Do you believe in evolution?

[brokeplex]

Well, the problem is that what they are supporting is religious and crying censorship on trying to get their unmistakably religious/crackpot views seen as 'scientific' with no supported data and anyone who disagrees with them as 'censoring' them.  They peg themselves as 'victims' when they claim they have an alternate view that's every bit as good as evolution and it's been 'suppressed'.

That's not the case at all and is extremely misleading.

there is nothing about what you have said above that is correct or fair, either about this film, or about the movement on college campuses advocating intelligent design.  there are serious scholars in academia that wish to offer intelligent design as an alternative for serious discussion. the academic left attempts to shut them down, and thereby censoring an alternative point of view. futhermore the academic left is conflating the "creationist" movement, which is religiously based, and the intelligent design movement which is not.

to characterize the views offered on "Expelled" as either good or bad is a red herring to free discussion. natural selection without an intelligent designer, is no more or less "good" than natural selection with an intelligent designer. the study of biological "evolution" can not be understood or studied as one would study math or physics. a math problem has a solution, an evolutionary hypothesis as to the origin of life has no one solution, it merely offers alternatives.

and as for someone to call serious scholars names such as "crackpot" and "religious" is seemingly the pot calling the kettle beige. just who is treating science as a religion and who is not? on this topic, the academic left acts much the way the church behaves when a central tenet of the faith is challenged.

why is the academic left so afraid of the marketplace of ideas? are the ideas of the left so shallow that any alternatives produce such a furious reaction?

 shall we reignite the Santa Hermandad to protect academics and their ensconced careers? which are mostly at the tax payers expense I might add 

[injest]

ok how is "intellegent design" NOT religious? Does it not require a 'being'...ie an intellegence that we can not prove exists??

[brokeplex]

ok how is "intellegent design" NOT religious? Does it not require a 'being'...ie an intellegence that we can not prove exists??

a belief in an intelligence which sparked the origins of life does not require a religion. there are agnostics which have indicated they are open to intelligent design.

the "intelligence" in question can be an actual intelligent being, or a force in the universe that orders matter and energy in a perceptably intelligent manner.

none of this necessarily implies the Judeo Christian God in Heaven.

I personally am not sure about intelligent design, I have long believed in natural selection that has its origins in the random forces in the universe - chiefly entropy.

I personally am not particularly driven to find an "intelligent" designer, but I wish to be open to the idea. I definitely reject creationism.

My objection to the manner in which those who wish to merely discuss intelligent design are treated in academia, is that I see this treatment as intolerant and censoring. The academic left has long established themselves as the one of the most intolerant elements in today's society. While masking themselves as "tolerant", they are routinely intolerant towards those with whom they disagree. I really can't see much of a practical the difference between the leftist academics dominating today's colleges and universities,  and the Bible thumpers on the right. The only difference is of whom they are intolerant.

This whole fracas about this film is a case in point. What is the harm in watching a film that is both humorous and makes an attempts to make a serious point?

This reminds me of the stupidity of the Bible thumpers back in 2005  when they sounded alarms over "Brokeback Mountain". Remember the stupid vitriol that came out of the pulpit over a film that they characterized as a "gay cowboy" movie "attempting to advance the homosexual agenda". And which they never took the time to watch, at least in public.

Censorship and intolerance are censorship and intolerance, no matter how you slice it.

[delalluvia]

a belief in an intelligence which sparked the origins of life does not require a religion. there are agnostics which have indicated they are open to intelligent design.

the "intelligence" in question can be an actual intelligent being, or a force in the universe that orders matter and energy in a perceptably intelligent manner.

none of this necessarily implies the Judeo Christian God in Heaven.

I personally am not sure about intelligent design, I have long believed in natural selection that has its origins in the random forces in the universe - chiefly entropy.

I personally am not particularly driven to find an "intelligent" designer, but I wish to be open to the idea. I definitely reject creationism.

My objection to the manner in which those who wish to merely discuss intelligent design are treated in academia, is that I see this treatment as intolerant and censoring. The academic left has long established themselves as the one of the most intolerant elements in today's society. While masking themselves as "tolerant", they are routinely intolerant towards those with whom they disagree. I really can't see much of a practical the difference between the leftist academics dominating today's colleges and universities,  and the Bible thumpers on the right. The only difference is of whom they are intolerant.

