Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

Expelled

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: fossten

Expelled, starring Ben Stein, is a documentary being released April 18th in theaters nationwide.

Any of you who have the slightest interest in the evolution/creation debate should check it out. Then we can discuss it in this thread.

(I have it on good authority that he gets Richard Dawkins to admit that he believes in God)

Posted by: Tricky-Dick

I wonder if people will try and discount Ben Stein's intelligence?

..."He went on to major in economics at Columbia University's Columbia College, where he was a member of Alpha Delta Phi fraternity and the Philolexian Society. After graduating with honors from Columbia in 1966, Stein went to Yale Law School, where he was a classmate of Hillary Clinton, and from which he graduated as the class valedictorian in 1970."

I would think not.

Thanks for the post Fossten...I will be sure to see this one!

Posted by: Kbob

Thanks for the heads up. I will be following this with keen interest.

Posted by: fossten

Just got back from seeing the movie.

It was excellent.

I will not provide any spoilers, but there is one CGI scene that is absolutely breathtaking.

Some of the interviews of evolutionary scientists elicited shocked gasps and bursts of laughter from the crowd in the theater. You have got to go see this movie.

Posted by: 95DevilleNS

I've read (from several sources) the Argumentum Ad Nazism in this film is hilarious, i.e. "Evolution thinking caused the holocaust." Can't wait to see it, should be high on the LoL-Scale.

From www.imdb.com:

"Originally filmed with the consent of the scientists depicted as a documentary called "Crossroads" about the intersection of science and religion. Subsequently, the film's title and production company all changed without the knowledge of those they interviewed. The evolutionary biologists depicted in the movie have since objected to the inter-cutting of their interviews with footage of Hitler and Nazi stormtroopers. In response, the producers have labeled these scientists "hypocrites"."

Here's an article from New Scientist about the film.

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/sh...g-silenced.html

Edit: I didn't put that anger smilie up there, odd.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

I've read (from several sources) the Argumentum Ad Nazism in this film is hilarious, i.e. "Evolution thinking caused the holocaust." Can't wait to see it, should be high on the LoL-Scale.

From www.imdb.com:

"Originally filmed with the consent of the scientists depicted as a documentary called "Crossroads" about the intersection of science and religion. Subsequently, the film's title and production company all changed without the knowledge of those they interviewed. The evolutionary biologists depicted in the movie have since objected to the inter-cutting of their interviews with footage of Hitler and Nazi stormtroopers. In response, the producers have labeled these scientists "hypocrites"."

Here's an article from New Scientist about the film.

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/sh...g-silenced.html

Edit: I didn't put that anger smilie up there, odd.

Nothing like making sure your prejudices are firmly in place before you enter the belly of the beast, eh?

Posted by: shagdrum

My question would be if those interviews are taken out of context. Moore does that all the time, that is how he twisted speeches by Heston to make him appear racist. The intercutting of footage during a monolouge is Moore's movies is usually to hide the audio edits to put words in people's mouth. I doubt that is the case with Stein's film.

There is a relevant point to be made in regards to the thinking and justification for certian acts by the Nazi and its similarities too, and basis in Evolution thinking, and the end results. That alone would not be like the typical Ad Nazism arguement in that the Nazi point is a relevant one and not just a means to label and discredit someone. If they play up the Nazi angle too much though, it would bleed into an Ad Nazism argument. I would have to view it in context, really.

Keep in mind, I haven't seen the film yet. I do think more of Stein then Moore (which he will obviously end up being compared to), and really hope he doesn't go for the cheap rhetorical point. Can't say either way at this point.

You should understand that most negative reviews of the film will be by people who are adamantly opposed to its premise, and that will dictate their review. Not an honest critique. Hollywood is overwhelmingly leftist and athiest. So take any of those reviews with a grain of salt.

Posted by: fossten

Guys, with all due respect, this isn't the "I think the movie [sucks/rocks] even though I haven't seen it" thread.

It's the "Go see the movie, I really [liked it/hated it] and here's why" thread.

By the way, Shag, the original title to Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" is actually "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

Darwin was a racist.

If you don't think there's a racist connection to Darwinism, google Ota Benga.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

By the way, Shag, the original title to Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" is actually "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

Darwin was a racist.

If you don't think there's a racist connection to Darwinism, google Ota Benga.

I hadn't heard that. I just looked up Benga and the connection to "scientific racism". Makes for an interesting read. I'll research it further (I jumped on Wikipedia to get a quick idea of what it was all about, wanna find a better source before drawing any concrete conclusions).

I think I might go see Mr. Stein's film today.

Posted by: 95DevilleNS

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Nothing like making sure your prejudices are firmly in place before you enter the belly of the beast, eh?

Like you didn't go into the threatre already convinced that I.D. is sound, Mr. Pot.

I'll be back after I'ved watched the film.

Posted by: shagdrum

Ok, watched the film yesterday. Here are my thoughts...

The movie is somewhat sensational; mainly due to the nature of it being a "documentary" in a mainstream theater. It has to keep audience attention and tried to put a lot of info into the film in a limited amount of time, so it can't go into lots of detail on the smaller points. Not that the movie in any way lacks substance, but for those already familiar with the ACTUAL positions and issues surrounding the evolution vs. ID debate (not the straw man misrepresentation presented by the MSM, hardcore athiests and elites in scientific and academic communities), there isn't a whole lot of new info here. The film did have a little too much appeal to emotion for my taste, but, again, that is neccessary to keep the audiences attention.

As to the Ad Nazium claims concerning eugenics, that is an exaguration and distortion on the argument made in the film.

An Ad Nazism argument is to claim someone is a Nazi and is therefore evil ("Bush=Hitler"), or guilt by association ("Hitler and/or the Nazi supported this view, agenda, etc., so it must be evil"). Those policies advocated by Hitler and his party which are generally considered evil and are condemned in and of themselves, not because Hitler and the Nazi supported them. Various programs, agendas, view, etc are considered evil on their own basis, while Hitler is considered evil for numerous reasons largely because he advocated them.

"Expelled" doesn't ever claim or imply that darwinism is wrong because it is tied to the Nazi. The Holocaust is used as an example of the evils inherent in eugenics which is based on darwinian evolutionary views. Basically, eugenics is evil and here is a terrible example of it under the Nazi.

In fact at least two times (by my count) the film explicitly says that it is not in any way saying that Darwinists are Nazi.

All and all, this film is pretty much what I expected. I wasn't too interested in seeing it, because I figured I already knew the argument and there was nothing new (which turned out to be largely the case). What caused me to go was the negative reviews. I had no doubt that those reviews were distorting in some way, but I wanted to confirm that. I couldn't imagine Ben Stein falling to the underhanded rhetorical tactics of Gore and Moore. Stein didn't disappoint. I also wanted to see if he used editing to mischaracterize what people say ala Moore. I didn't see that in the film either.

What was real interesting was all the interviews with the various scientists, professors and intellectuals, both advocating ID and against ID. Not just what they were saying, but what they weren't saying, how they were saying it, and what all that said about their own personal views, and how those influence their positions. Dawkins in particular, was really interesting.

If you want to disprove ID, the argument made in this film is the one you need to be able to honestly disprove, not the "straw-man" mischaracterized argument made by those who adamently oppose ID.

