It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New ID Documentary Starring Ben Stein

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Expelled Movie Preview


Gotta love Ben Stein. Anyone, anyone?


From his blog:


expelledthemovie.com...-4


America is not America without freedom. In every turning point in our history, freedom has been the key goal we are seeking: the Mayflower coming here, the Revolution, the Civil War, World War II, the Cold War. Tens of millions came here from foreign oppression and made a life here. Why? For freedom. Human beings are supposed to live in a state of freedom. Freedom is not conferred by the state: as our founders said, and as Martin Luther King repeated, freedom is God-given.A huge part of this freedom is freedom of inquiry.


Freedom of inquiry is basic to human advancement. There would be no modern medicine, no antibiotics, no brain surgery, no Internet, no air conditioning, no modern travel, no highways, no knowledge of the human body without freedom of inquiry.


This includes the ability to inquire whether a higher power, a being greater than man, is involved with how the universe operates. This has always been basic to science. ALWAYS.


Some of the greatest scientists of all time, including Galileo, Newton, Einstein, operated under the hypothesis that their work was to understand the principles and phenomena as designed by a creator.


Operating under that hypothesis, they discovered the most important laws of motion, gravity, thermodynamics, relativity, and even economics.


Now, I am sorry to say, freedom of inquiry in science is being suppressed.



After what happened to scientists like Sternberg and Gonzalez it's nice to see some light being shined on the issue of academic freedom with regards to Intelligent Design. I know most ATSers see the 'ID conspiracy' differently than I do. That's fine, but there's a lot more going on behind the scenes to scientists whom would dare challenge blind-walkin'-Darwinian-evolution, than some might think, or care to admit to. Maybe Ben - bad to the bone - Stein can shake things up a bit.



Comments?


[edit on 22-8-2007 by Rren]




posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   
I'd like to post something meaningful but I'm too distracted by the banner on that website.

*scrolls over and off repeatedly*



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by lightworker12
 



Hi lightworker12,

Hmmm, not happening on my end. When I click it, the preview just starts but not having any problems with the banner. I doubt there's any other places hosting it yet (still pretty new) but I'll keep an eye out for one. I'll keep ya posted.

Regards.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 03:49 PM
link   
there is no inquiry here, only flawed arguements propelled by the inability to let go of superstition. the closest they have to a legitimate scientist is behe... and all of his arguements get destroyed quite quickly... especially his silly little flagella idea... the entire idea behind ID is irreducible complexity... and yet the can't point to something that is irr complex... and their arguement clearly rests on the logical fallacy of a false dichotmy. if evolution isn't right then our position is.... that's a logically false statement

this is about freedom, freedom from the stupidity of ID....

OH... and there is a lie in there....



Some of the greatest scientists of all time, including Galileo, Newton, Einstein, operated under the hypothesis that their work was to understand the principles and phenomena as designed by a creator.


nice job naming an atheist in there....

[edit on 8/22/07 by madnessinmysoul]



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
there is no inquiry here, only flawed arguements propelled by the inability to let go of superstition.


Clever, and impotent, as always.


the closest they have to a legitimate scientist is behe... and all of his arguements get destroyed quite quickly... especially his silly little flagella idea... the entire idea behind ID is irreducible complexity... and yet the can't point to something that is irr complex... and their arguement clearly rests on the logical fallacy of a false dichotmy. if evolution isn't right then our position is.... that's a logically false statement


Wow, don't beat around the bush, what do you really think. The IC argument wrt to the flagellar motor has not been "destroyed." There exists currently only hypothetical, untestable, pathways (none of which are gradual as per Behe's IC argument) Of course, knowing the arguments as you do, you surely know this. Perhaps you could provide a cite to the Darwinain pathway you were thinking of. We did this dance before, you were gonna 'dig through the journals' and get back to me. Never happened. Most of the prominent ID theorists are indeed credentialed scientists so all you can come up with is fluff like this to counter them.




this is about freedom, freedom from the stupidity of ID....


