?
Michael Shermer's review
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-michael-shermer
Six Things In Expelled Ben Stein Doesn't Want You To Know:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/28/2008 12:45:23 AM | Kyro is indulging in such intellectual dishonesty that apparently a lot of people believed in ID.
Before ID was invented in 1987. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/28/2008 6:26:43 AM | I hate to be rude, but I think Kyro's contributions to this discussion should be ignored. They appear to be utterly without thought or basis in truth.
To suggest that the scientific views of people from hundreds of years ago are in any way relevant is unhelpful. To invent the scientific views of actual scientists is similarly insulting.
Worst of all, referring to Thomas Henry Huxley, aka "Darwin's Bulldog" as being a supporter of creationism is one of two things. It's either ignorant or a lie. Neither deserves debate.
Please feel free to present any form of evidence about that. I know it's not the creationist way, but give it a go. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/28/2008 8:39:51 AM | @saintgasoline
@CharlesEdm
@Whitegold765
The theory of Intelligent Design has been around in one form or another since man first started to wonder about the origins of himself and his environment. To think that it is a recent phenomenon I can only attribute to a form of tunnel vision.
I posted the link where I found the information in regards to the thoughts of various scientists in history. You can easily go there to confirm what I have said, but if you choose not to do so then don't accuse me of intellectual dishonesty or trotting out hogwash. Simply admit you're not willing to have your beliefs and opinions challenged. A different form of intellectual dishonesty.
ID is not necessarily a disbelief in evolution as some seem to think but a theory which like the Neutral theory of evolution may coincide or be an alternative to natural selection. Who or what is the Intelligent Designer that may be involved is immaterial to the scientific testing of the theory. That there are Creationists who use it as a means to further their personal agenda is no different from some atheists using natural selection to further theirs. Real science needs to rise above these agendas and biases and dig for the real truth no matter where it is found.
Posted by saintgasoline
E. Kyro, elsewhere I've shown you why ID doesn't make testable predictions, I've explained why it is silly because it amounts to nothing more than an argument from ignorance, and you have yet to address my claims. I can only reason that you must not be too concerned with the truth of the matter, then, and simply wish to cling with an absurd neo-creationism even in spite of the obvious erroroneousness of the position.
You've given me your opinion as to why you think ID is silly and untestable. I don't agree and the more I read on the subject, the more valid I believe ID to be. To spend hours researching and addressing your claims to have them knocked down by your opinions is a waste of my time. I see you clinging to Neo-darinism with the same tenacity as you see me clinging to neo-creationism, so any further debate would simply be beating a dead horse.
Besides which this thread isn't about ID as a science but about intellectual dishonesty in the scientific establishment and the potential ramifications to a scientist's career if they believe in anything other then the accepted dogma. The attitudes expressed by naturalistic Evolutionists, both here on POF and other sites where these debates occur, more the adequately exemplifies that the main thrust of the documentary Expelled is valid.
@themadfiddler
Why do you continue to accuse me of things that you do yourself? All your posted links in this thread have been "appeals to authority" in the same way mine have been.
Didn't you also say back in post # 45 "Argue the point, not the person." ?
Fine example you are setting. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/28/2008 9:51:30 AM |
I posted the link where I found the information in regards to the thoughts of various scientists in history. You can easily go there to confirm what I have said, but if you choose not to do so then don't accuse me of intellectual dishonesty or trotting out hogwash. The information is a lie, obviously so. Elementary school kids should know better than to post something so obviously untrue. But I guess you feel its okay to post those lies because it was on someone else's site. As long as its someone else's lie, I guess its okay for you to pass it on right? Unless, of course, you have an ounce of integrity, pride, or honesty.
Absolving yourself of lies by stating that someone else said it first - is that what your religion is?
ID is not necessarily a disbelief in evolution as some seem to think but a theory which like the Neutral theory of evolution may coincide or be an alternative to natural selection. Pretending ID is a theory I see. I guess that's what one does when they have no integrity, pride, or honesty.
Who or what is the Intelligent Designer that may be involved is immaterial to the scientific testing of the theory. Although, if it was a scientific theory it would be of utmost importance.
Simply admit you're not willing to have your beliefs and opinions challenged. You actually think you're challenging beliefs? You are one of evolutionists greatest supporters. To have someone like you defending alternative positions to evolution does nothing but make us look better, thanks. Not that we need the help - the evidence is overwhelming. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/28/2008 10:27:06 AM | I haven't seen the movie, but ...
Believing in Intelligent Design as a scientist is like believing in the stork as a health teacher.
As I understood it, the movie was not about belief but censorship - ie firing of professors, denial of tenure as a retribution for exploring(rather than believing) certain opinions, etc.
The belief is directly relevant to your job performance, the integrity of the educational institution employing you, and so on. It's a wonder that they weren't all immediately fired, but in fact almost all of them are still in the same position! What terrible discrimination they face.
Should you be fired for merely wanting to explore the possibility of ID?
