Re: Theatrical Review of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Quote:
The criticisms of ID are not scientific

Science has no need to criticize ID, nor anyone's belief in the Easter Bunny, nor people who think our universe is a dust speck riding on the trunk of an elephant. There is no need to criticize, because being unempirical, these beliefs have nothing to do with science. Science does not deal with tooth fairies or Santa either. Science's role is to gain an understanding of the natural world - not to support any set of beliefs that can never be substanciated one way or the other.

What scientists object to are those who peddle such beliefs as if they were a "science" in order to make their fanatical agenda more saleable to the masses.

Hi Jason

Quote:
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.

Getting back to the movie... wasn't the whole point of the movie about the axe grinding of "mainstream sources"? I find it very useful, when I wish to know what someone really thinks, to go and ask them rather than ask the people who don't like them. So when I read that Richard Feynman said a particular thing I go and look it up to see if he really said it.

Dave, being technical right back atcha

Hi Skyhawk

Quote:
Only a crazy person with an insane agenda would blame Hitler's actions on science,

I didn't say that Hitler's actions were based on "science" I merely pointed out that his actions were not inconsistent with your own definition of moral agency. If you think your definition of moral agency is "scientific" then that's your problem. That particular definition of moral agency can be used, and has been used, to justify any behavior. See http://www.anusha.com/rapeevol.htm for an interesting example of this.

Or if you prefer Wikipedia as a source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiological_theories_of_rape

Dave

[Post edited by dgosse on May 15, 2008]

Dave,

I'm not as sure it was about the mainstream sources ax grinding as it was the ax grinding against mainstream sources. Taken just on its merits as a film-and not the subject matter-it fails to provide any sort of persuasive argument for the ID side. It goes back to 8th grade English class (maybe earlier): take into account the arguments from the other side and dissect them. "Expelled" doesn't. It makes fun of them, but never says (outside the protein argument I've already mentioned) why Darwinism "doesn't" work.

Like I've also said before, if the doc just documented the cases of each of the people who were fired from their jobs, there would have been no problem. Give me a science doc that debunks Darwin in depth and we'll talk. Otherwise, propoganda.

Jason, totally forgot about the LOST thread...

Hi Jason

Quote:
Give me a science doc that debunks Darwin in depth and we'll talk. Otherwise, propoganda.

There are plenty

From Michael Denton is now an evolutionist (Denton wrote "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis" and "Nature's Destiny".

Quote:
Denton proceeded to develop an evolutionary cosmology, the point of which is that there is abundant evidence for common descent and it is equally clear that evolution is directed and programmed. Indeed Denton affirmed two things--and this is apparently the thesis of his book now under contract at Simon & Schuster--that humankind literally is the point of creation and he is the end product of a divine design.

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/latest_2003/theory-in-crisis.html
For a more technical analysis
http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho29.htm

The mathematics of evolution explained for the non mathematician. An extremely readable introduction to probability theory and its implications for Darwinian materialism.

Quote:
In this book, the mechanisms of the living cell as revealed by modern biochemistry are described with enough detail to give some inkling of the mind-boggling complexity going on in even the simplest life. Then the question is asked, could this complexity, or even a fraction of it, have come about by chance? It's a good question, because that's all the evolutionist has to work with. Natural selection, the supposed miracle-worker of evolution, doesn't work until a cell can reproduce itself (and that requires tremendous complexity). Could chance build one of the hundreds of proteins needed for life? One gene of DNA? What are the chances of getting a whole set of genes or proteins for the simplest conceivable organism, even if we allow all possible concessions to make it easy for chance to succeed?

http://creationsafaris.com/epoi_toc.htm

Quote:
Against this background, I turned to David Stove's Darwinian Fairy Tales with some interest. Unlike the other authors I've mentioned, the late David Stove was a philosopher (University of New South Wales) and not a scientist. In spite of the whimsical, jokey nature of his literary style - more akin in places to Jerome K. Jerome than to A. N. Whitehead - his intention is deeply serious, namely the philosophical absurdities in neo-Darwinian theory. In pursuing this intention he focuses particularly upon the work of Richard Dawkins, probably the most widely known populariser of neo-Darwinism. Before dismissing philosophy as being peripheral to science, we should remember that the popularisation of science depends to a great extent upon the use of terms and ideas that carry meaning to the layperson. These terms and ideas may have a powerfully persuasive quality when used by the popularisers of science, but if we look into them and find that words are misused, that the logic is faulty and that conclusions are incorrectly drawn, we can recognise the potential damage of the misinformation concerned.

http://www.scimednet.org/library/reviewsN66+/N68DarwinianFairyTales.htm

That should keep you busy for a while.

Dave, you asked for it

Oops - double posted

[Post edited by dgosse on May 15, 2008]

Quote:
That particular definition of moral agency can be used, and has been used, to justify any behavior.

Yes, you're right. The religous/spiritual definition of "moral agency" (whatever that is) has been used to justify any behavior. I hope you're not one of them. Regardless - keep your "ID" out of my science, and I promise not to impose science on your church, cult, or club.

And I doubt many scientific researches have been fired for simply holding beliefs that are non-empirical, provided of course that those beliefs do not alter their application of the scientific method and the objective interpretation of observational results while doing their jobs. (In other words, don't bring it to work with them - nor impose it on students). If they do, pack it in. And rightfully so.

Dave,

I obviously don't have the time right now to go through each of the links. Would it be fair to say you're not going to be convinced by me and I'm not going to be convinced by you?

ID is creationism in my mind and, more importantly, in the eyes of the courts. It can't be taught in schools. Until it is overturned, ID will remain in the purvue of the parents and churches to teach.

Jason, belief in evolution is better than superintelligence

~ Some humor...

Did I hear the word SCIENCE?

It's "out there" all right...

...cause she blinded ME with science! - as sung by Thomas Dolby

_____________
-JIMI McLovin (the Voodoo Child)

There's a site made by the National Center for Science Education about this movie.
http://www.expelledexposed.com

There also have been some good interviews about it on the podcast Skepticality (http://www.skepticality.com), the official podcast of Skeptic magazine.

Finally, giving this film a 1 out of 10 was very generous.

[Post edited by Skooter on May 22, 2008]