Clever, no really, color me impressed.




OH... and there is a lie in there....



nice job naming an atheist in there....


Einstein was not an atheist. There are plenty of quotes around that show is disdain for atheists (of course, he wasn't a theist either.)

Nice try.

Any comments on Sternberg, Gonzalez, etc? Got what they had coming, I guess, eh. No,... I guess witch-hunting and persecution is cool, so long as it's against someone religious. Glad you guys weren't around to silence the likes of Ockham, Newton, Maxwell, Pascall, etc, etc, etc. Silly pseudoscientific superstitionists.

Gets more clever every time, madness.

Regards.

(edit) For the record you have theists to thank for the advent of science (LOGOS), the scientific method, and most of the bedrock principals, theories and laws of science. ALL, working from a design perspective to form their hypotheses. That includes, natural selection and evolution, btw. That was Stein's point, which you missed.... atheists want t hijack science and destroy the careers of anyone who gets in their way. They do it with a smile on their smug little faces, even.

Now that's, threatiness... and, madness, on topic.


[edit on 22-8-2007 by Rren]



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
Any comments on Sternberg, Gonzalez, etc? Got what they had coming, I guess, eh. No,... I guess witch-hunting and persecution is cool, so long as it's against someone religious.


Heh. Come on R. you don't buy the 'martyrdom' of these dudes do you?

Who was persecuted?

I can remember the Gonzalez episode better as it was much more recent, but basically the guy wasn't bringing in funds or publishing anything of note whilst in the department he failed to get tenure at.

They have every right to refuse him tenure.

www.iastate.edu...

But I'm quite sure all the DI cheerleading BS has ensured he has even more difficulty getting tenure in future. Who would touch him now? Why take the risk of taking on a lame duck, to then have the shrill whining of the likes of Luskin and Dembski to deal with? I'm sure Baylor will take him.

And from what I remember of the Sternberg episode, it was a similar martyrdom episode. Poor old Sternberg, the guy who decided to bypass normal peer-review to get Meyer's paper on a completely irrelevant issue to that of the journal published, heh.

Yeah, the poor little ID scientists, funded to the hilt but produce no science of note. Nada. Zilch.

Lots of PR and books though.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin


Heh. Come on R. you don't buy the 'martyrdom' of these dudes do you?


Yes, J, they got screwed.



Who was persecuted?


They were *(edit #2/man i gotta learn to proof-read.. i was, for some unknown reason thinking of Abbot and Costello in response to your question... so I meant to say): No, he's on second.
Not "they were" pretty bad you have to edit your jokes, aint it. (/edit)* *even worse when you gotta edit the edit (/really this time)*



I can remember the Gonzalez episode better as it was much more recent, but basically the guy wasn't bringing in funds or publishing anything of note whilst in the department he failed to get tenure at.

They have every right to refuse him tenure.


BS, they used that after the fact. The president came out and said that Gonzalez' public opinion re: ID (specifically his book) was the reason for his denial of tenure. Using the funding was what made it legal, if you will. But, it was clearly demonstrated that ID was the main reason for denial of tenure.

His publication record (and cite/refs to his work) and work, were stellar, no pun intended.

This was political! Certainly the lynch-mob-sign-our-petition-itstheocracyitellya shenanigans of a certain tenured atheist theology professor had nothing to do with it... oh wait, the president mentioned that too. You'd be nuts to 'come out' in this kind of climate. No tenure, no funding, no publication.... ridicule by these so-called defenders of science...

I understand ISU's decision though, I guess. Who wants all the crap that goes along with a big-name ID guys. They got put between a rock and a hard place here.... Sternberg was just a bad. The NCSE was saying tripe like, 'he's known to associate with creationists' in back door e-mails. This is really what happens, mel. It's not just hype; these men earned their positions, they are accomplished scientists in their fields. Their views, or know associates, which had nothing to do with the position in question, are why they got screwed.