Personally, I think ID is a ridiculous idea, but if anyone was ever fired or denied tenure or otherwise censored for wanting to explre a ridiculous proposition, it would trouble me deeply. Afterall, it was the exploration of a ridiculous belief that the Holcaust never happened that opened the eyes of the world to how bad the Holcaust really was by exposing more evidence of the Holcaust.
Censorship is bad. Especially in academia. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/28/2008 10:58:42 AM |
I posted the link where I found the information in regards to the thoughts of various scientists in history. You can easily go there to confirm what I have said, but if you choose not to do so then don't accuse me of intellectual dishonesty or trotting out hogwash.
And the link doesn't confirm what you said at all. It confirms what I said, which is that this is a list of scientists who believe in God, not a list of scientists who believe in ID. The title of the damn page is "50 NOBEL LAUREATES AND OTHER GREAT SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVE IN GOD ," for crying out loud. To assert that belief in God is the same thing as belief in Intelligent Design is an outright lie and an equivocation of the worst sort. Kenneth Miller, one of our generations greatest critics of Intelligent Design, believes in God and fully accepts evolution. Most people who believe in evolution and consider ID to be nothing but pseudo-scientific bunk also believe in God. To think that belief in God is equivalent to belief in ID is pure nonsense. The fact that you are reduced to posting a list in the first place, rather than addressing my claims, just goes to show how desperate you are to justify your position.
You've given me your opinion as to why you think ID is silly and untestable. I don't agree and the more I read on the subject, the more valid I believe ID to be. To spend hours researching and addressing your claims to have them knocked down by your opinions is a waste of my time.
So in other words, you don't agree with my criticisms, even though you can't address them, and you refuse to even attempt to do the necessary learning that would allow you to address them. No wonder you believe in ID; you admit to being intellectually lazy and insist on believing even in spite of the fact that you can't answer these refutations.
I see you clinging to Neo-darinism with the same tenacity as you see me clinging to neo-creationism, so any further debate would simply be beating a dead horse.
That's because I have evidence and reason on my side. I'd also tenaciously defend the idea that two and two add up to four. This sort of tenacity is only a problem when it is applied to a position of complete ignorance, lacking evidence, and seemingly willful stupidity.
The attitudes expressed by naturalistic Evolutionists, both here on POF and other sites where these debates occur, more the adequately exemplifies that the main thrust of the documentary Expelled is valid.
You are entirely correct. My interaction with you on this site fully supports the claims of Expelled. This explains why I've called my evolutionist Gestapo to break into your home and haul you off to a Darwinian concentration camp. It also explains my constant "Heil Hitler" references throughout this post. Furthermore, it also explains how I have repeatedly told you that you do not have a right to even speak and should be shot in the face.
If you can't tell, that's sarcasm. And I have done nothing of the sort. But that's the sort of crap Expelled would have you believe is common. For instance, Michael Egnor, an ignorant hack who supports ID, made a similar complaint as you when he said he was maliciously attacked and berated on the internet. The website ExpelledExposed, however, offered a brilliant retort to this whining:
Apparently Egnor had never been on the internet before. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/28/2008 11:05:19 AM |
Should you be fired for merely wanting to explore the possibility of ID?
Personally, I think ID is a ridiculous idea, but if anyone was ever fired or denied tenure or otherwise censored for wanting to explre a ridiculous proposition, it would trouble me deeply. Afterall, it was the exploration of a ridiculous belief that the Holcaust never happened that opened the eyes of the world to how bad the Holcaust really was by exposing more evidence of the Holcaust.
First, of the people interviewed in Expelled who claim to have experienced persecution, the majority did not lose their jobs and were not fired.
Furthermore, in a scientific field, a person SHOULD be fired for wanting to explore the possibility of ID, because it is not a scientific claim and cannot be tested. In other words, a scientist who believed ID would be going down an intellectual dead-end, unable to do any relavant research and essentially hog-tying himself. Most colleges demand their professors and scientists remain productive and do research, and hence belief in ID is more than adequate reason to fire a professor. Similarly, if a mathematician believed 2 and 2 added up to 5, he wouldn't last a day on the job. And that is basically what ID amounts to. It is just as erroneous as being an inept mathematician. It is like hiring someone who can't read as a copyeditor.
Don't fall for the claim that this is about democracy or academic freedom. It's an issue of whether these people are qualified for their positions. And they're not. No amount of freedom gives you the right to surgically operate on someone as a doctor if you do not understand modern medical practices, and the same principle applies to any other job. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/28/2008 11:09:46 AM | saintgasonline, do you think anyone should be fired, denied tenure, censored, etc, for exploring an idea - any idea, whether that Idea be that the Holocaust never happened or ID or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or anything?
Furthermore, in a scientific field, a person SHOULD be fired for wanting to explore the possibility of ID, because it is not a scientific claim and cannot be tested.
Then should Dawkins be fired for placing the claims in the bible in such a context as to convert them into testable hypotheses(even though they are NOT testable) and proceeding to attempt to disprove them? | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
