GostHacked Posted January 10, 2013 Report Posted January 10, 2013 Likewise I kinda think the criticism of Darwinism is interesting. I think evolution is real, but I am talking about the reaction it placed on society. There was this scientific theory, and because of it, because of what we thought it meant about us, we began systematically killing and sterilizing certain types of people. That is the truth, we have done those things. The killing and sterilizing are all part of eugenics programs, which I don't think has anything to do with evolution. And if we can condemn ideologies, based on the outcome of peoples actions as though they were personas themselves we have to hold science to the same standards as we do other things. Science gave us the atom bomb and we killed. But in that case the excuse is, people did it. Not science. Well just because we can do something does not mean we should. The atomic/nuclear bomb should have never been made/used. But that genie cannot be put back in the bottle. Quote
GostHacked Posted January 10, 2013 Report Posted January 10, 2013 Oh yeah? Have you watched it? Tell me.... What was Dawkins' answer when Stein asked him...."What will you do if you meet God someday and He asks, Richard what have you done...?" I have watched it ... a couple times actually. Was very disappointing. Quote
GostHacked Posted January 10, 2013 Report Posted January 10, 2013 Oh yeah? Have you watched it? Tell me.... What was Dawkins' answer when Stein asked him...."What will you do if you meet God someday and He asks, Richard what have you done...?" I can use Bill Maher's answer to this .. he said something like that if god showed himself to Bill, then Bill would admit he was wrong and have to rethink everything. He is at least willing to admit he could be wrong. We don't get that from the other side of this argument. Quote
betsy Posted January 10, 2013 Author Report Posted January 10, 2013 Why did you HIDE yourself? I was testing Sleipnir if he watched the movie. No...and due to the subject matter, you're going to have to deal with both views. Your faith is unshakable...right? Like Ben's... Nothing's stopping you from using their views...aren't you already? Quote
betsy Posted January 10, 2013 Author Report Posted January 10, 2013 (edited) No jerking knees here. I watched the movie and then Googled the scientists mentioned. Seems that the movie misleads and flat out lies. I mentioned here that during the very first interview the movie lies about the Caroline Crocker incident at George Mason. Seems you ignored that. Dated 2010. Edited January 10, 2013 by betsy Quote
betsy Posted January 10, 2013 Author Report Posted January 10, 2013 (edited) The very first claim in the film that I looked into turns out to be dodgy. Here are some interesting points about Caroline Crocker, the professor from George Mason that the film Expelled, claims lost her job for simply mentioning intelligent design. http://www.expellede...e-truth/crocker It seems that she flat out taught demonstrably false creationist claims and was the target of student complaints. The university allowed her to finish the year, but chose not to extend her contract. She was not blacklisted afterwards and went on to preach creationism in other classrooms. She even willing contributed to this Washington Post article on the subject. http://www.washingto...0300822_pf.html There is reason to believe that the reason why she was not renewed was due to her bringing up ID. Crocker had a position as a part-time faculty member of George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia.[7] She alleges that, in December 2004, her department barred her from teaching evolution and intelligent design after she mentioned intelligent design while teaching her second-year cell biology course. The dean of the College of Arts and Sciences stated that the university did not have a policy or a rule on whether certain topics should be discussed, but questioned whether a concept with theological underpinnings belonged in a science course. He added "I'm a Buddhist, but I don't think we should teach reincarnation in biology classes."[5] http://en.wikipedia....aroline_Crocker Well that Buddhist dean can zip it. Nobody's talking about reincarnation! And yes, we're talking biology! Biology (and science for that matter) cannot provide the answer - where did that first cell come from! Even Dawkins admitted that! Of course, he'd rather believe it all came from another civilization far far away in the deep deep space. If that's the case, you can't ridicule and laugh at Leprechauns ....who knows, they could be the ones Dawkins refer to that came from other planets! So you guys who believe the same way as Dawkins - you do realize you can't pooh-pooh the possible existence of leprechauns anymore. You gotta take that possibility seriously. As for your Washington Post cite - actually, it supports the message of the movie. Read her lecture. That's the big issue, isn't it? That's what the movie is saying.....there is no freedom for scientists to pursue the leads or the evidences, since there is that erected wall that forbids them! AND BTW, Intelligent Design does not necessarily means GOD - that's what one of the scientists in the movie said. Of course, from my religious perspective....I interpret ID as God. Edited January 10, 2013 by betsy Quote
DogOnPorch Posted January 10, 2013 Report Posted January 10, 2013 Did God make humans in his image? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
GostHacked Posted January 10, 2013 Report Posted January 10, 2013 Did God make humans in his image? Depends on the image.. is god a woman or a man? Or both? Quote