No reasonable person is calling them martyrs, and being serious about it. That's just y'all projecting, which happens a lot.






Yeah, the poor little ID scientists, funded to the hilt but produce no science of note. Nada. Zilch.

Lots of PR and books though.


You're better than this. Thanks, though, for being on topic.

Regards.


Ok I was gonna let madness come back on the off-topic, Einsten stuff. But, I gotta beat feet, and I know what was coming... so, let's finish whacking this decades old dead horse:

" I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being." ~Albert Einstein in a letter to Ensign Guy H. Raner (1945)~


He is often labeled a Deist, and that's how I always understood it, but he was an agnostic. Like many people he changed his position over time, but he was not an atheist. Words have meanings, madness, and calling his position atheistic completely removes any meaning from the term. Agnostics believe that knowledge of the supernatural is unknowable; or they just don't know. I could pull plenty of quotes that make him look like a Deist too. But, as the man said (above) when asked to clarify his position, on this exact issue,: "[y]ou may call me an agnostic." The only place he is referred to as an atheist is on atheist websites... he's deist or agnostic everywhere else.

To, again, and just for fun, quote Einstein: "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." So, for discussion's sake, Stein can be forgiven... whatyasay.

Now how about that topic, madness?

Be back in a day or two

(edit)Removed line from Einstein quote which only makes sense if you go to link. Pre-emptive 'but didn't you just quoting him saying' edit. I know not everyone likes to read links.

[edit on 22-8-2007 by Rren]

[edit on 22-8-2007 by Rren]

[edit on 22-8-2007 by Rren]



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
BS, they used that after the fact. The president came out and said that Gonzalez' public opinion re: ID (specifically his book) was the reason for his denial of tenure. Using the funding was what made it legal, if you will. But, it was clearly demonstrated that ID was the main reason for denial of tenure.

His publication record (and cite/refs to his work) and work, were stellar, no pun intended.


If they said it before, I'm sure the same would have happened. It didn't matter. The DI PR machine would have spun it either way. He failed to gain recommendation at every level of review over is time there.

While he was an independent researcher his publishing record wasn't up to what they expect. Most of the stuff he published was as a post-doc, or a result of his post-doc work. I would think tenure requires the ability to set up your own line of study and attract funding.

He brought in little funding in 7 years at Iowa. Although he did manage to find time to write a popular book with a bit of dosh from the Templeton...

Not one graduate student to completion.

What factors do you think they decide on? Do you think they can say, 'well he's published little novel work while here, he's attracted little in research funding, seen no grad students to completion, but, hey, he's an IDer who writes books, give him tenure...'


I understand ISU's decision though, I guess. Who wants all the crap that goes along with a big-name ID guys. They got put between a rock and a hard place here.... Sternberg was just a bad. The NCSE was saying tripe like, 'he's known to associate with creationists' in back door e-mails. This is really what happens, mel. It's not just hype; these men earned their positions, they are accomplished scientists in their fields. Their views, or know associates, which had nothing to do with the position in question, are why they got screwed.


But how did Sternberg get screwed? He has his position still, no?

He has an office. He has access to everything he wants. He basically subverted the scientific process to get a piece of poop published. Of course people who care about science are gonna think 'wtf, who is this guy'.

What your asking for is positive discrimination for anyone who says they are an IDer. Maybe I'll try a similar thing when I get desparate for a long-term academic position.

R. you know that lots of scientists hold a faith, you know they just get on with their work. Why is it just IDers that are 'persecuted'? Lots of scientists in cosmology hold cosmological ID-like ideas. Why him as a target? Why Sternberg? Ken Miller has ideas about god using quantum magic to do miracles, why isn't he persecuted?

We don't see normal christians whining if they fail at tenure. Just the ID-related lot. If the ID issue was sitting in the tenure committee's unconscious at the time of decision, who can blame them? They had enough from his record while at ISU to make the decision without even bothering about his religious beliefs. A normal scientist would just get on with it, find another tenure track position, and try again. Not an IDer...