Posted by: 95DevilleNS

"Expelled" doesn't ever claim or imply that darwinism is wrong because it is tied to the Nazi. The Holocaust is used as an example of the evils inherent in eugenics which is based on darwinian evolutionary views. Basically, eugenics is evil and here is a terrible example of it under the Nazi.

Na, it's not implying anything. LoL

Posted by: shagdrum

Are you that dead set on believing it is implying something it doesn't?! Eugenics is evil. The holocaust is simple the best example of the horrors of Eugenics. It is never said or implied that the evil nature of Eugenics is due to it being tied to Nazi. The film goes out of it's way to say as much at least two times.

You can say that the Nazi were evil for engaging in the Holocaust, but that isn't ad nazium, either. To be an ad nazium argument, it would need to say that the Holocaust was evil due to the fact that the Nazi engaged in it. The evil nature of the Holocaust (and eugenics) would have to be tied to the Nazi for it to be an ad nazium argument.

If you don't trust my definition of argumentum ad Nazium, then look here:

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

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adnazium.html

Are you really so self delusional that you will refuse to understand what an ad nazium argument is and isn't even when it is spelled out for you?!

Posted by: 95DevilleNS

The holocaust was based on [evil] eugenics, eugenics is based off of Darwin's theories. Na, they're not implying anything.

Since I haven't seen the movie yet, why did they bring in the Holocaust and Nazi's into the conversation then, if "Darwinism" has nothing to do with Hitler, Nazis or the Holocaust?

One could argue that eugenics = evil without ever mentioning Hitler, the Holocaust or "Darwinism", right?

Are you so delusional you can't see veiled intent? Liberals are often accused of doing it in here. Implying something negative while saying the opposite.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

The holocaust was based on [evil] eugenics, eugenics is based off of Darwin's theories...

That is the point of the film, in regards to the Holocaust.

Quote:

Since I haven't seen the movie yet, why did they bring in the Holocaust and Nazi's into the conversation then, if "Darwinism" has nothing to do with Hitler, Nazis or the Holocaust?

They brought in the Holocaust because it is the best example of the evils of eugenics, which is based on darwinian evolution assumptions. The Nazi are only involved because they are the ones who perpetrated the Holocaust. The " Nazi imagery" in the film is really Holocaust imagery (or imagery surrounding the Holocaust and it's justification), which will include Nazi.

Quote:

One could argue that eugenics = evil without ever mentioning Hitler, the Holocaust or "Darwinism", right?

Yes. But the Holocaust puts it in perspective and shows the realities of the evils of eugenics. The connection to the Nazi is incedental. In fact, the Holocaust is historically the best example of the evils of eugenics and the best way to covey the point. It would be a sloppy argument to not include the Holocaust in this film.

You are assuming that any argument that even mentions the Nazi or Hilter is ad Nazium, which is flat out false, as I have demonstrated. You are attempting to move the goal posts on the burden of proof when proving that the ad Nazium claim is wrong; an underhanded rhetorical tactic. Do you hold such a high standard for proof that the ad Nazium claim is correct? I imagine not.

Quote:

Are you so delusional you can't see veiled intent? Liberals are often accused of doing it in here. Implying something negative while saying the opposite.

There is no veiled intent, as you seem to want there to be. You are searching for something where there is nothing. When the MSM implies something negative, it doesn't go out of its way to say it isn't implying that. It also doesn't "say the opposite"; it just doesn't actually say the negative. Prime example, the "domestic spying" stuff. They mix equivocation ("domestic" communications are redefined to include international communications, which is not how they are legally defined), with questions about 4th amendment rights and FISA regardless of the fact that FISA only applies to foreign and international communications, not domestic; and the 4th amendment only applies to domestic communications. They leave certian things vauge and obfuscate the issue to let it be implied that Bush is violating 4th amendment protections and FISA (even though you can't violate both in the same instance). Expelled isn't vauge like that , it is very specific in what it is and isn't saying.

It is said at least twice in the film that darwinists ARE NOT Nazi, and that they are not trying to imply that. For what you are saying to be true, that could not be there. You are drawing some implied claim from the film (or the reviews you read of the film) that the film goes out of its way to make sure it doesn't imply. Your "analysis" is flawed.

If you really want to know weather it is or isn't using an ad nazium argument in regards to eugenics and the holocaust, go see the film.

You should also remember that Ben Stein isn't Michael Moore. Stein is smarter and more experienced the 10 Michael Moore's. He has credibility where Moore and Gore don't. Without seeing the film, it is logical to assume that Stein wouldn't resort to the underhanded tactics of Moore or Gore. Even without seeing the film it is illogical to assume that Stien would use underhanded rhetoric with only claims from reviews your basis for that, considering that most of Hollywood (including movie critics) is exceedingly Athiest and hostile to the movie without seeing it.

Posted by: 95DevilleNS

Fair enough, I will hold my Nazism opinion until I see it.

One more thing, what do Eugenics have to do with proving ID is correct, should be allowed in schools, is a logical theory etc etc etc?

Posted by: Marcus

Well, I HAVE seen the movie. Don't believe me? Ask me a question about some minor detail that would never appear in a review, like where an interview took place. Why did I go? Simple: I lost a bet with my right-winger brother in law. I am proud to say, however, that Ben Stein will not receieve one red penny of my money. I paid for a ticket to Leathernecks, which was playing in the theater across from it at the same time, then simply walked into to Expelled. Just a suggestion Deville.

Assuming I'm not immediately banned by Bryan for posting here again, I'll be happy to debate whatever aspects of this movie that anyone wants to discuss. But for now I want to address the current (and most important) topic of discussion.

Shag, you are completely in denial. How you can claim that the movie "went out of its way" to not implicate Darwinism with Nazism is just astounding. At least Fossten is honest (although dead wrong) in directly accusing Darwin of leading to Nazism. Don't forget that the purported (advertised) purpose of the film is to show how ID is being suppressed by the scientific community (issues of freedom of speech, open scientific debate, etc.). Hence the title of the movie. Now tell me: What does the topic of eugenics even remotely have to do with the supposed message of the movie, unless the real purpose is something else entirely? It's the equivalent of doing a documentary claiming to be about the differences between Protestants and Catholics and then spending the last half of the movie focusing on pedophile priests.

At about the halfway point in the movie, between footage of Nazi atrocities, Stein attempts one very weak disclaimer along the lines of, "no one is suggesting that Darwinists are all Nazis" and then quickly moves on to a fun-filled tour of Dachau. Yeah, Ben sure went far "out of his way" to clear that up.

Before the eugenics section of the movie, the audience was first warmed up with long segment showcasing short clips of "Darwinist" scientists explaining why they became atheists. But Ben isn't trying to suggest anything. Not at all. Apparently there isn't a single evolutionary scientist who still believes in God. Plu-lease.

It is interesting to note though, that no "Darwinist" that I'm aware of has ever claimed to have gone into the field with the the prior intention of disproving God. As opposed to at least one ID proponent, Jonathan Wells, who was featured in the film, and has openly declared that, prior to going to Yale to study evolution "my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism". Scientific objectivity be damned. Which brings me to the next topic.

Later, the film makes the outrageous claim that Darwinists' evil agenda is based on a pre-determined "world view", which is never expressly stated, but is clearly implied by the prior segments. Am I the only one who finds this "world view" argument downright slap-forehead-with-palm-of-hand astonishing? Pot? Kettle? Beuller? Anyone? Seriously, how can anyone accuse scientists of latching onto a specific world view and not question, let alone examine, the world view of people like Wells?

