Ben Stein "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

It's not intelligent design three-card monty. The idea is that it's a possibility, just like the Big Bang is. Nor is it necessarily an "alternative viewpoint". The two ideas could well be presented together without creating conflict.

I believe that God created this all, and that the Big Bang could have been what occured when He decide to. Like I've been saying all along, science makes sense, but to me so does God.

If I may, I'd like to try to clear up some misconceptions in this thread. I may be completely mistaken, but I think I can help clear up some of the semantics problems this thread is experiencing.

First off: creationism vs. Creationism. The idea that god may have created the existed the big bang is what I'd term little-c creationism. I don't believe it because there's no evidence for it, but I don't have evidence to reject it either, so if that's what you believe, I have no problems with that. Regardless, that's a different debate. Then there's big-C Creationism which is that God created the world in seven days, for which there is tons of evidence to reject it.

Second: intelligent design vs. Intelligent Design: little-i intelligent design is that the universe had an intelligent creator, and is very close to little-c creationism. Again, I don't believe it, but I don't reject it either, and this sounds like what you believe. Then there's big-I Intelligent Design, which is what this thread is (was?) about.

Intelligent Design is the concept that the church created to replace big-C Creationism when it became clear to them that big-C Creationism was not a viable possition to sustain and would hurt their credibility and power. Intelligent Design is theoretically incompatible with big-C Creationism, but compatible with small-c creationism.

Intelligent Design is not an alternative to evolution. Intelligent Design is an alternative to natural selection and the other generally accepted methods by which evolution occurs. Intelligent Design is the idea that God used evolution to create Man, amongst other things. (One problem that immediately becomes apparent with this is that we are not the end product of evolution.) Intelligent Design says that natural selection could not have produced some of the things that evolution has created, therefore there must be some intelligent outside force who has made evolution happen the way it did.

An example of an argument for Intelligent Design: look at the eye. It has a lens, a receptor. No random mutation would produce both of these at the same time as they are far to complex for that. Yet they cannot have evolved seperately as their is no selective pressure for evolving one part without the other. Therefore, God must have made the eye develop one mutation at a time knowing what the end product would look like for it to exist.

If you believe the eye could have been created without the active involvement of God, by something like natural selection or any other known or unknown physical process, then you do not believe in Intelligent Design. You may still believe in intelligent design, that God created the big bang and the laws of the universe in such a way that it would eventually form the world today. I get the impression that you accept evolution as being driven by natural selection, so you are in fact arguing for something you do not actually believe in because you do not understand exactly what it is.

[MarchHare]

An example of an argument for Intelligent Design: look at the eye. It has a lens, a receptor. No random mutation would produce both of these at the same time as they are far to complex for that. Yet they cannot have evolved seperately as their is no selective pressure for evolving one part without the other. Therefore, God must have made the eye develop one mutation at a time knowing what the end product would look like for it to exist.

This is an example of what ID proponents call "irreducable complexity", which is widely regarded as being fallacious pseudoscience. Dawkins addresses this topic extensively in The God Delusion.

The eye is a famous example of a supposedly irreducibly complex structure, due to its many elaborate and interlocking parts, seemingly all dependent upon one another. It is frequently cited by intelligent design and creationism advocates as an example of irreducible complexity. Behe used the "development of the eye problem" as evidence for intelligent design in Darwin's Black Box. Although Behe acknowledged that the evolution of the larger anatomical features of the eye have been well-explained, he claimed that the complexity of the minute biochemical reactions required at a molecular level for light sensitivity still defies explanation. Creationist Jonathan Sarfati has described the eye as evolutionary biologists' "greatest challenge as an example of superb 'irreducible complexity' in God's creation", specifically pointing to the supposed "vast complexity" required for transparency.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Creationist Jonathan Sarfati has described the eye as evolutionary biologists' "greatest challenge as an example of superb 'irreducible complexity' in God's creation", specifically pointing to the supposed "vast complexity" required for transparency.

And the simple explanation is that the eye is actually very simple to explain in terms of evolution. Mutations developed light-sensitive cells in simple organisms. Those light-senstive cells gave those organisms an advantage in sensory abilities. Eventually nerve structures develop and physical changes occur to focus light into portions of those structures prove beneficial.


