Re: Theatrical Review of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

dgosse...

First Darwin and evolution have nothing (read NOTHING) to do with abiogenesis. Secondly if all you're "reading" is the religious pseudo-science kind of material you're linking to, at least we can explain your limited understanding of the nature of science and the definition of evolution.

Keep your fanatical fundamental beliefs out of our science, and we'll keep our science out of your ... well ... whatever it is. And I admit, I have no tolerance for whatever it is you're into. In other words, I reserve my right to keep "it" away from my children and family, just as you have the right to "home school" your kids and keep them away from science and traditional education.

And if you or any other of your clan decide to hand out flyers through the fence around our kids' school yard, the police will be called. I think we've both made our position quite clear on this matter

Edit: BTW folks, I have nothing against religion or people who believe in God. In fact, even 100% of Muslims I know in Canada have no problem with science and evolution here in Canada, same with us Catholics. It's the nutter's I'm addressing here - a small minority found in every religion regardless if Christain, Muslim, Hindi, etc. ... you know, those dangerous people. But small minorities can do a lot of damage, as most of you know.

[Post edited by Skyhawk on May 14, 2008]

jason,

contact me. you may be interested in a proposal that i have (it has something to do with the guy who used to run startrek.com).

eddie

Quote:
Is it because we are, by nature, moral agents? And if we are moral agents, then where does this moral knowledge come from? And how do we explain our almost universal failure to live up to our own moral standards?

Oh I know this! It's because of evolution. You see, humans are social animals. This means that some sort of empathy (internally motivated) is important to our survival, and hence gives us the ability to pass on these alleles before dying. Cooperation among our species is extremely important to survival (even today). Those groups that do it best, tend to increase that allele frequency. There are many other social animal species that exhibit the same "moral" traits.

At the same time, social groups competed with other populations for food, territory, and other resources, and this is important for selection. Groups fought against groups, which in turn helped spur the groups that were more cooperative together in both substinance and warfare to survive against other populations. Even today, human kind has not rid itself from this evolutionary trait. We stand up for our group (whether country, state, or familial gang), and screw the outsiders.

It's rather interesting when you think about it... how really close we actually are to our primative evolutionary ancestors in so many respects. We've come a long way in technology, but biologically speaking we're still just relatively smart chimps.

[Post edited by Skyhawk on May 14, 2008]

Vatican says extra terrestrial life is possible.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/14/news/vat.php

Hmmm that's really interesting.
So anyway how about Megan Fox's tits

Bosshog,

The Megan Fox thread is thataway *pointing to the right*

Dave,

According to Wikipedia: ID is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer to avoid a United States court ruling prohibiting the teaching of creationism as science.

According to Webster's Dictionary: ID is the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence

According to Encyclopedia Britanica: ID is an argument intended to demonstrate that living organisms were created in more or less their present forms by an “intelligent designer.”

As Skyhawk has eloquently pointed out, the schools are publicly funded. Public funding goes through the state. And the state can make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibit the free expression of religion. Therefore, ID can not be taught in public schools-no matter how much the meaning might "change". If you want your children to learn about "god" and a bunch of fairy tales in the bible, send them to a catholic (or other religious) school.

Should researchers be able to investigate the possibility of ID? Absolutely, and without recourse, unless their contract or institution specially states they can not. Point out all the flaws in Darwin's theory you want to in classrooms. Let the kids make their own connections about what else might have happened.

Jason, anti-religion

Hi Skyhawk

Quote:
At the same time, social groups competed with other populations for food, territory, and other resources, and this is important for selection. Groups fought against groups, which in turn helped spur the groups that were more cooperative together in both substinance and warfare to survive against other populations. Even today, human kind has not rid itself from this evolutionary trait. We stand up for our group (whether country, state, or familial gang), and screw the outsiders.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this pretty much what Ben Stein said the Nazis did in the movie?

If this is an "evolutionary trait" then why should we want to rid ourselves of it? Isn't it "natural"?

Dave

Hi Jason

Quote:
According to Wikipedia: ID is

Perhaps you would like to read the proper definition of ID?

ID Defined
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.

ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion.

Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the “messages,” and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/id-defined/
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

The criticisms of ID are not scientific, as the following passage from an article by Paul Davies PhD. Physics demonstrates.

Quote:
More recently, Stephen Jay Gould has linked a willingness to believe in the progressive nature of evolution with quasi-religious yearning.(33) Gould's own atheism urges him to resolutely deny any form of biological determinism, since it smacks of the guiding hand of God smuggled into science under the guise of a law of nature. I think both Monod and Gould are absolutely right to perceive bleak atheism in the scenario that life and intelligence are freak accidents, unique in the cosmos. But the flip side is also true. If it turns out that life does emerge as an automatic and natural part of an ingeniously biofriendly universe, then atheism would seem less compelling and something like design more plausible.

http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/ArticleDetail/tabid/68/id/2655/Default.aspx

What of "truth"?

Dave

Genocide is not in itself an evolutionary trait, but feel free to spin "group competition as both an evolutionary trait and vehicle" any way you like to suite your agenda. Genocide would have negative consequences for a population's genetic health, as it would form a bottleneck leading to less allele variety and associated adaptability.

Only a crazy person with an insane agenda would blame Hitler's actions on science, as would a person be crazy to blame 9/11 on the belief of some higher entity. Even the "President Bush did it" nut cases are more grounded.

Quote:
Perhaps you would like to read the proper definition of ID?

Not particularly, since I listed three completely different definitions of ID from mainstream sources. Nothing from the Discovery Institute or the ID Network or organizations with an ax to grind.

Wikipedia might not be the BEST place for information, hence Webster's Dictionary and Encyclopedia Britanica. You can't change a definition because it no longer suits you, Dave.

Jason, trying to be technical