Ben Stein "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"

[arloiginla]

To create any kind of upward, complex organization in a closed system requires outside energy and outside information. Evolutionists maintain that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent Evolution on Earth, since this planet receives outside energy from the Sun. Thus, they suggest that the Sun's energy helped create the life of our beautiful planet. However, is the simple addition of energy all that is needed to accomplish this great feat?

Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy make a completely dead plant live?

A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant. It once used the Sun's energy to temporarily increase its order and grow and produce stems, leaves, roots, and flowers - all beginning from a single seed.

If there is actually a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe, and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the Sun's energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again (assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)?

What actually happens when a dead plant receives energy from the Sun? The internal organization in the plant decreases; it tends to decay and break apart into its simplest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds the disorganization process.

[troutman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

The Miller-Urey experiment (or Urey-Miller experiment) was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions present on the early Earth and tested for the occurrence of chemical evolution. Specifically, the experiment tested Oparin and Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life, it was conducted in 1953 by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey at the University of Chicago.

At the end of one week of continuous operation Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids, including 13 of the 22 that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. Sugars, lipids, and some of the building blocks for nucleic acids were also formed. Nucleic acids (DNA, RNA) themselves were not formed. As observed in all consequent experiments, both left-handed (L) and right-handed (D) optical isomers were created in a racemic mixture.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...iment-repeated

[photon]

Copying and pasting from christiananswers.net doesn't show any kind of understanding of the science.

Once again, the 2nd law of thermodynamics says nothing about organization and order, as much as you want it to. Try and stick to real science and not made up science.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by arloiginla

To create any kind of upward, complex organization in a closed system requires outside energy and outside information. Evolutionists maintain that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent Evolution on Earth, since this planet receives outside energy from the Sun. Thus, they suggest that the Sun's energy helped create the life of our beautiful planet. However, is the simple addition of energy all that is needed to accomplish this great feat?

Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy make a completely dead plant live?

A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant. It once used the Sun's energy to temporarily increase its order and grow and produce stems, leaves, roots, and flowers - all beginning from a single seed.

If there is actually a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe, and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the Sun's energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again (assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)?

What actually happens when a dead plant receives energy from the Sun? The internal organization in the plant decreases; it tends to decay and break apart into its simplest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds the disorganization process.

That's a fallacious argument. A dead system nolonger has the ability to function as it did when alive and thus process the energy that once fed and maintained it. Of course the addition of energy to a system that cannot process it will result in damage. The addition of energy into anything in an unfavorable condition or a condition in which that energy cannot be processed will result in disorganization.

Evolutionists have never argued that solar rays hitting inert organic matter = spontaneous creation of life manifested in structured plant life. The plant evolved over millions of years from smaller processes and smaller systems. That solar input added the neccessary energy to create those organic compounds, amino acids, sugars, lipids, etc. that eventually coallesed into primitive systems that naturally propagated themselves under favorable conditions.

In any case, less conservative IDists will always then argue that god created those favorable conditions or initiated that processes. Sure, you could say that but how do you teach it? Add a sticker to the front of your textbook that says "it is possible that these processes were initiated by an intelligent force rather than random occurance"?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by AnthonyCook

What evidence is there for creationism?



No.. theres only a 'debate' because some people cling on to faith in the face of logic.

Scientifically, there is no debate about evolution.

Of course there is a scientific debate about evolution...

Ever heard of the Gould/Dawkins controversy?

[arloiginla]

Originally Posted by photon

Copying and pasting from christiananswers.net doesn't show any kind of understanding of the science.

Once again, the 2nd law of thermodynamics says nothing about organization and order, as much as you want it to. Try and stick to real science and not made up science.

While some of the information may have been listed there, it in fact takes its sources from the writings of other prominent scientists, those who have arrived at their answers the same way any other Evolutionist would.

It is real science whether you like the source or not.

I am hardly a scientist so it's not like I could pull all that information out of my ass myself, but from readings I have done I managed to stumble upon the site and while some of the arguments are fanatical in nature, these particular ones draw on legitimate evidence meaning the point is as valid as the one(s) that argue for the other side.

To not believe in the idea of intelligent design is acceptable and understandable, but to argue that evidence supporting it doesn't in fact exist is wilful blindness. But hey, I guess you're entitled to that as well.