Is a easier way to visualize this process through this diagram which shows different levels of development between mollusks. Note a simple change like the closing of tissue around a small opening creates a pin-hole camera effect.

[photon]

Originally Posted by arloiginla

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.

Gravity isn't a law. There's the theory of gravity, which is less understood than evolution frankly. Your comprehension of laws and theories is flawed.

Nothing in science is known without a shadow of a doubt.

As I've said before, if you're getting these basic things wrong, isn't it reasonable to think that you might be wrong about the bigger things?

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.

And there's been no evidence for creationism or ID presented in this thread, only vague hand-waving that evolution violates some law. No results of experiments, no confirmed predictions, nothing of the sort.

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.

The Bible itself says that Jesus is the only way to God.

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.

Not really, both are concepts that have no supporting evidence.

Scientific law has taught us that the world is round, anyone who chooses to believe otherwise isn't just delusional, they are wrong.

What law? You're still misusing the term.

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

IT HAS! That's the point. The only people who adhere to it are those who have already predetermined the Bible is inerrant and therefore the tens upon tens of thousands of scientists over hundreds of years in dozens of disciplines ranging from physics to chemistry to biology to cosmology to archeology to genetics to whatever else have all come to the same conclusion through different paths must all be wrong in exactly the same way, or they're in a grand conspiracy.

The number of real scientists in fields of research relevant to evolution who actually don't believe it are almost nonexistent.

and why is it still being taught in the schools?

It's NOT! It's illegal (at least in the US). Watch this series to learn about it:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

Religious nuts don't have that much pull in society.

They do in the US. Watch that series and see how the religious right has tremendous influence.

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.

The very definition of dogma. You will not be swayed, so I can only reason that your conclusion is based on faith and not evidence. You base your stance on something other than science, and just try to use science to support (rationalize?) your already decided upon position. Weak.

If you can't give a good reason for what you believe then you really should question why you believe it. If you can't, well, that's the kind of thing that got us into the dark ages in the first place.

You are right debating skills or being an expert in a field isn't required, but being able to approach something with intellectual honesty is.

I am fully willing to change my mind on evolution, I CAN be swayed, easily. I know exactly what kinds of things would disprove it. What about you? What detailed evidence would be sufficient to convince you that evolution is true?

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.

This is an open discussion and participation isn't mandatory, so of course no one is forcing ideas down anyone's throat, and no one I know here would wish ill on anyone.

Would you agree that not all beliefs are equally valid? How does one judge which are more valid than others?

[Delthefunky]

I'm looking forward to Bill Maher's new movie, Religulous.

[driveway]

A simple explanation of the difference between laws and theories:

• Laws are generalizations about what has happened, from which we can generalize about what we expect to happen. They pertain to observational data. The ability of the ancients to predict eclipses had nothing to do with whether they knew just how they happened; they had a law but not a theory.
• Theories are explanations of observations (or of laws). The fact that we have a pretty good understanding of how stars explode doesn't necessarily mean we could predict the next supernova; we have a theory but not a law.

even briefer:

A scientific fact is a controlled, repeatable and/or rigorously verified observation.

A scientific law is a statement of an observed regularity among facts, often expressible as a simple mathematical relationship.

A scientific theory is an integrated conceptual framework for reasoning about a class of phenomena, which is able to coordinate existing facts and laws and sometimes provide predictions of new ones.

[Burninator]

Good thread. ID/creationism is a topic that I am always interested in reading about. Like I've done before I highly recommend this book by Micheal Shermer.

Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design
Shermer (The Science of Good and Evil), founding editor of the Skeptic and Scientific American columnist, thoughtfully explains why intelligent design is both bad science and poor religion, how a wealth of scientific data from varied fields support evolution, and why religion and science need not be in conflict. Science and religion are two distinct realms, he argues: the natural and supernatural, respectively, and he cites Pope John Paul II in support of their possible coexistence. Shermer takes the "ten most cogent" arguments for intelligent design and refutes each in turn. While on the mark, the arguments' brevity may hamper their usefulness to all but those well versed in the debate. Looking for converts, Shermer offers a short chapter entitled "Why Christians and Conservatives Should Accept Evolution" (i.e., it "provides a scientific foundation" for their core values). His overall message is best summarized when he writes, "Darwin matters because evolution matters. Evolution matters because science matters. Science matters because it is the preeminent story of our age, an epic saga about who we are, where we came from and where we are going."