Even Baylor want nothing to do with the Einstein of ID, they've even just removed some webpages related to his new ID 'research lab', heh.

[edit on 22-8-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
there is no inquiry here, only flawed arguements propelled by the inability to let go of superstition.


Clever, and impotent, as always.


Rren, show me that atheist questioning evolution and i'll believe there is a problem... now, don't retort with "they'd have to acknowledge ID" because that would create a false dichotomy.

if you can show me a single atheist biologist that has doubts about evolution as the source of biological complexity and is proposing a new theory, i'll start to believe this is about inquiry instead of dogma



Wow, don't beat around the bush, what do you really think. The IC argument wrt to the flagellar motor has not been "destroyed." There exists currently only hypothetical, untestable, pathways (none of which are gradual as per Behe's IC argument) Of course, knowing the arguments as you do, you surely know this.


funny that you're the one talking about "untestable" when id can't even run a single test on its claims...




Perhaps you could provide a cite to the Darwinain pathway you were thinking of.


there is at least 1 mechanism in the biological realm that i can think of that could lead to the motor... it's an excretion mechanism used in cells...
finding a living example of a previous step in the evolutionary process on the cellular level can be a bit difficult....
i know there are similar "motors" that have parts missing from the one behe cites and still function properly.



We did this dance before, you were gonna 'dig through the journals' and get back to me. Never happened.


oops... short attention span on that one...
my bad.

Most of the prominent ID theorists are indeed credentialed scientists so all you can come up with is fluff like this to counter them.





Clever, no really, color me impressed.


it is very stupid as a "theory"




Einstein was not an atheist. There are plenty of quotes around that show is disdain for atheists (of course, he wasn't a theist either.)

Nice try.


no, einstein was an atheist, through and through. he didn't believe in the supernatural one bit.
show me him acknowledging the supernatural as real instead of using terms like "god" as metaphors, and i'll believe you.




(edit) For the record you have theists to thank for the advent of science (LOGOS), the scientific method, and most of the bedrock principals, theories and laws of science.


yes, because atheism wasn't exactly considered intellectually sound at that point...
and a lot of it comes from... PAGANS.



ALL, working from a design perspective to form their hypotheses.


yes, because they didn't HAVE evolution.



That includes, natural selection and evolution, btw.


yes, and darwin quickly switched over to atheism writ polite once he figured out his theory...



That was Stein's point, which you missed.... atheists want t hijack science and destroy the careers of anyone who gets in their way.


yeah... because theists aren't allowed to play in the field of science at all..................................

come on, stop with the persecution complex.



They do it with a smile on their smug little faces, even.


ad hom



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 01:34 PM
link   
For anyone who says that ID is a science -- here are words straight from the leader of the ID movement's mouth, in February 2000, in Anaheim, CA, at the National Religious Broadcaster's conference:




"Christians in the twentieth century have been playing defense. They've been fighting a defensive war to defend what they have, to defend as much of it as they can. It never turns the tide. What we're trying to do is something entirely different. We're trying to go into enemy territory, their very center, and blow up the ammunition dump. What is their ammunition dump in this metaphor? It is their version of creation. ... This isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science ... It's about religion and philosophy."

Phillip Johnson


ID is not science. the guy who made it up even said so.

To call it science is either because someone is lying, or they've been lied to and bought into the lie.

ID is creationism. Which is not science, and therefore is not even in the same playing field as science.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by MajorMalfunction
 


Some of the best evidence that it's all about jay-sus is provided by the book 'Of pandas and people'. Before the 1987 court case under its various guises (e.g., 'biology and origin'), we had:


Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc


Then after creationism was defeated so clearly, in 1989 the book suddenly had:


Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc


Just a rebranding really.

But, anyway, closer to the topic. Great to see ID in the media again, not surprised it made zero impact in science, these guys can't even publish work in their own journal, heh, that's how persecuted they are...