[AC]

Originally Posted by arloiginla

To not believe in the idea of intelligent design is acceptable and understandable, but to argue that evidence supporting it doesn't in fact exist is wilful blindness. But hey, I guess you're entitled to that as well.

It's not evidence. It's a bad argument based on bad logic.

Besides that was an attempt at evidence against Evolution.

Where is the evidence FOR creationism that you promised?

[photon]

The fact they're equating order with thermodynamics tells me it isn't science.

In your copy/pasted post, there's ONE reference, on the first paragraph. And that reference is to a letter, not a peer reviewed scientific work. And that reference says nothing about order or disorder or anything of the next claims made.

They do not arrive at their answers the same way, look at AiG, DI and the others, they clearly state that their ultimate source of truth is scripture and that their goal is to find science that complies with that scripture, and if it doesn't it must be wrong. That kind of thinking precludes any kind of science.

It's not real science. What's the hypothesis? What tests have been made? What predictions have been confirmed? Name some? Name one!

It's not science, it's simply people sitting back trying to poke holes in things. If it was real science they'd publish their findings.

[AC]

Originally Posted by arloiginla

Duane Gish, biochemist at the University of California at Berkeley, says the following:

Actually... in the Penn and Teller show, it was shown that Duane Gish was not keeping up on relevant literature and in fact had not done any professional research in his field since his work at Upjohn (in the 60s!). Instead of actually doing research he has just continued to produce creationism-related work for a popular audience.

Gish is a protein biochemist, and is known for making erroneous and ridiculous statements without being able to back them up.

In 1983, Gish was asked about the protein similarities between chimps and humans and replied:

If we look at certain proteins, yes, man then -- it can be assumed that man is more closely related to a chimpanzee than other things. But on the other hand, if you look at other certain proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a bullfrog than he is a chimpanzee. If you focus your attention on other proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a chicken than he is to a chimpanzee.

No such proteins exist between frogs and humans or chickens and humans, and Gish has ignored every attempt made by real scientists to get Gish to back up his ridiculous claims. It later came out that he took a joke from a geochronologist about a 'prince-charming like frog', and started stating it as fact that frogs were more closely related to humans.

Quite simply, the man is a senile fool.

[arloiginla]

Originally Posted by AnthonyCook

It's not evidence. It's a bad argument based on bad logic.

Besides that was an attempt at evidence against Evolution. Where is the evidence FOR creationism that you promised?

The reality of the creationism vs. evolutionism debate is that neither is a scientific law. Don’t you think scientists on either side have tried for years to attempt to conjure up evidence one way or another that would actually “solve” the debate and provide a definitive answer? At the end of the day, each requires a small leap of faith into something we do not know concretely, for sure. For example, a creationist would have to conclude that an omnipotent superbeing, (or what some of the religions would call God) whom they cannot see, created everything.

At the same time, evolutionists have to take the leap of faith that everything that exists today, in its natural order, all happened by chance. Yes species slowly evolving over time has been proven time and again (it is an ongoing process that still occurs) but where did the first form of life originate? Either it always was, meaning you still believe in something omnipotent, or it just magically came into existence by chance. All I need to do is look at the human brain and the literally billions of different functions it has been built to perform, how the sun is just the perfect distance from the Earth, and wonderfully functioning things like that, and what this debate really comes down to, is which is easier to believe: that there is an omnipresent being that created it all, or that all living matter as we know it happened completely by chance.

And that my friends is why I believe in intelligent design – as difficult as it can be to throw one’s belief behind a being that one has never seen and can’t concretely prove, it sure as hell beats the idea that all life and order in the universe today all happened by random chance (which of course is a paradox because randomness suggests chaos, not order).

Cheers


P.S. - sorroy for the double spacing, I was typing out a term paper on MS Word and couldn't figure out how to change the formatting after the cut/paste

[AC]

I will ask again:

Where is the evidence FOR creationism that you promised?

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by AnthonyCook

I will ask again:

Where is the evidence FOR creationism that you promised?

It's just him cutting and pasting unfortunately. I think his point is "which is easier to believe" which I'm sorry, just sounds more like Kirk Cameron telling us that it's easier to believe that the Banana is perfectly made for humans because it has a natural wrapper, is grooved to fit in the hand, and it has a easy opening tab, etc. when those characteristics are actually selected for and not present in all wild species. "Which is easier to believe" is actually a self-limitation on your intelligence and your imagination.