So no, I categorically reject the notion that Stein wasn't trying to make a strongly emotionally-based case against Darwin by appealing to the (intended) audience's fears and pre-determined worldview. He directly and dishonestly implies that if it weren't for evolutionary theory, the Nazis would have never come up with the idea of eugenics in the first place. That ignores the historical fact that eugenics has been practiced since the the beginning of recorded history, just under a different name - selective breeding. Humans have been breeding livestock and domestic animals like dogs and cattle for millenia. As for humans, it's been known for just as long that children inherit some of the traits of their parents. This is plainly observable without any need for Darwin. Slave traders sometimes engaged in selective breeding to make better "stock". This is a sad historical fact, as offensive as it may be. And we've all heard the jokes about inbreeding in royal families. Marrying outside of the royal family was grounds for beheading.

The fact that Darwin originated a theory on the mechanism behind what had been practiced long before he was born doesn't make him responsible for the (sometimes evil) implementation of its principles. Even if Darwin was a raging racist (he was no more racist than other people of the time*), it doesn't invalidate the theory of evolution in any way.

Human beings will always manage to find creative uses for science, politics, AND RELIGION to justify committing the most vile of atrocities.

I've barely scratched the surface of what is wrong (both factually and ethically) with this film, but that's all I have the energy for now.

*The quote that Stein recited from Darwin was grossly butchered from a much longer paragraph in The Descent of Man. I'll post it later if I'm still allowed to post.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by TommyB

Assuming I'm not immediately banned by Bryan for posting here again

...

I'll post it later if I'm still allowed to post.

Whiny

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by TommyB

Shag, you are completely in denial. How you can claim that the movie "went out of its way" to not implicate Darwinism with Nazism is just astounding.

I never said that. You either don't understand, or are distorting what I am saying. I said that the film didn't make an ad Nazium argument. the film says that eugenics (which is informed by darwinism) is evil and implies that the Nazi are evil (in part) because they practices eugenics (the Holocaust).

For the argument to be ad Nazium, it would need to claim that eugenics (and by extension darwinism) is evil because it was practiced by the Nazi. the film doesn't claim that, and doesn't imply that. In fact, as you noted (and tried to downplay), the film says as much.

If you wanna understand what an ad Nazium argument is and isn't, read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Nazium

Quote:

Now tell me: What does the topic of eugenics even remotely have to do with the supposed message of the movie, unless the real purpose is something else entirely?

Ben Stein told Bill O'Reilly,

Intelligent design is an attempt to fill in the gaps; it might be totally wrong

Evolution is currently the ruling scientific paradigm in this area. As with any scientific theory, ID starts with questioning the current paradigm, looking at the holes in the current theory and seeing if there is a better solution.

As David Klinghoffer points out:

Expelled touches on Darwinism’s historical social costs, notably the unintended contribution to Nazi racial theories...The key elements in the ideology that produced Auschwitz are moral relativism aligned with a rejection of the sacredness of human life, a belief that violent competition in nature creates greater and lesser races, that the greater will inevitably exterminate the lesser, and finally that the lesser race most in need of extermination is the Jews. All but the last of these ideas may be found in Darwin’s writing

How is looking at the social costs of darwinism not relevant to the questioning of darwinism?

Quote:

At about the halfway point in the movie, between footage of Nazi atrocities, Stein attempts one very weak disclaimer along the lines of, "no one is suggesting that Darwinists are all Nazis" and then quickly moves on to a fun-filled tour of Dachau. Yeah, Ben sure went far "out of his way" to clear that up.

Dispite your disengenuous attempt to downplay the point, the fact is that this quote blows your whole premise out of the water. If you are trying to imply something in an argument, you aren't going premise the argument by expressly saying you are not trying to imply that.

Quote:

No condesending distortion and hyperbole there.

Expelled never claims or implies that all darwinists are Athiests, or don't believe in God. In fact the whole point made in the film about Athiests and liberal christians vs. conservative christians blows that idea out of the water.

What the film is showing is how opponents of intelligent design have ulterior motives for suppressing any presentation of ID in classrooms or scientific journals, based on the theory's ideological implications. If ID is true, naturalistic evolution is false, which removes the ground on which one of the most successful arguments for atheism is built. Thus, advocacy for atheism is a huge motive to suppress ID.

Quote:

Later, the film makes the outrageous claim that Darwinists' evil agenda is based on a pre-determined "world view", which is never expressly stated, but is clearly implied by the prior segments. Am I the only one who finds this "world view" argument downright slap-forehead-with-palm-of-hand astonishing? Pot? Kettle? Beuller? Anyone? Seriously, how can anyone accuse scientists of latching onto a specific world view and not question, let alone examine, the world view of people like Wells?

More exaguration and distortion of the argument in the film! This is becoming a pattern, it seems.

Since Beuller is home "sick" for the day, I will tackle this one.

The film makes the point that the facts are the facts. the two competing theories (Darwinism and ID) are dictated by the world view they are approached with. That world view, on both sides is not based in science. So the question is, which world view is a more accurate representation of the truth, given the facts.

The film in no way implies that ID'ers don't come at this with a bias. It implies that both do. It focuses on the bias of the darwinists in reaction to what you hear (implied and out and out claimed at different times) in the PC establishment; that ID'ers have a definite bias and that darwinists don't.

While I know you like to discredit people out of had for having any bias (specifically those you disagree with), bias alone doesn't impare judgement. You can have a certian bias and still be reasonably objective. It depends on if you are willing to question that bias and go where the info leads.

While both darwinists and ID'ers do have a decided world view that informs there interpretaton, the question is; which side lets their bias cloud their judgement and objectivity. While I doubt you would admit it, the answer (as very well documented in the film) is the darwinists.

A real good example is the debate to include ID in the classroom here in Kansas. The Kansas school board allowed for a day (maybe a week?) for hearings in which both sides could make their case. The ID'ers made their case. What did the darwinists do? "Boycotted" the hearings, protested outside the school board offices and got face time in the local media where they proceeded to demonize the ID'ers.

The fact of the matter is that ID'ers wanna have a debate. Darwinists work to avoid a debate. When Darwinists do debate, they demonize the ID'ers in an attempt to make the debate about them, and not the issue; argumentum ad hominem.

The film points out these underhanded tactics used by darwinists and examines their motivations behind those tactics.

Quote:

So no, I categorically reject the notion that Stein wasn't trying to make a strongly emotionally-based case against Darwin by appealing to the (intended) audience's fears and pre-determined worldview.

Who ever said there wasn't a decided appeal to emotion in the film? I didn't. That is definately in there, though the film is not all (or even mostly) emotional appeal; there is a lot of substance there too.

Quote:

He directly and dishonestly implies that if it weren't for evolutionary theory, the Nazis would have never come up with the idea of eugenics in the first place.

More distortion and obfuscation. No where in the film is it even implied that the Nazi came up with the idea of eugenics.

setting up a straw-man argument to knock down in your next line, I see.

Quote:

That ignores the historical fact that eugenics has been practiced since the the beginning of recorded history, just under a different name - selective breeding.

Now you are sinking to using equivocation, I see.