[Burninator]

This cartoon explains why the ID/Creationism argument doesn't work.

[Burninator]

More disturbing news about the movie. Apparently they try to tie teaching evolution with the Holocaust. That could be another possible reason why Stein, a Jew, is so behind this garbage.

Link

[Hack&Lube]

A lot of evangelical and protestant Christians, especially in North America don't realize that Pope John Paul II and the Vatican Council of Science are supporters of the Big Bang and the basic precepts of Evolution...Just to illustrate that we cannot paint all religions and people of faith with the same brush. It's quite ironic that Catholicism, often held to be one of the most rigid and dogmatic of Christian faiths is, is in many cases (of course not all) more liberal and willing to be accept new ideas.

[photon]

Yay comics!

[Dion]

[driveway]

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Burninator

More disturbing news about the movie. Apparently they try to tie teaching evolution with the Holocaust. That could be another possible reason why Stein, a Jew, is so behind this garbage.

Link

That's not a huge revelation. Having seen Dachau, I immediately recognized its prominent position in the Expelled trailer.

[Thor]

Its not like this argument would be won with logic, because if it had the points made anti-theist side would be clearly the victor.

Hey, least people have their blind faith.

[AC]

[AC]

[transplant99]

Wow....as is always the case with the two sides of this debate (Creationists vs Evolutionists) no one will change the others mind. (I have never understood why they cant be looked at as being mutual in some way, but I digress).

However, the condescending nonsense posted above is so far over the top it's embarrassing.

A lot of table-pounding by some to declare how correct they are.

Weak.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Wow....as is always the case with the two sides of this debate (Creationists vs Evolutionists) no one will change the others mind. (I have never understood why they cant be looked at as being mutual in some way, but I digress).

However, the condescending nonsense posted above is so far over the top it's embarrassing.

A lot of table-pounding by some to declare how correct they are.

Weak.

I think there are two points of clarification here: this debate is not between "Creationists" and "Evolutionists"--the former being dogmatic proponents of a creation myth and the latter, as much as it even exists as a group, being advocates of science as a way of accessing the truth about the evolution of species on this planet.

It's between proponents of "Intelligent Design"--a specific KIND of creationism, and proponents of the teaching of real science in classrooms. The former are a group whose stated objective is to undermine the materialist bases of science itself, the latter are interested in the preservation of science.

In point of fact, there is no reason why a belief in evolution cannot, as you put it, mutually coexist with a belief in God. And many scientists are very religious people. "Evolution" actually does not make any claims as to the origins of the universe, the nature of existence, or the existence of God. In fact, it's arguably true that science doesn't either--leaving that sort of thing to religion and philosophy.

But ID as a movement wants to change the way we teach science to children, and that's why people get bent out of shape about it. Science and religion can co-exist as long as people recognize that they are fundamentally different approaches to truth, and cannot answer the same questions. ID seeks to blur that boundary--my perspective is: believe what you want, but don't force it down the throats of children.

[photon]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Wow....as is always the case with the two sides of this debate (Creationists vs Evolutionists) no one will change the others mind.

Untrue, minds do get changed. I used to argue for a 6000 year old earth, and I did so not based on science but based on belief that scripture was inerrant and then went about to find or (mostly) make up science that fit my belief. So I know exactly of which I speak.

(I have never understood why they cant be looked at as being mutual in some way, but I digress).

I agree, I have asked that many times in this thread already. The problem is the ID proponents specifically and some creationists in general make an issue out of things because they feel it threatens some aspect of their beliefs. If someone's going to try to drag us back into the dark ages, I for one will fight back.

However, the condescending nonsense posted above is so far over the top it's embarrassing.

Hyperbole is a legitimate form of humour, if someone can't laugh at themselves then they're taking life too seriously.

Some of the claims made by ID and creationism are so demonstrably false that the ideas SHOULD be ridiculed; what other response is there?

A lot of table-pounding by some to declare how correct they are.
Weak.

Oh no, someone was assertive about something, help us all!