I have no problem with people believing that there is an intelligence behind creation, but why force those beliefs on others? Why is it SO critically important? Ask yourself that, why indeed is it so vitally important and why are people getting so belligerent over it unless the real motivator behind this debate is a religious one?

As usual, many of the ID defenders in this thread are getting bent over the wrong thing. They are not being attacked. What is being attacked is this film and the efforts by the ID movement to force their ideas (which are not science) to be taught and presented as real science when in fact, it is simply a vessel for forcing their religious beliefs into the secular school system under a spurious guise and deception.

[Sparks]

Originally Posted by arloiginla

Either it always was, meaning you still believe in something omnipotent, or it just magically came into existence by chance. All I need to do is look at the human brain and the literally billions of different functions it has been built to perform, how the sun is just the perfect distance from the Earth, and wonderfully functioning things like that, and what this debate really comes down to, is which is easier to believe: that there is an omnipresent being that created it all, or that all living matter as we know it happened completely by chance.

Remember that it's not an issue of random chance. People who believe in intelligent design seem to have this idea that the structure of the universe is either A) random chance, or B) the work of a creator. Look at the process of evolution for example - it is anything but random!

how the sun is just the perfect distance from the Earth, and wonderfully functioning things like that

If we take an extremely conservative estimate and say there are a billion billion planets in the universe, the fact that at least one had the conditions in which to harbour life should not be a surprise. You can say things like, "Look - our sun is perfectly positioned for life," well, that's bound to happen given the size of the universe.

or it just magically came into existence by chance.

How does adding god to the equation solve the problem? OK, so god made the universe. But, what made god? How did he start? If you say he's always been there, maybe the universe has always been there in some form or another. Adding god doesn't solve any problems at all, because the same apply to god.

[arloiginla]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

It's just him cutting and pasting unfortunately. I think his point is "which is easier to believe" which I'm sorry, just sounds more like Kirk Cameron telling us that it's easier to believe that the Banana is perfectly made for humans because it has a natural wrapper, is grooved to fit in the hand, and it has a easy opening tab, etc. when those characteristics are actually selected for and not present in all wild species. "Which is easier to believe" is actually a self-limitation on your intelligence and your imagination.

I have no problem with people believing that there is an intelligence behind creation, but why force those beliefs on others? Why is it SO critically important? Ask yourself that, why indeed is it so vitally important and why are people getting so belligerent over it unless the real motivator behind this debate is a religious one?

As usual, many of the ID defenders in this thread are getting bent over the wrong thing. They are not being attacked. What is being attacked is this film and the efforts by the ID movement to force their ideas (which are not science) to be taught and presented as real science when in fact, it is simply a vessel for forcing their religious beliefs into the secular school system under a spurious guise and deception.

Actually I only cut and pasted one post in this topic. The rest has been mine. And how is "which is easier to believe" a self-limit on intelligence. The one point I noticed nobody's been able to dispute is that neither creationism nor evolutionism is a scientific law - it simply hasn't been proven as such. Therefore no matter which side you choose, you still have to make a blind assumption or leap of faith one way or another.

I presented evidence supporting my claim, you chose to discredit it. That's your choice. But that doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist. Same goes the other way naturally.

Show me how I was forcing my opinion on others. I have never tried to ram my theories down anyone's throat, certainly not to the extent that others in this topic have earlier. I've been belligerent? Show me where. This is a religious debate? Show me where I've quoted scripture, or answered a question with "because God made it like that" or "because God says so." In fact I didn't even have religion in mind when discussing this topic.

At the end of the day, there is evidence behind both theories, neither one can be proven as law, and to try to say the "other side" doesn't use real science just because you chose to poo-poo the evidence it uses and therefore doesn't really exist, is more of a feel-good believe-what-you-want-to idea than anything else.

You wonder why some creationists always "force their ideas" on others and it always pisses you off. Well as someone on the other side I'll be the first to say that actually I think it happens the other way around more often than not. What's so wrong with letting others believe in something different than you?

What I think the reason is is that most Evolutionists have a disdain for anything resembling intelligent design just because many on the creation side are bible-thumping religious nuts who really don't know what the hell they are talking about. But of course that is generalizing as always and misses the truth as always.

Just because some creationists are religious kooks who really haven't an idea about science but think they do, doesn't mean they all are that way. And also, attacking the messengers doesn't in any way mean their message is therefore discredited or not true.