Eugenics: a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention

Selective breeding and eugenics are different things. Just because similar techniques and motivations are used doesn't make them the same thing. Eugenics is purely focused on humans, and race. The justification for Eugenics (as used in the Holocaust and throughout the 20th century) is couched in darwinist thinking. You can read the documents and various quotes justifying eugenics that bare this out.

Quote:

The fact that Darwin originated a theory on the mechanism behind what had been practiced long before he was born doesn't make him responsible for the (sometimes evil) implementation of its principles. Even if Darwin was a raging racist (he was no more racist than other people of the time*), it doesn't invalidate the theory of evolution in any way.

Eugenics shows the moral implications of darwinist thought, as well as the potential social cost.

Quote:

Human beings will always manage to find creative uses for science, politics, AND RELIGION to justify committing the most vile of atrocities.

I see you read Kluger's review in Time.

"The truth, of course, is that the only necessary and sufficient condition for human beings to murder one another [in the Holocaust] is the simple fact of being human"

This is nothing more then an attempt to downplay the fact that the thinking behind the Holocaust was based in eugenics. This is done through "false analogy". While humans have distorted many views, ideas and theories to kill, eugenics isn't one of those. Eugenics doesn't distort darwinism, it simply adds a social agenda to it. That added social agenda (and the methods to achieve that agenda) is what makes eugenics evil. When enacted on the massive scale that only fascism and socialism allow, the result is the Holocaust.

Posted by: MAC1

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

I'm glad you're going to see the movie with an open mind.

Posted by: fossten

Good job, Mac. Right scholarly bit of work.

By the way, TommyB:

Quote:

He directly and dishonestly implies

How do you directly imply something? "Imply" itself is indirect by definition.

I hereby directly imply that you are full of crap.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

One more thing, what do Eugenics have to do with proving ID is correct, should be allowed in schools, is a logical theory etc etc etc?

Eugenics is basically darwinian views and assumptions mixed with a political/ideological/social agenda. Eugenics (especially through the Holocaust) show the potential social costs of those darwinian views and assumptions.

ID (as does any scientific theory) is reactonary and starts out by questioning the current reigning paradigm (in this case darwinian evolution). Part of that process is looking at eugenics, and thus the Holocaust, and how it relates to darwinism.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by TommyB

At least Fossten is honest (although dead wrong) in directly accusing Darwin of leading to Nazism.

While Fossten's comments are his to defend, I must say that nowhere in this thread (that I can find) did Fossten say directly (or imply) that Darwin lead to Nazism.

To make that claim you would need to know Darwin's views on politics and society in general, and Facism in particular.

You can find racist views in Darwin's writings and theories, that is inarguable. and Darwinism was the scientific reasoning behind eugenics. But did Darwin advocate eugenics? Let alone German Facism (Nazism)? Did Darwin advocate the extermination of Jews? I think not.

Yet another mischaracterization, it seems...

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by TommyB

The quote that Stein recited from Darwin was grossly butchered from a much longer paragraph in The Descent of Man. I'll post it later if I'm still allowed to post.

The quote is cut down, but that alone does not make this a relevant point. For this to be a relevant critique, it needs to mischaracterize Darwin.

Here is the quote, which is accurate, although omitting parts:

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

Darwin's fuller quote still introduces the same objectionable belief that it is somehow unwise to help the weak and allow them to procreate [Italics indicates text in the film's quote.]:

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

Ben Stein didn't change the meaning of what Darwin was saying, or mischaracterize it. He simply streamlined the statement.

It is interesting, Tommy, that you would criticize Stein for "mischaracterization", when you have mischaracterized the film, myself and (presumably) Fossten in this thread. In fact, all inside of one post.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by TommyB

At least Fossten is honest (although dead wrong) in directly accusing Darwin of leading to Nazism.

I don't see where I even mentioned this connection. I said there was a racist connection, not a Nazi connection.

I didn't directly accuse him, nor did I directly imply it, or indirectly, either.

TommyB, are you hearing voices?

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Yoko Ono sues in NY over song in movie challenging evolution

Associated Press

NEW YORK — Yoko Ono is suing the producers of a movie that challenges the concept of Darwinian evolution, saying they used the song "Imagine" without her permission and led the blogosphere to accuse her of "selling out."
In a lawsuit filed in federal court in Manhattan, Ono accuses the producers of "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" of suggesting to viewers that those who guard John Lennon's legacy somehow authorized or sponsored the film.
The producers of the film, which features Ben Stein challenging Darwinian theories that prevail in academic circles and suggesting that life could have emerged through intelligent design, said they used only "a very small portion of the song."
"Based on the fair use doctrine, news commentators and film documentarians regularly use material in the same way we do," Premise Media said in a statement. "Unbiased viewers of the film will see that the 'Imagine' clip was used as part of a social commentary in the exercise of free speech and freedom of inquiry."
Ono's lawsuit claims the producers did not ask for permission either because they knew they couldn't get it or because they did not want to pay for the rights. It objects to the way "Imagine" is listed in the film's credits, saying it suggested to members of the news media and others that the song's use had been approved.
"Internet 'bloggers' immediately began accusing Mrs. Lennon of 'selling out' by licensing the song to defendants," says the complaint, filed this week.
The lawsuit calls "Imagine" Lennon's signature song, saying it "has become closely associated with and is synonymous with John Lennon."
The complaint, which also names other firms involved with the movie, asks the court to stop the filmmakers from distributing, selling and promoting the movie, and it seeks financial damages. It was filed on behalf of Ono, Lennon's sons Sean and Julian, and EMI Blackwood Music Inc.
"Expelled" earned the No. 10 spot at the box office this weekend, bringing in nearly $3 million in its first weekend in wide release. Stein, an actor, quiz show host and former speech writer for Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, has been visiting some state capitals to screen the movie for lawmakers.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

I guess Yoko is trying to "Win Ben Stein's Money"

Posted by: fossten

Screw her. She's nothing but a has-been groupie anyway. This lawsuit will go nowhere because the law says they can use portions of any song.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

A movie about intelligent design uses a song that asks people to imagine a world without no heaven above us and no religion too.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

A movie about intelligent design uses a song that asks people to imagine a world without no heaven above us and no religion too.

Either you're really tired and you're repeating yourself, or you think we are so stupid as to not understand the wall o' text article you already posted, thus creating the necessity of your clarification here.

Posted by: hrmwrm

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Screw her. She's nothing but a has-been groupie anyway. This lawsuit will go nowhere because the law says they can use portions of any song.

fossten's for piracy? tell the riaa that.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrmwrm

fossten's for piracy? tell the riaa that.

You know, you're absolutely amazing. Keep up the good work, surely you'll end up being correct one of these times.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Quote:

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied;

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrmwrm

fossten's for piracy? tell the riaa that.

It's not in any way piracy. Fossten is right, portions of the song can be used (like it is in this film) without permission, whole songs cannot. I am not sure exactly where that line between the song being considered a "portion" and the "whole song" or majority of the song is (after a certian point you are required to get permission), but Stien is a lawyer and they doubtless had lawyers advising them in this matter for the film. I am sure they had forseen the likelyhood of someone trying to legally challenge them over this and made sure to stay within the law.

Still....any excuse to trash Yoko is fine by me.

Posted by: fossten

For an interesting blog debate on the movie, HotAir.com has a thread on this. Yes, the fossten you see there is the same one as you see here.