PCID hasn't had one issue since november 2005, must be in their top-secret ID labs reducing complexity and violating SLOT. When they're not doing PR, writing books, and engaging in 'street theatre', of course.

[edit on 23-8-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Rren, I am glad you posted on this matter. There is a bigger issue here than the employability of scientists who hold theist or deist beliefs.

It is the issue of acceptance of different points of view in the scientific community and it is about freedom. It is about the fundamental freedom that should be allowed to scientists to express their opinions about phenomena in the light of their own theoretical beliefs. Gonzalez seemed to be the sort of man who could attract funding easily, yet he was not one of the 91% or so to attract tenure. The word witchunt comes to mind.

I just wonder how Copernicus would have felt in a similar situation?

The fundamental criterion by which Science can be questioned, hypothetico-deductive Science, is by falsifiability. None other than Popper considered Science to be placed in human endeavours such as philosophy because he considered it unlikely that scientists could truly achieve objective hypotheses - they are truly value-laden and subjective. The deductive outcomes of experiment, therefore are similarly value-laden and subjective. The only way for mainstream Science to truly take on ID is to consider its falsifiability as a whole - not to nitpick at its weak points.

From my modest reading, I think Behe should have read slightly wider with regard to the argument about the Plasmodium falciparum mutations. However, he has a serious point about IC when we consider human evolution as a seriously unique event (human consciousness and human language are difficult things to explain anyway).

We can consider that the really serious challenge to 'conventional' evolution comes from Molecular Biology. Oh yes, I know that the flagellar motor can operate with fewer proteins etc... but once evolutionary science can approach the molecular nature of cell, tissue and organ evolution, we can approach a falsifiability of ID. That time is not likely to arise in the conceivable future.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Heronumber0
 


science has NO PROBLEM with multiple points of view, in fact, it encourages them!

theistic and deistic scientists are still employabe
and the only real problem here is that creationism (id writ truthfully) isn't a real science

mel addressed gonzales

now, i'm not sure if you're hinting that evolution needs to explain away the origin of the first cell... but if you are, you're wrong. evolutionary theory only touches off where life begins.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heronumber0
we can approach a falsifiability of ID. That time is not likely to arise in the conceivable future.


ID can never be falsified. It's basically magic. How can you falsify magic?

Just like I can say that hurricane dean (?) was a natural event, someone else can say it was god's will, he think 'n poofed it into existence.

Lets just say it was 'think 'n poofed' for certain. How would we know? How would we falsifiy the 'think 'n poof' event?

How would it look different from a normal hurricane. Magic can account for anything, anywhere, anytime.

ID offers nothing to science. It's philosophy.

As for Gonzalez, he had years to attract some real funding and failed. Tenure is a job for life, a university needs to ensure those it gives tenure have a good chance of going on to be productive independent researchers. I guess Gonzalez failed to live up to his promise.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 09:55 PM
link   



science has NO PROBLEM with multiple points of view, in fact, it encourages them!


MIMS I wish I could agree. However, I recall a Nature article from last year where Dawkins railed on against the employment of believer scientists. It was a minority view, granted, but he has influence. All I tried to say was that you cannot dismiss alternative theories out of hand.


theistic and deistic scientists are still employabe
and the only real problem here is that creationism (id writ truthfully) isn't a real science
As long as they keep their heads down?



now, i'm not sure if you're hinting that evolution needs to explain away the origin of the first cell... but if you are, you're wrong. evolutionary theory only touches off where life begins.


Not that old chestnut! I am not referring to cellular origin but at how tissues and organs are selected for by simultaneous or accumulated mutation. However, melatonin pointed out 'organiser' proteins that can have a huge effect on morphology and pathology of tissues. The natural selection of changes is still problematic.

I actually spent a lot of time looking up theories about first cell origins (Wachterhauser hypothesis, LUCA etc...) but I am saying that Behe STILL makes valid points at the molecular level which are not sufficiently well explained by referring to fish analogies. For example his theory about how photons of light are detected by the eye requires a ready made spectrum of proteins and free energy generation in order for light to be detected.