I am done with this thread, I think I've made my point and so have most of you. I would imagine most of us are strong enough people that nobody's going to change somebody else's mind anyway. Although I think a few of you could learn some tolerance. You don't like creationists hammering you on the head with their theory? Well look in the mirror.

Good day.

[photon]

Originally Posted by arloiginla

The reality of the creationism vs. evolutionism debate is that neither is a scientific law.

If you're not going to make any effort at all why participate. Please tell me the difference between a law and a theory and the relationship between the two, in your own words.

Yes species slowly evolving over time has been proven time and again (it is an ongoing process that still occurs) but where did the first form of life originate?

That question has nothing to do with evolution. Again if you want to participate please do so honestly, listen to what others post and respond to it rather than retyping things you've read elsewhere.

Either it always was, meaning you still believe in something omnipotent, or it just magically came into existence by chance.

False dichotomy, prove that those are the only two choices.

[quote]All I need to do is look at the human brain and the literally billions of different functions it has been built to perform, how the sun is just the perfect distance from the Earth, and wonderfully functioning things like that, and what this debate really comes down to, is which is easier to believe: that there is an omnipresent being that created it all, or that all living matter as we know it happened completely by chance.[/FONT]

Just because you find it easier to believe doesn't mean anything; reality doesn't bend to your mental abilities.

And that my friends is why I believe in intelligent design – as difficult as it can be to throw one’s belief behind a being that one has never seen and can’t concretely prove, it sure as hell beats the idea that all life and order in the universe today all happened by random chance (which of course is a paradox because randomness suggests chaos, not order).

Evolution has been seen and proven through dozens of different types of science, all different and not connected. New species have been directly observed.

The evolution you are attacking doesn't exist. I don't believe in what you describe either, because what you describe isn't evolution.

[photon]

Originally Posted by arloiginla

Actually I only cut and pasted one post in this topic. The rest has been mine.

A lie, there's two posts which you copied and pasted from christiananswers.net. Why should we believe you about the rest?

The one point I noticed nobody's been able to dispute is that neither creationism nor evolutionism is a scientific law - it simply hasn't been proven as such.

How about you explain to me the difference between a theory and a law and how they relate to each other. THEN you might realize how completely absurd this statement is.

Therefore no matter which side you choose, you still have to make a blind assumption or leap of faith one way or another.

Not therefore, it does not follow because your premise is flawed.

I presented evidence supporting my claim, you chose to discredit it. That's your choice. But that doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist. Same goes the other way naturally.

Now we have to establish that you understand what evidence is. You have presented no evidence, please provide a definition of scientific evidence and detail what evidence you've provided and how it supports your claim.

You wonder why some creationists always "force their ideas" on others and it always pisses you off. Well as someone on the other side I'll be the first to say that actually I think it happens the other way around more often than not. What's so wrong with letting others believe in something different than you?

Wow, this coming from a proponent of a religion that proposes to be the exclusive path to God. I can't tell you how much intolerance I have seen and experienced at the hands of the people in the churches I've gone to throughout my life.

To answer the question, there IS something wrong with letting others believe something different. EDIT: I should clarify, I don't mean simply being different, I mean believing things that aren't based in reality, like flat earth or that a magic stick will protect you from AIDS. Ignorance is the key to bondage, education is the key to freedom, not educating people on how to think critically and examine their beliefs is the best way to keep people controlled.

But it's still a choice, education can't be forced. If people want to believe in a flat earth, I'm going to try to show them better. If they want to ignore reality and keep believing it, that's fine. But they aren't going to push society backwards by teaching it in schools.

And also, attacking the messengers doesn't in any way mean their message is therefore discredited or not true.

I totally agree. The message itself does enough to discredit itself in this case. Science works.

I am done with this thread

That's unfortunate. I hope that someday you get the desire to look at the real science rather than the straw men put up and knocked down by sites like the ones you quoted.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by peter12

Of course there is a scientific debate about evolution...

Ever heard of the Gould/Dawkins controversy?

Neither Gould nor Dawkins doubt evolution one iota. They have different theories about the mechanisms of evolution.

There is no credible debate ABOUT evolution - there is debate WITHIN evolution, if that makes any sense. Maybe that is what you are saying.