This whole fracas about this film is a case in point. What is the harm in watching a film that is both humorous and makes an attempts to make a serious point?

This reminds me of the stupidity of the Bible thumpers back in 2005  when they sounded alarms over "Brokeback Mountain". Remember the stupid vitriol that came out of the pulpit over a film that they characterized as a "gay cowboy" movie "attempting to advance the homosexual agenda". And which they never took the time to watch, at least in public.

Censorship and intolerance are censorship and intolerance, no matter how you slice it.

Sorry, but despite what you have read, there is no factual data supporting ID.  It is a religious argument - a rehash of Creationism - and has no place in the academic community except in religious classes.

Are you saying that any crackpot idea has a place in academia?

That we should include Faith Healers in medical school?  That to keep Faith Healing from being taught in medical school is censorship?

Do you agree with that argument?  That's basically what you are saying.

To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like 'God was always there', and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say 'DNA was always there', or "Life was always there', and be done with it. --Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker : Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design p. 141

"In December 2005, federal Judge John E. Jones III ruled that ID must meet the same fate that creationism met in 1987 when the Supreme Court ruled religious doctrines can't be promoted in secular institutions under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Judge Jones wrote in his decision regarding a policy of the Dover, Pennsylvania, school district that added ID to the school's biology program:

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy...." " Two scientists often cited by defenders of ID are Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box (The Free Press, 1996), and William Dembski, author of Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology (Cambridge University Press, 1998). .... However, their arguments are identical in function to the creationists' arguments: rather than provide positive evidence for their own position, they mainly try to find weaknesses in natural selection. As already noted, however, even if their arguments are successful against natural selection, that would not increase the probability of ID." Excerpted from "Intelligent Design".

[Marge_Innavera]

to characterize the views offered on "Expelled" as either good or bad is a red herring to free discussion. natural selection without an intelligent designer, is no more or less "good" than natural selection with an intelligent designer. the study of biological "evolution" can not be understood or studied as one would study math or physics. a math problem has a solution, an evolutionary hypothesis as to the origin of life has no one solution, it merely offers alternatives.

and as for someone to call serious scholars names such as "crackpot" and "religious" is seemingly the pot calling the kettle beige. just who is treating science as a religion and who is not? on this topic, the academic left acts much the way the church behaves when a central tenet of the faith is challenged.

There's a lot of aggressively manufactured confusion about what a "theory" is. A very well-written, concise comparison of scientific fact, hypothesis and theory can be found at http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. . . .
Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. [bolding in this statement added] One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

The very title of this discussion -- do you 'believe' in evolution, suggests the insistence of anti-evolutionists that evolution is a religious or anti-religious belief, and the subsequent corruption of public discussion about it.  From that flows the familiar cliches about it taking "more faith to believe in evolution than in creation" and that creationism and its offspring should be given equal time in the interest of presenting "all viewpoints."


The Wilstar site had an interesting take on creationism and intelligent design as science:

Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. So-called "theories" based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They are not falsifiable and they do not follow the scientific method.

[brokeplex]

Sorry, but despite what you have read, there is no factual data supporting ID.  It is a religious argument - a rehash of Creationism - and has no place in the academic community except in religious classes.

Are you saying that any crackpot idea has a place in academia?

That we should include Faith Healers in medical school?  That to keep Faith Healing from being taught in medical school is censorship?

Do you agree with that argument?  That's basically what you are saying.

To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like 'God was always there', and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say 'DNA was always there', or "Life was always there', and be done with it. --Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker : Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design p. 141

"In December 2005, federal Judge John E. Jones III ruled that ID must meet the same fate that creationism met in 1987 when the Supreme Court ruled religious doctrines can't be promoted in secular institutions under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Judge Jones wrote in his decision regarding a policy of the Dover, Pennsylvania, school district that added ID to the school's biology program:

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy...." " Two scientists often cited by defenders of ID are Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box (The Free Press, 1996), and William Dembski, author of Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology (Cambridge University Press, 1998). .... However, their arguments are identical in function to the creationists' arguments: rather than provide positive evidence for their own position, they mainly try to find weaknesses in natural selection. As already noted, however, even if their arguments are successful against natural selection, that would not increase the probability of ID." Excerpted from "Intelligent Design".

there again, you are conflating intelligent design with creationism and calling it crackpot. I don't see that, and I think that there is nothing to fear in an intelligent discussion of this theory on college campuses. however, there is a great deal to fear in the type of censorship that the film exposes, directly thru the interviews, and indirectly by creating a reaction on the left which exposes the true intent of the left.