DogOnPorch Posted January 10, 2013 Report Posted January 10, 2013 Depends on the image.. is god a woman or a man? Or both? Why does God need sex? Why is God a 1g being? Why does God need an appendix? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Mighty AC Posted January 10, 2013 Report Posted January 10, 2013 There is reason to believe that the reason why she was not renewed was due to her bringing up ID.[/Quote] Crocker didn't just briefly mention ID, she was teaching creationism. There were student complaints about her content. She repeated the performance at a subsequent teaching position. Biology (and science for that matter) cannot provide the answer - where did that first cell come from! Even Dawkins admitted that! Of course, he'd rather believe it all came from another civilization far far away in the deep deep space.[/Quote] Dawkins doesn't believe aliens seeded life he was just asked to comment on the possibility of it. We don't know for sure how self replicating life began yet but, neither do you. Scientists have now demonstrated how nucleic acids can form from substances that were abundant on a primitive earth. http://arstechnica.c...a-nucleic-acid/ These precursor reactions to abiogenesis are promising...and far more plausible than a magic man seeding life. Truth matters. It is humble and honest to admit what we do not know and then strive to find the answers.The ID movement is based on the idea that cells are complicated, hence an intelligent being aided the process. Yet, all that does is add more complexity to the problem. The intelligent being is way more complicated than the cell and must also have an origin. What created the intelligent being? Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
GostHacked Posted January 10, 2013 Report Posted January 10, 2013 Well that Buddhist dean can zip it. Nobody's talking about reincarnation! And yes, we're talking biology! Biology (and science for that matter) cannot provide the answer - where did that first cell come from! You are missing his point, which is not surprising. No matter what religion of belief you follow, those beliefs should not be part of science class. Creationism and ID should not be taught in any science class, and reincarnation should also never be taught in science class. That is his point. I guess we can blame the creator for not putting to much intelligence in his design, or certain designs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology Biology does not deal with how the first cell came about. Biology is a natural science concerned with the study of life and living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, evolution, distribution, and taxonomy.[1] Biology has many subdisciplines unified by five so-called axioms of modern biology:[2] If that's the case, you can't ridicule and laugh at Leprechauns Well it is quite funny that his Lucky Charms were stolen. AND BTW, Intelligent Design does not necessarily means GOD - that's what one of the scientists in the movie said. Of course, from my religious perspective....I interpret ID as God. Intelligent design is a creationism story told in a different way. Courts have agreed with that, and this is why ID is not taught in science class. Quote
GostHacked Posted January 10, 2013 Report Posted January 10, 2013 Why does God need sex? Why is God a 1g being? Why does God need an appendix? Hmmmm.. if god made man in his image, then we'd all be dudes on this planet. Since we have two sexes of our species in order to do the fun thing that is procreation as a recreation then god might have had both sexses.. god's real name might be Hermaphrodites (similar to other Greek god names). Quote
DogOnPorch Posted January 10, 2013 Report Posted January 10, 2013 Hmmmm.. if god made man in his image, then we'd all be dudes on this planet. Since we have two sexes of our species in order to do the fun thing that is procreation as a recreation then god might have had both sexses.. god's real name might be Hermaphrodites (similar to other Greek god names). God = Zeus Hide yer women... Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
betsy Posted January 10, 2013 Author Report Posted January 10, 2013 (edited) Shortly after Ben visits "SCIENTIST" Dr. Paul A. Nelson who insinuates that biologists fault evolution after several beers and tries to distance ID from religion. As it turns out Nelson is an advocate for young earth creationism. He is an avid writer of anti-evolution articles but as it turns out his Ph.D is in Philosophy. http://www.arn.org/a...lson.html http://en.wikipedia....on_(creationist) So what if he believes in young earth creationism! Why do you think he tries to distance ID from religion? Your response provides the answer! Just like Dawkins - he'd believe the possibility that design could come from anything else - including aliens from outer space or even leprechauns perhaps - but never the possibility of coming from God or a god! If he'd consider aliens....why not God? Does that makes any sense at all? Especially when you're talking about scientists and quests for answers? How can you find the elusive answers if you limit yourself with walls? Btw, Nelson is a Philosopher of Biology. You've got to be specific, MAC....because there's a big difference when you describe someone who involves himself with biology as simply having a "Ph.D in Philosophy." Paul A. Nelson is a philosopher of biology who has been involved in the intelligent design debate internationally for over two decades. His grandfather, Byron C. Nelson (1893-1972), a theologian and author, was an influential mid-20th century dissenter from Darwinian evolution. After receiving his B.A. in philosophy with a minor in evolutionary biology from the University of Pittsburgh, Nelson entered the University of Chicago, where he received his Ph.D. (1998) in the philosophy of biology and evolutionary theory.