You'll need to save the link, however, because it went over 2300 posts and was moved to archives.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/1...ge-1/#comments

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

For an interesting blog debate on the movie, HotAir.com has a thread on this. Yes, the fossten you see there is the same one as you see here.

You'll need to save the link, however, because it went over 2300 posts and was moved to archives.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/1...ge-1/#comments

A lot of uninformed fools there...
Hard to keep up with all the ignorance on the thread alone.
Next to impossible to respond to it all.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

A lot of uninformed fools there...
Hard to keep up with all the ignorance on the thread alone.
Next to impossible to respond to it all.

At the time, it was fairly fast moving, and I was able to keep up with it and mostly ignore the jerkoffs. It was fun to be a part of. Hotair has never had a thread go over 2,000 posts before.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

At the time, it was fairly fast moving, and I was able to keep up with it and mostly ignore the jerkoffs. It was fun to be a part of. Hotair has never had a thread go over 2,000 posts before.

yeah, I would get caught up in the worthless comments by the "jerkoffs" who don't wanna see reason.

1st over 2000...seems the Athiests are out in force on this one.

I was wondering why you seemed to have less of a presence here the past few days.

That would be something to be a part of...

Posted by: 95DevilleNS

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

How can you say that, yet still be adamant that nothing of the sort was implied? Sure Eugenics is "evil" and it was [arguably] spawned from "Darwinian views", that isn't the fault of Darwin or Evolution theory though. If someone is murdered by gunshot, do you blame the gun or the person who pulled the trigger?

One of my biggest complaints about ID/ID pushers, they don't try to prove ID for the sake of ID. They try to poke as many holes in Evolution and then say "ha, it's wrong, so ID must be right!” When in reality, disproving one thing doesn't intrinsically make another true. Just prove ID, don't worry about Evolution theory.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

I have only ever said that an ad Nazium argument (which I have specifically defined more then once in this thread) was never said or implied in the film, which is true.

Your analogy is a flawed, false analogy. All you have to do is look at it from a causation standpoint to see why.

A gun is simply a tool to enact an evil deed which is enacted by person firing it. The evil nature of the gun in this case comes from (and is caused by) the person using it. If you are saying that the "gun" is eugenics, and the "person" is the Nazi, then you are making an ad Nazium argument. the evil nature of eugenics (the gun) is caused by the Nazi (the person) in your argument. That is twisting the argument I am making and the film is making, because the evil nature of the Nazi is caused by (in part) practicing eugenics, in my argument and the films argument. A subtle distinction, but an important one, as it is the difference between a relvant critique and an ad Nazium argument.

Eugenics is a social agenda based in darwinist thinking and is nothing like a "gun".

I never said, and the film never said (or implied) that darwinism in and of itself is evil. It only becomes evil when taken to its logical conclusion and combined with a social agenda. You need to understand that distinction.

Quote:

One of my biggest complaints about ID/ID pushers, they don't try to prove ID for the sake of ID. They try to poke as many holes in Evolution and then say "ha, it's wrong, so ID must be right!” When in reality, disproving one thing doesn't intrinsically make another true. Just prove ID, don't worry about Evolution theory.

ID (like darwinian evolution) isn't a political ideology, it is a scientific theory; don't confuse the two. Without fail, all scientific theories begin by questioning the reigning scientific theory in that area.

No one is saying ID must be right because evolution is wrong. If fact, Ben Stein said the exact opposite on The O'Reilly Factor, "Intelligent design is an attempt to fill in the gaps; it might be totally wrong."

Have you seen the film yet?

Posted by: hrmwrm

id scientific? it is only claimed to be scientific. it doesn't meet any criteria of scientific theory.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrmwrm

id scientific? it is only claimed to be scientific. it doesn't meet any criteria of scientific theory.

Blah blah blah...what are you doing, trying to stir the pot that we've already discussed ad nauseum?

Since you haven't seen the movie, and since this thread is about the movie, I respectfully request that you stay on topic. Thanks.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrmwrm

id scientific? it is only claimed to be scientific. it doesn't meet any criteria of scientific theory.

When you exibit some intellectual integrety (instead of the fallacious red herring [Ignoratio elenchi] argument you make here), I will take what you say seriously.

Posted by: hrmwrm

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

When you exibit some intellectual integrety (instead of the fallacious red herring [Ignoratio elenchi] argument you make here), I will take what you say seriously.

i'll take you seriously when you show it's an accepted scientific theory. until then, it's nothing.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrmwrm

i'll take you seriously when you show it's an accepted scientific theory. until then, it's nothing.

A further demonstration of a severe lack of intellectual integrity.Now it has to be an "accepted" scientific theory, not just a scientific theory. We will ignore the fact that every currently accepted scientific theory started out as being on the fringes and rejected by the establishment.

There are at leat two logical fallacies in play here that suggest you are being intellectually dishonest and disingenuous:

"moving the goalpost": the burden of proof, according to you, has gone from being scientific theory, to being an accepted scientific theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalpost

Red Herring [Ignoratio elenchi] Fallacy: you initially responded to the point that:
ID (like darwinian evolution) it is a scientific theory...all scientific theories begin by questioning the reigning scientific theory in that area.
Weather or not ID is a proven scientific theory is irrelevant to the point being made [that all scientific theories begin by questioning the reigning theory]. The questioning of darwinian evolution by ID is in line with being a scientific theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_%28fallacy%29

You also ignore the fact that ID meets the criteria of what constitutes a scientific theory at least as well as darwinism, if not better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Science

The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions about things not yet observed.
darwinian evolution has not and cannot be tested or in anyway verified to be true or false. ID trumps darwinism in this critieria

It is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense
The testible or verifiable evidence to support darwinism (usually in the area of testing for adaptation, or looking at fossil records) also supports ID

It is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.
Again, the testible or verifiable evidence to support darwinism (usually in the area of testing for adaptation, or looking at fossil records) also supports ID

Hrmwrm, you keep sticking your foot in your mouth and hurting your credibility.

Posted by: Kbob

Just saw Expelled today. It's not exactly what I was expecting. The premise of the documentary is NOT to argue that Intelligent Design is better than Darwinism, even though Ben Stein I'm sure believes in ID and there is a bias towards that. If there wasn't a bias towards ID, this documentary would not even exist. But the premise of the documentary is to show the vast discrimination of ID in the scientific community. The point is that free-thinking in science should be allowed so that science may in turn have a better understanding.

If scientifically valid questions are being raised, they should be explored and researched. And this is not happening in regards to Intelligent Design like it should. As the entire documentary clearly showed, there is discrimination against those who believe in ID. And to deny that discrimination is happening, well, I can't even describe my feelings towards that. Richard Dawkins and everyone else who is complaining would not be so objectionable if there were no discrimination.

Regarding the John Lennon song "Imagine" in Expelled: only two lines of the song are used, TWO (2) LINES, that's it. I was thinking it was a large part of it, not a few seconds. Bringing up that point, to me, is ridiculously frivolous.

Regarding the "world view" that someone else mentioned: only 3 times was that term mentioned by 2 scientists in the span of a couple of minutes. Again, it's not a focal point of the documentary, just a small piece. I was expecting something more. The argument about this "world view" needing to be defined, to me, is more ridiculous frivolity.