Dawkins seems happy to accept the assumption of a gradual, steady, uniform pace of evolution, Gould has espoused the theory of "punctuated equilibrium", in which selection acts in short concentrated bursts after some catastrophic alteration to the environment, such as the impact of a meteorite, which has resulted in the wiping out of most other species, as with the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous.

http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/005150.html

[arloiginla]

Originally Posted by photon

A lie, there's two posts which you copied and pasted from christiananswers.net. Why should we believe you about the rest?

Oops my bad. Two then. But rest was mine.

How about you explain to me the difference between a theory and a law and how they relate to each other. THEN you might realize how completely absurd this statement is.

Well obviously you're a bigger science buff than I am so I would imagine you'd already know the answer to this one, but from what I remember being taught, a scientific law is something that has accepted as being true without a shadow of a doubt. Like gravity. A theory on the other hand is a developed hypothesis (idea) which has enough supporting evidence that it is feasible to believe in as being true.

Not therefore, it does not follow because your premise is flawed.



Now we have to establish that you understand what evidence is. You have presented no evidence, please provide a definition of scientific evidence and detail what evidence you've provided and how it supports your claim.

Evidence would be proof, or a result of tests and experimenting, that supports your claim, whether thats a hypothesis you made up, or a theory that already exists.

Wow, this coming from a proponent of a religion that proposes to be the exclusive path to God. I can't tell you how much intolerance I have seen and experienced at the hands of the people in the churches I've gone to throughout my life.

Thats unfortunate and I honestly feel for you and anyone else who's had to experience that. Some religious kooks think the only way to assimilate people to their beliefs is to tell them they're going to hell if they don't. Unfortunately that's not the way Christianity is supposed to work, although admittedly far too many take that approach.

To answer the question, there IS something wrong with letting others believe something different. Ignorance is the key to bondage, education is the key to freedom, not educating people on how to think critically and examine their beliefs is the best way to keep people controlled.

But it's still a choice, education can't be forced. If people want to believe in a flat earth, I'm going to try to show them better. If they want to ignore reality and keep believing it, that's fine. But they aren't going to push society backwards by teaching it in schools.

But this isn't education, knowledge, and right and wrong. Comparing the theory of intelligent design to that of the world being flat is ridiculous. Scientific law has taught us that the world is round, anyone who chooses to believe otherwise isn't just delusional, they are wrong.

If the idea of intelligent design really held absolutely no evidence at all, then why has it not been dismissed completely as a possible theory and why is it still being taught in the schools? Religious nuts don't have that much pull in society.

I totally agree. The message itself does enough to discredit itself in this case. Science works.



That's unfortunate. I hope that someday you get the desire to look at the real science rather than the straw men put up and knocked down by sites like the ones you quoted.

I may not be a real scientist like you are or claim to be, so actually my knowledge is deep enough for me personally to believe something and be convicted of that belief and not be swayed by anyone else's viewpoint. That knowledge might not be deep enough for me to wage a war of words against an intellect like you, but how good of a debater someone is doesn't determine whether their opinions and beliefs are right or wrong.

Again, I said earlier I was done with this thread but just thought I needed to clear some things up, and also the fact that above all I haven't rammed my ideas down anyone's throat and harbour no ill will at all. So science isn't my greatest source of knowledge. That doesn't however mean my beliefs are inferior.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by troutman

Neither Gould nor Dawkins doubt evolution one iota. They have different theories about the mechanisms of evolution.

There is no credible debate ABOUT evolution - there is debate WITHIN evolution, if that makes any sense. Maybe that is what you are saying.

I think the biggest thing people don't realize about evolution is that there are literally several mechanisms at work. Natural selection is but one... a major one, but not all of evolutionary science is explained by natural selection. People find one example of something that isn't explained by natural selection, and they assume evolution theory fails.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by troutman

Neither Gould nor Dawkins doubt evolution one iota. They have different theories about the mechanisms of evolution.

There is no credible debate ABOUT evolution - there is debate WITHIN evolution, if that makes any sense. Maybe that is what you are saying.

Dawkins seems happy to accept the assumption of a gradual, steady, uniform pace of evolution, Gould has espoused the theory of "punctuated equilibrium", in which selection acts in short concentrated bursts after some catastrophic alteration to the environment, such as the impact of a meteorite, which has resulted in the wiping out of most other species, as with the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous.

http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/005150.html

It was a little more than that. They disagreed very strongly on evolution's implications for humanity.