[ http://creationwiki.org/Paul_Nelson And apparently there are three types, and it's not as simple as your statement make it sound. 2. Three Types of Philosophy of Biology Three different kinds of philosophical enquiry fall under the general heading of philosophy of biology. First, general theses in the philosophy of science are addressed in the context of biology. Second, conceptual puzzles within biology itself are subjected to philosophical analysis. Third, appeals to biology are made in discussions of traditional philosophical questions. The first major debate in the philosophy of biology exemplified the first of these, the use of biological science to explore a general theme in philosophy of science. In another important early debate philosophers set out to solve a conceptual puzzle within biology itself. The phrase ‘conceptual puzzles’ should be understood very broadly. The conceptual work done by philosophers of biology in many cases merges smoothly into theoretical biology. It also sometimes leads philosophers to criticise the chains of argument constructed by biologists, and thus to enter directly into ongoing biological debates. In the same way, the first kind of philosophy of biology I have described—the use of biological examples to work through general issues in the philosophy of science—sometimes feeds back into biology itself through specific recommendations for improving biological methodology. It is a striking feature of the philosophy of biology literature that philosophers often publish in biology journals and that biologists often contribute to philosophy of biology journals. The philosophy of biology also has a potentially important role as a mediator between biology and society. Popular representations of biology derive broad lessons from large swathes of experimental findings. Philosophers of science have an obvious role in evaluating these interpretations of the significance of specific biological findings (Stotz and Griffiths 2008). Even the distinction between the questions of biology and those of philosophy of biology is not absolutely clear. As noted above, philosophers of biology address three types of questions: general questions about the nature of science, conceptual puzzles within biology, and traditional philosophical questions that seem open to illumination from the biosciences. When addressing the second sort of question, there is no clear distinction between philosophy of biology and theoretical biology. But while this can lead to the accusation that philosophers of biology have abandoned their calling for ‘amateur hour biology’ it can equally well be said that a book like The Selfish Gene (Dawkins 1976) is primarily a contribution to philosophical discussion of biology. Certainly, the professional skills of the philosopher are as relevant to these internal conceptual puzzles as they are to the other two types of question. All three types of questions can be related to the specific findings of the biological sciences only by complex chains of argument. http://plato.stanfor...ogy-philosophy/ In other words, Nelson is not simply a Philosopher bumbling blindly in the field. Edited January 10, 2013 by betsy Quote
DogOnPorch Posted January 10, 2013 Report Posted January 10, 2013 How can the Universe be only 6,000 years old when we orbit a Population I star? It's questions like these where religion falls flat. Answer: Errrrrrr...the Lord works in mysterious ways. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
betsy Posted January 10, 2013 Author Report Posted January 10, 2013 (edited) Crocker didn't just briefly mention ID, she was teaching creationism. There were student complaints about her content. She repeated the performance at a subsequent teaching position. Cite! Show me where she is teaching religion - Creationism! Dawkins doesn't believe aliens seeded life he was just asked to comment on the possibility of it. Truth matters. It is humble and honest to admit what we do not know and then strive to find the answers. Well I should hope so, that truth matters! Obviously, we can't say that of Dawkins, can we now? If it's "honesty" on his part to admit to something he doesn't know - and that therefore according to him, it is possible for aliens (which can possibly be what we now call leprechauns), to exists ....why would he exclude the possibility of God? Why put a stop-sign when it comes to the possibility of a god? If he doesn't know - who's he to say so? The ID movement is based on the idea that cells are complicated, hence an intelligent being aided the process. Yet, all that does is add more complexity to the problem. The intelligent being is way more complicated than the cell and must also have an origin. What created the intelligent being? I don't care what ID is all about! The issue is not about that! The issue is about the freedom of scientists to follow the evidences! The freedom by academia to question....to voice out their questions. ID camp wants an open discussion - they're not afraid to come out openly to discuss. But it seems that it's the anti-ID who are cowering and afraid to discuss. Just like Dawkins running away from Craig - because he knows he cannot defend his silly little book - looks like Evolution cannot stand up to open scrutiny and comparison. Afraid of the competition, are we? Edited January 10, 2013 by betsy Quote