Regarding the Holocaust in the documentary: I didn't time how much was focused on this, but I think it was 15 minutes or so. The documentary also did not end on this note. There was a lot more of the documentary after that. Ignoring the fact that the Holocaust had it's roots in Darwinism is ignoring reality. It is the inconvenient truth for evolutionists. Leaving the holocaust out of this documentary would have been an injustice. However, as stated by others, Stein did say something to the effect that of course not all Darwinists are Nazis. The implication was that the vast majority did not condone this Nazi policy. My take: it showed that this theory should not be taken to an extreme in society, much the same as fundamental religion should not be taken to an extreme.

In conclusion, this documentary fulfilled it's intent. It showed the discrimination against ID and against ID proponents. It showed that Intelligent Design raises some good questions, and that Darwinism has some serious holes and should be questioned. Go see it.

Edit: I forgot to mention my "slap on the forehead" moment regarding this film. Richard Dawkins stated that one theory of life on earth could be that an alien planted life here. Excuse me, but that is Intelligent Design.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

"moving the goalpost": the burden of proof, according to you, has gone from being scientific theory, to being an accepted scientific theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalpost

Red Herring [Ignoratio elenchi] Fallacy: you initially responded to the point that:
ID (like darwinian evolution) it is a scientific theory...all scientific theories begin by questioning the reigning scientific theory in that area.
Weather or not ID is a proven scientific theory is irrelevant to the point being made [that all scientific theories begin by questioning the reigning theory]. The questioning of darwinian evolution by ID is in line with being a scientific theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_%28fallacy%29

You also ignore the fact that ID meets the criteria of what constitutes a scientific theory at least as well as darwinism, if not better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Science

The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions about things not yet observed.
darwinian evolution has not and cannot be tested or in anyway verified to be true or false. ID trumps darwinism in this critieria

It is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense
The testible or verifiable evidence to support darwinism (usually in the area of testing for adaptation, or looking at fossil records) also supports ID

It is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.
Again, the testible or verifiable evidence to support darwinism (usually in the area of testing for adaptation, or looking at fossil records) also supports ID

Hrmwrm, you keep sticking your foot in your mouth and hurting your credibility.

Posted by: hrmwrm

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

"moving the goalpost": the burden of proof, according to you, has gone from being scientific theory, to being an accepted scientific theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalpost

Red Herring [Ignoratio elenchi] Fallacy: you initially responded to the point that:
ID (like darwinian evolution) it is a scientific theory...all scientific theories begin by questioning the reigning scientific theory in that area.
Weather or not ID is a proven scientific theory is irrelevant to the point being made [that all scientific theories begin by questioning the reigning theory]. The questioning of darwinian evolution by ID is in line with being a scientific theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_%28fallacy%29

You also ignore the fact that ID meets the criteria of what constitutes a scientific theory at least as well as darwinism, if not better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Science

The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions about things not yet observed.
darwinian evolution has not and cannot be tested or in anyway verified to be true or false. ID trumps darwinism in this critieria

It is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense
The testible or verifiable evidence to support darwinism (usually in the area of testing for adaptation, or looking at fossil records) also supports ID

It is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.
Again, the testible or verifiable evidence to support darwinism (usually in the area of testing for adaptation, or looking at fossil records) also supports ID

Hrmwrm, you keep sticking your foot in your mouth and hurting your credibility.

stick your foot in your own mouth. science has never relied on superstition or omnipotence or otherworldly explanations. this makes id not scientific except in the believers and promoters of id. until the scientific standard is changed( will never happen) id is not science. it is still best described as pseudo science. how is id a testable theory? that is one of the parameters.

Posted by: ONEBADMK8

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Edit: I didn't put that anger smilie up there, odd.

It's a Conspiracy.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrmwrm

Look at you. You're reduced to stuttering bluster.

Pseudo science? How about the Big Bang, which you place your fervent "faith and trust" in? Talk about a non-testable theory. Projecting much?

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrmwrm

You are still ignoring a huge inconvenient truth for your argument in the fact that the darwinian evolution process can not be tested or verified, in any way, shape or form. That simple omission shows that you are incapable of being honest here.

If you consider Darwinian evolution a scientific theory, then (assuming intellectual honesty, which you have demonstrated you don't have on this issue) you have to consider ID a scientific theory. ID is testable in every way that darwinism is, and doesn't make a claim needing to be tested for the theory to be true that can't be tested, like Darwinism does (evolution).

Your line about "superstition or omnipotence or otherworldly explanations" is nothing more then sophistry used to further obfuscate the issue. Basically a quick straw-man argument you set up to knock down. What you are refering to is the assumption of methodological naturalism by darwinian evolution and the rejection of methodological naturalism by ID. This is an area of both theories that isn't testable (and isn't ment to be), so your claim that it discredits ID is extremely one-sided, and disingenuous. You are applying a certian standard to an area of one of the two theories where it doesn't really apply, and ignoring the same issue in the other theory; again, demonstrating a huge lack of intellectual integrety.

Methodological naturalism says that because you can't test (or in any way verifiy) if the supernatural does or doesn't exist, it is assumed (effectively as a matter of faith) that it doesn't. Basically, it rejects the supernatural. This, in turn, applies another assumption that everything in nature came about through random, undirected means.

The problem is, if you can't test to see if the supenatural exists or not, you can't logically rule it out, either. ID doesn't rule out the supernatural or otherwise directed means of creation of spieces or of like in general.

That part of either Darwinism or ID is not testable. It is a metaphysical assumption (or lack thereof, on the part of ID) which dictates the worldview of the two theories and ultimately how the data is interpreted.

ID doesn't assume that the supernatural does or doesn't exist, it simple doesn't start from the assumption that the supernatural doesn't exist; it is open to the possibility it might, and/or that natural phenomenon might have some intellegence directing them. When looking at the data without the assumed absense of the supernatural, the evidence supports the idea of ID at least as strongly (if not more strongly) then it does darwinism.

When you start getting into the testable portion of the theories, darwinism claims that spieces are created from other spieces through random mutation; darwinian evolution. This has never been tested because it cannot be tested. By the very nature of the assertion made, it cannot be tested and thus verified. darwinian evolution is assumed to happen purely as a matter of faith.

Of the two theories; ID and Darwinism, only Darwinism takes anything as a matter of faith. Specifically; that the supernatural doesn't exist, that natural phenominon happen randomly, and that darwinian evolution occurs.

You are claiming that ID assumes God and the supernatural do exist, which is a blatant and intentional distortion on your part. I have spelled all this out to you in other threads and you know it. You still want to dishontestly distort what ID is, and it's views. More egg on your fact, it seems.

The problem for athiests, like yourself is; if ID is true, naturalistic evolution is false, which removes the ground on which one of the most successful arguments for atheism is built. Thus, advocacy for atheism is a huge motive to distort and demonize ID, which is all you are doing in this thread...

Allen Roebuck argues:

... basic intellectual integrity demands that you take seriously the criticisms directed against Darwinism. In other words, you must take seriously any evidence supporting the notion that natural forces are incapable of either originating life or changing it from single-celled organisms to the species we observe now. And you cannot, as the Darwinian evolutionists do, dismiss the possibility of divine action as being outside the scope of science, and therefore de facto false. After all, if natural forces cannot do what obviously did happen, something supernatural must have been involved, and a proper science would acknowledge this possibility

So far, you have based your argument, demonstratably, on at least three logical fallacies:

"Moving the goalpost"
Red Herring [Ignoratio elenchi], and
Straw-man argument

There are other fallacies implied in your argument as well...