[Penthesilea]

there again, you are conflating intelligent design with creationism and calling it crackpot. I don't see that, ...

ID is one variety of creationism, the neo-creationism. It tries hard to appear more modern and scientific (and distances itself from Old-Earth creationism and Young-Earth creationism), but is creationism nonetheless.

The hub of the whole ID movement is the Discovery Institute, a christian-conservative think tank. The Discovery Institute is a non-profit foundation which draws its financial sources from 22 other foundations, of which at least two-thirds state explicitly religious missions.

Furthermore it has authored a political and social action plan, the "Wedge Strategy". From wikipedia:

"The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document,[1] which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to "defeat [scientific] materialism" represented by evolution, "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"[2] and to "affirm the reality of God."[3] Its goal is to "renew" American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian, namely evangelical Protestant, values.[4]


Note: the Discovery Institute has initially denied the Wedge Strategy, but in 2005 admitted it is a manifesto of theirs.

I know the weaknesses of wikipedia, but the articles about the Wedge Strategy and the Discovery Institute are packed with lists of referrences, so it's easy to have a look at the sources.

Wikipedia article on Discovery Institute

Wikipedia article on Wedge Strategy

[brokeplex]

ID is one variety of creationism, the neo-creationism. It tries hard to appear more modern and scientific (and distances itself from Old-Earth creationism and Young-Earth creationism), but is creationism nonetheless.

The hub of the whole ID movement is the Discovery Institute, a christian-conservative think tank. The Discovery Institute is a non-profit foundation which draws its financial sources from 22 other foundations, of which at least two-thirds state explicitly religious missions.

Furthermore it has authored a political and social action plan, the "Wedge Strategy". From wikipedia:

"The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document,[1] which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to "defeat [scientific] materialism" represented by evolution, "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"[2] and to "affirm the reality of God."[3] Its goal is to "renew" American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian, namely evangelical Protestant, values.[4]


Note: the Discovery Institute has initially denied the Wedge Strategy, but in 2005 admitted it is a manifesto of theirs.

I know the weaknesses of wikipedia, but the articles about the Wedge Strategy and the Discovery Institute are packed with lists of references, so it's easy to have a look at the sources.

Wikipedia article on Discovery Institute

Wikipedia article on Wedge Strategy

that is interesting, and seriously thanks for the research, but if proponents of intelligent design, whom I know, are not attempting to link intelligent design to old fashioned Biblical creationism in their argumentation, why should I believe that they are secret creationists?

If a Republican tells you that all Democrats are Marxists, and then to prove their point the Republican pulls up web sites "proving" that Marxism is the secret agenda of Democrats, but when talking to live Democrats you can not find any who are advocating Marxism, shouldn't you reject the "Marxian Democrat" theory as just an extreme polemic on the part of their political enemies? I think that this is what is happening to the debate over the debate over Intelligent Design.

[delalluvia]

that is interesting, and seriously thanks for the research, but if proponents of intelligent design, whom I know, are not attempting to link intelligent design to old fashioned Biblical creationism in their argumentation, why should I believe that they are secret creationists?

If a Republican tells you that all Democrats are Marxists, and then to prove their point the Republican pulls up web sites "proving" that Marxism is the secret agenda of Democrats, but when talking to live Democrats you can not find any who are advocating Marxism, shouldn't you reject the "Marxian Democrat" theory as just an extreme polemic on the part of their political enemies? I think that this is what is happening to the debate over the debate over Intelligent Design.

I'm sorry Broke but the majority of the scientific community and the courts have reviewed ID materials and arguments and they've all concluded that it's just rehashed Creationism.  The ID people have introduced nothing new and nothing that can be considered a science.  ID proponents are trying to force academia to accept ID as a science since that will give credibility to their position not because they have a credible position in the first place.

[injest]

there again, you are conflating intelligent design with creationism and calling it crackpot. I don't see that, and I think that there is nothing to fear in an intelligent discussion of this theory on college campuses. however, there is a great deal to fear in the type of censorship that the film exposes, directly thru the interviews, and indirectly by creating a reaction on the left which exposes the true intent of the left.

well I listend to Ben chatting with Glenn this morning and HE kept talking about God...and he is the star...so if HE says it is creationism...I will go with HIS opinion.