DogOnPorch Posted January 10, 2013 Report Posted January 10, 2013 Why is God making new stars and planets? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Mighty AC Posted January 10, 2013 Report Posted January 10, 2013 In other words, Nelson is not simply a Philosopher bumbling blindly in the field. Nor is he a scientist like the movie states. The movie also fails to mention that he is an avid young earth creationist writer bound to a particular world view by his fundamentalist beliefs. Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
Moonlight Graham Posted January 10, 2013 Report Posted January 10, 2013 What? All I'm reading is the usual knee-jerk from the same old guys! And I'm willing to bet some of them didn't even watch the WHOLE movie! Don't attack the messenger (Ben Stein), but rather discuss the content of this movie! OF course this movie will get bad reviews, what do you think? Never mind the reviews....I've enjoyed movies that were badly reviewed! I browsed parts of the flick to get a sense of it. Didn't have time to watch it all. Now, I think the point that scientists who might look into the possibility of intelligent design for the origins of life and the universe can get fired or blacklisted or simply ignored is true in many cases I'm sure. On the other hand, evolution is a real observable fact. You can recreate it in a lab.and view it with your own eyes. The story of Adam and Eve and a lot in Genesis is simply myth and science has ridiculous amounts of evidence to show that's not how humans and other things on earth came to be. But that's not really what most of the film is talking about from what I gathered. Science doesn't know for a fact exactly how the very first microscopic lifeforms began on earth or what caused/created the big-bang, so scientists need to examine every possibility. I just don't know how you would scientifically test for evidence of intelligent design, unless you unrolled every strand of human DNA and the words "I AM GOD" was imprinted into it in 30 different languages or something similar. There's clearly a difference between creationism and intelligent design. The part I really didn't like about the film is that it brings up slippery slope arguments for believing in evolution. ie: if you acknowledge evolution it can lead to eugenics and the Nazi holocaust, that it can lead to Stalin's USSR because he was an atheist, or that it can lead to a complete lack of morals because it creates doubts in God & religious faith. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
betsy Posted January 10, 2013 Author Report Posted January 10, 2013 (edited) Nor is he a scientist like the movie states. The movie also fails to mention that he is an avid young earth creationist writer bound to a particular world view by his fundamentalist beliefs. Irrelevant! It's the credibility of evidences that matters. Edited January 10, 2013 by betsy Quote
DogOnPorch Posted January 10, 2013 Report Posted January 10, 2013 So does Doctor Crocker not have an answer to why God is making new stars and planets that we'll NEVER be able to visit? Do you not? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Mighty AC Posted January 10, 2013 Report Posted January 10, 2013 (edited) If it's "honesty" on his part to admit to something he doesn't know - and that therefore according to him, it is possible for aliens (which can possibly be what we now call leprechauns), to exists ....why would he exclude the possibility of God? Why put a stop-sign when it comes to the possibility of a god? If he doesn't know - who's he to say so?[/Quote] Did you watch the movie? He said he doesn't believe in gods because there is no sufficient reason to do so. Do you remember the scene where Stein tries to get him to put a number on it? Dawkins said he believes the possibility is remote but not impossible. I don't care what ID is all about! The issue is not about that! The issue is about the freedom of scientists to follow the evidences! The freedom by academia to question....to voice out their questions.[/Quote]What evidence? The proponents of ID do not provide evidence for a designer, they simply say evolution is complex hence there must have been a designer. The fact that the designer is more complex that what they are trying to explain kills their own point.ID camp wants an open discussion - they're not afraid to come out openly to discuss. The ID camp is debated all the time. They are a tiny movement without an actual scientific theory. They just have a hypothesis resting on an idea more improbable than what they are trying to discredit. Edited January 10, 2013 by Mighty AC Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
Mighty AC Posted January 10, 2013 Report Posted January 10, 2013 Betsy, the ID movement only seems plausible if you are forced to believe in a creator by your religion. If you believe in this omnipotent magic being without question then it probably doesn't seem crazy to you that he just steps in and guides complex processes. However, if you are free to accept the idea that a god doesn't exist then the explanation for this designer is far more complex than any scientific theory we have. You call Dawkins arrogant when he says that it is highly unlikely that a god exists. Yet, you say that the existence of your god is 100% certain. Hmmm, which side is not open to discussion?? Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
guyser Posted January 10, 2013 Report Posted January 10, 2013 Why is God making new stars and planets? He sees what he made and realized he royally fucked up on earth. Hey, I made at least 8 apple pies before I made the right one. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted January 10, 2013 Report Posted January 10, 2013 He sees what he made and realized he royally fucked up on earth. Hey, I made at least 8 apple pies before I made the right one. Yes, the Sim-Earth save God forgot. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.