At this point, it is a demonstratable truth that you don't have any intellectual honesty in this area given the info in this thread alone. You have yet to make a valid criticism of ID, and are only serving to distract from the debate of the film.

Posted by: 95DevilleNS

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kbob

Edit: I forgot to mention my "slap on the forehead" moment regarding this film. Richard Dawkins stated that one theory of life on earth could be that an alien planted life here. Excuse me, but that is Intelligent Design.

Interesting point, but wouldn't the said aliens have to had controlled how that life developed/formed/shaped (or whatever) to be ID? E.g. would just dropping amino acids into the primordial oceans be inline with ID?

Besides, ID is about God (religion) when you boil it all away, even if you believe in the alien theory above (see Mission to Mars), who "Intelligently Designed" the aliens? When you get to the end of it, it relies on an Omnipotent beginning, i.e. God.

Posted by: Kbob

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

I'm no expert on evolution or Intelligent Design. And frankly I have no desire to be. But from what I gather, ID is more about filling in the blanks. I believe the documentary used the example of how Newtonian physics was everything until Einstein came along. Einstein then helped to fill in the gaps where Newtonian physics was lacking. ID could work in the same way with Darwinian evolution, if allowed to be properly explored and if Darwinism were allowed to be propely questioned scientifically. Expelled does not make the claim that ID does do this, it just points out that it's not even being allowed to be studied as it should. That scientists (and even journalists) who openly question Darwinism are simply shut down, harrassed, oppressed, black-balled, even fired. So most scientists that do question Darwinism simply keep their mouths shut.

Your last paragraph sums up the reason for all the animosity. Atheists (as a whole) can't get over this. They refuse to allow this sort of thinking. Again, it comes down to a question of faith. And faith in some form of higher entity is unacceptable to them. The documentary explains the situation much better than I can convey.

But I believe that it stated that in order for the amino acids you mentioned to be formed, there needed to be a minimum of 26 proteins. I think the odds of all that happening were something like 1 in 1 trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion. Another odds example in the documentary was like winning a mega jackpot on a slot machine 200+ times in a row. I may be off on my odds. The film didn't mention that this amino acid would then need to replicate itself somehow. I don't know the odds, but I would conservatively double the odds of that happening. Then they talked about the complexity of the cell. In Darwin's day, they could only see a nucleus and a cell wall. But with today's electron microscopes, the complexity of the cell has been revealed. What was once a simple leap in faith from amino acids to cells by Darwinists, is now a leap of truly epic proportions. The examples are subjective, but one scientist said that if the cell was looked at as a Buick in Darwins day, today it would be viewed as a galaxy (like the Milky Way). That the cell is essentially a massive chemical factory, in microscopic form. There were other examples. The film had a very cool special effect showing the workings inside a cell. The odds of life forming and evolving naturally continue to grow as more knowledge of life is discovered. And I thought the universe itself was mind-boggling. But the mathematical odds of life just happening to where we are today is utterly unexplainable (to me).

I know I have not adequately answered your question. I'm not sure anyone can at this point. And unfortunately, Darwinism cannot either if examined objectively.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Besides, ID is about God (religion) when you boil it all away, even if you believe in the alien theory above (see Mission to Mars), who "Intelligently Designed" the aliens? When you get to the end of it, it relies on an Omnipotent beginning, i.e. God.

That is an exaguration that distorts what ID says. ID doesn't say there is a God and doesn't depend on a God; it simply doesn't reject the baseless assumption that there isn't a God (which darwinism subscribes to). It only goes as far as Darwinism does in attempting to explaining life on Earth.

Your question of who "Itelligently Designed" the aliens [who supposedly seeded the earth with life, according to one theory] is flawed; a bit of a red herring because it goes beyond the scope of ID, or Darwinism for that matter.

You seem to be looking at this as a attempt by "fundamentalist" Christians to "inject" God into the debate, which is in fact, 180 degrees out of wack. It is Athiests in the darwinist community who are trying to keep the possibility that God might exist out of the debate, which proving Darwinism wrong would allow.

A perfect example is to look at which side is trying to have a reasonable debate and which side is trying to avoid it. Darwinists are doing everything they can to keep ID from even being considered, and won't debate it objectively; instead using underhanded and illogical tactics to distort the debate, and illogical arguments to support their position. One side wants to make an attempt to state and prove its argument, and the other side is working to prevent that from happening.

Where are Christian's trying to "force God" into the debate?

If ID is true, Darwinian evolution is false, which removes the ground on which one of the most successful arguments for atheism is built. Thus, advocacy for atheism is a huge motive to suppress ID. When atheists can't supress they obfuscate, distort, demonize and personally attack the IDer's.

Both Darwinian evolution and ID only theorize on how life developed on earth. The difference is that Darwinism makes, as one of the assumptions inherent in it's metaphysical worldview [which dictates how evidence is interpreted], that God and the supernatural doesn't exist, in as far as creation of species here on earth is concerned. ID doesn't make that assumption, as there is no way to prove it.

The debate between ID and Darwinism does boil down to God, at the moment, but this is due to the Athiests in the Darwinist community, not the IDer's. The athiests have made it about the rejection of God vs. the possibility that he might exist.

Posted by: hrmwrm

"You are still ignoring a huge inconvenient truth for your argument in the fact that the darwinian evolution process can not be tested or verified, in any way, shape or form. That simple omission shows that you are incapable of being honest here."

there is lots of testing going on to find self assembling chains for life. an example.

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/feb...-evolve-in-ice

where would discover institutes scientists begin in proving external manipulation? you're under the fallacy that things can't be proven. if simple life can be shown to form on it's own, then outside manipulation works it's way into mythology as the god ideal that started it.

and i don't keep raising the bar. i simply ask you state where the proof of mechanism is. evolution has it's mechanism of change stated, and has some pretty strong evidence in it's favour. i suggest you actually read my link, as it does give answers. not complete, but enough of a hint for evidence.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrmwrm

"You are still ignoring a huge inconvenient truth for your argument in the fact that the darwinian evolution process can not be tested or verified, in any way, shape or form. That simple omission shows that you are incapable of being honest here."

there is lots of testing going on to find self assembling chains for life. an example.

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/feb...-evolve-in-ice

where would discover institutes scientists begin in proving external manipulation? you're under the fallacy that things can't be proven. if simple life can be shown to form on it's own, then outside manipulation works it's way into mythology as the god ideal that started it.

and i don't keep raising the bar. i simply ask you state where the proof of mechanism is. evolution has it's mechanism of change stated, and has some pretty strong evidence in it's favour. i suggest you actually read my link, as it does give answers. not complete, but enough of a hint for evidence.

Sorry, your article is based on experiments that weren't even accurately synthesized.

Rebuttal

Face it, evolution still hasn't been proven. Keep trying, though, because it's fun refuting the wild claims of the evos.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrmwrm

i simply ask you state where the proof of mechanism is. evolution has it's mechanism of change stated, and has some pretty strong evidence in it's favour. i suggest you actually read my link, as it does give answers. not complete, but enough of a hint for evidence.

Since fossten rebutted your 1st point, I will touch on the second part...

ID doesn't claim a mechanism for the creation of species (and doesn't need to), it simply states that darwinian evolution is not a valid mechanism, and that the verifiable evidence currently available more accurately implies some intelligence behind the creation of new species rather then random mutation (or "decent with modification"). Darwinism has two mechanisms for change in it; adaptation and evolution. Adaptation does have extensive evidence to back it up and the process can be tested (and it lines up with both ID and evolution). Evolution cannot be tested. The typical "evidence" of evolution is an "example" of the "result" of evolution (based only on an assertion). Weather or not darwinian evolution resulted in the new species cannot be proven, either way. Simply put; The process of darwinian evolution cannot be tested.

Even if your 1st point [the Miller experiment] were accurate [instead of a rigged experiment with false and exagurated claims implied in its findings], it in no way even attempts to test or prove the process of darwinian evolution. It is more geared toward proving how life occurred naturally without some intelligence influencing the creation of life.

To prove the process of darwinian evolution, you need to be able to test and verifiy the process that creates a new species from a pre-existing one. If all species started out independently (as the experiment you cite seems to imply), then darwinian evolution is disproven.

Posted by: hrmwrm

excuse me shag, but what is evolution but life occuring naturally? the middle of your reply makes no sense. if life can't start on it's own, evolution doesn't happen. you seem to be confused in what you are arguing against. here's a little article i thought interesting

"The Newest Evolution of Creationism: Intelligent design is about politics and religion, not science.
Overview
By Barbara Forrest

The infamous August 1999 decision by the Kansas Board of Education to delete references to evolution from Kansas science standards was heavily influenced by advocates of intelligent-design theory. Although William A. Dembski, one of the movement’s leading figures, asserts that “the empirical detectability of intelligent causes renders intelligent design a fully scientific theory,” its proponents invest most of their efforts in swaying politicians and the public, not the scientific community.

Launched by Phillip E. Johnson’s book Darwin on Trial (1991), the intelligent-design movement crystallized in 1996 as the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC), sponsored by the Discovery Institute, a conservative Seattle think tank. Johnson, a law professor whose religious conversion catalyzed his antievolution efforts, assembled a group of supporters who promote design theory through their writings, financed by CRSC fellowships. According to an early mission statement, the CRSC seeks “nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its damning cultural legacies.”

Johnson refers to the CRSC members and their strategy as the Wedge, analogous to a wedge that splits a log — meaning that intelligent design will liberate science from the grip of “atheistic naturalism.” Ten years of Wedge history reveal its most salient features: Wedge scientists have no empirical research program and, consequently, have published no data in peer-reviewed journals (or elsewhere) to support their intelligent-design claims. But they do have an aggressive public relations program, which includes conferences that they or their supporters organize, popular books and articles, recruitment of students through university lectures sponsored by campus ministries, and cultivation of alliances with conservative Christians and influential political figures.
The Wedge aims to “renew” American culture by grounding society’s major institutions, especially education, in evangelical religion. In 1996, Johnson declared: “This isn’t really, and never has been, a debate about science. It’s about religion and philosophy.” According to Dembski, intelligent design “is just the Logos of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.” Wedge strategists seek to unify Christians through a shared belief in “mere” creation, aiming — in Dembski’s words — “at defeating naturalism and its consequences.” This enables intelligent-design proponents to coexist in a big tent with other creationists who explicitly base their beliefs on a literal interpretation of Genesis.

As Christians,” writes Dembski, “we know naturalism is false. Nature is not self-sufficient. … Nonetheless neither theology nor philosophy can answer the evidential question whether God’s interaction with the world is empirically detectable. To answer this question we must look to science.” Jonathan Wells, a biologist, and Michael J. Behe, a biochemist, seem just the CRSC fellows to give intelligent design the ticket to credibility. Yet neither has actually done research to test the theory, much less produced data that challenges the massive evidence accumulated by biologists, geologists, and other evolutionary scientists. Wells, influenced in part by Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon, earned Ph.D.’s in religious studies and biology specifically “to devote my life to destroying Darwinism.” Behe sees the relevant question as whether “science can make room for religion.” At heart, proponents of intelligent design are not motivated to improve science but to transform it into a theistic enterprise that supports religious faith.
Wedge supporters are at present trying to insert intelligent design into Ohio public-school science standards through state legislation. Earlier the CRSC advertised its science education site by assuring teachers that its “Web curriculum can be appropriated without textbook adoption wars” — in effect encouraging teachers to do an end run around standard procedures. Anticipating a test case, the Wedge published in the Utah Law Review a legal strategy for winning judicial sanction. Recently the group almost succeeded in inserting into the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 a “sense of the Senate” that supported the teaching of intelligent design. So the movement is advancing, but its tactics are no substitute for real science.

© The American Museum of Natural History, 2002. Reprinted with permission from Natural History magazine and by permission of the authors."

i see you read all 4 pages fossten. and your expertise to know if they were properly synthesized would be? you stopped at millers experiments, so i know you didn't follow through to be able to make an informed comment. but that is what i expected.

and shag, if you claim no mechanism, then you don't have a theory, or you have evolution. to claim an intelligent design, you must know what the intelligence is, or at least have some thought of what it is to pursue it. this is what i mean by it not being science. it sounds good and full of promise, but when truly looked into, it is nothing. that is why there are no published articles on their work. just a propaganda campaign that hides "god" creation behind careful wording.

Posted by: hrmwrm

and for transitional fossils, they exist.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...al/part1a.html

peruse through the whole article. it's a few pages as well. continuing links are at the bottom.

Posted by: hrmwrm

and finally, a quote from this page.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...ns.html#thermo

"Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved."

First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.

Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.

Conclusion

These are not the only misconceptions about evolution by any means. Other common misunderstandings include how geological dating techniques work, implications to morality and religion, the meaning of "uniformitarianism," and many more. To address all these objections here would be impossible.

But consider: About a hundred years ago, scientists, who were then mostly creationists, looked at the world to figure out how God did things. These creationists came to the conclusions of an old earth and species originating by evolution. Since then, thousands of scientists have been studying evolution with increasingly more sophisticated tools. Many of these scientists have excellent understandings of the laws of thermodynamics, how fossil finds are interpreted, etc., and finding a better alternative to evolution would win them fame and fortune. Sometimes their work has changed our understanding of significant details of how evolution operates, but the theory of evolution still has essentially unanimous agreement from the people who work on it.

Posted by: fossten

You shot yourself in the foot with your own article. You don't even understand that you are constantly making the argument that because evolution within species, or adaptation, exists, therefore neoDarwinian evolution, or one species evolving into another species, must also be true. It's such a non sequitur and you do it all the time. Your own article blows your entire argument out of the water.

And your article about transitional fossils is baloney. You really need to stop using talkorigins as a good source for evolutionary information. It's easily discreditable, and most of the "claims" made by writers (few and far between that they are in that website) have been thoroughly answered and debunked.

Rebuttal

Please read it carefully, as it answers your article point by point. I seriously doubt you have enough of an open mind to even click on it.

Quote:

What do the Experts Say?

In the first place, objective paleontologists concede that one’s interpretation of the fossil record will invariably be influenced by one’s presuppositions (in the case of the evolutionists, the presumption that evolution has taken place), and that everything must therefore be forced to somehow fit into that framework. This has been precisely the observation of Ronald West:

“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), “Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.” Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]

Quote:

George Gaylord Simpson, another leading evolutionist, sees this characteristic in practically the whole range of taxonomic categories:

"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrmwrm

excuse me shag, but what is evolution but life occuring naturally?