I think my original point about falsifiability still stands in the realm of molecular science. This is the realm where ID may be falsified and we have to look elsewhere.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 10:24 PM
link   


ID can never be falsified. It's basically magic. How can you falsify magic?

Just like I can say that hurricane dean (?) was a natural event, someone else can say it was god's will, he think 'n poofed it into existence.

Lets just say it was 'think 'n poofed' for certain. How would we know? How would we falsifiy the 'think 'n poof' event?


I was actually referring to verifiable/falsifiable events such as the generation and reformation of pigments and photoreceptor molecules for example. Behe does have valuable points to make about the molecular evolution of organ systems though. It is a problem for molecular evolutionists to discuss and research.



ID offers nothing to science. It's philosophy.

Science is a natural philosophy as you well know being a scientist. Popper claimed that due to its value-laden nature, it has little right to be regarded as outside the remit of other human activities - except in its falsifiability. If ID can be completely falsified, then it can be demoted to general philosophy and stay in that category.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heronumber0
I was actually referring to verifiable/falsifiable events such as the generation and reformation of pigments and photoreceptor molecules for example. Behe does have valuable points to make about the molecular evolution of organ systems though. It is a problem for molecular evolutionists to discuss and research.


The only use of ID was to focus some research away from where it was, to where IDers see gaps.

Thus, now we know a bit more about flagella than we did 10 years ago.



Science is a natural philosophy as you well know being a scientist. Popper claimed that due to its value-laden nature, it has little right to be regarded as outside the remit of other human activities - except in its falsifiability. If ID can be completely falsified, then it can be demoted to general philosophy and stay in that category.


But we can't completely falsify it. That's the point. We can falsify certain aspects. For example, Behe says that blood clotting is IC and couldn't have evolved, we show lots of evidence of simpler versions. We falsify that claim. But ID still stands.

Even IC isn't an issue for evolution, it was predicted decades ago from an evolutionary persepctive. The human ear is an IC system (i.e. if I remove a part, you go deaf), but we also have good evidence that evolved.

Science was based in natural philosophy, but it goes further than philosophy ever did.

[edit on 24-8-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

The only use of ID was to focus some research away from where it was, to where IDers see gaps.

Thus, now we know a bit more about flagella than we did 10 years ago.



ID may be a philosophy but philosophy, as Hegel demanded it, is an ultimate enquiry into the nature of human knowledge, it pursues all epistemological constructs to their hiding places and exposes rational dissonance.



But we can't completely falsify it. That's the point. We can falsify certain aspects. For example, Behe says that blood clotting is IC and couldn't have evolved, we show lots of evidence of simpler versions. We falsify that claim. But ID still stands.


melatonin, you cannot completely falsify anything. Surely this is why there will always be debate about the origin of life. Of course there are gaps in knowledge but humans need answers in their short life spans. Most of us cannot wait for another hundred years can we? Does Behe say blood clotting in HUMANS is IC? Humans are not puffer fish or sharks...


Even IC isn't an issue for evolution, it was predicted decades ago from an evolutionary persepctive. The human ear is an IC system (i.e. if I remove a part, you go deaf), but we also have good evidence that evolved.


Can't understand your point here. Can you clarify?



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heronumber0
melatonin, you cannot completely falsify anything. Surely this is why there will always be debate about the origin of life. Of course there are gaps in knowledge but humans need answers in their short life spans. Most of us cannot wait for another hundred years can we? Does Behe say blood clotting in HUMANS is IC? Humans are not puffer fish or sharks...


Why not wait? Is saying 'we don't know' such a problem? Or do we need definite answers to all questions, even when we have little insight into them? Is ambiguity and uncertainity such a problem? If it makes you feel better, place god in the gaps, many people do.

Anyway, if we can show simpler versions of particular systems doing the same or similar function, or providing completely different functions, we can see how the complexity can evolve.

That is, it started simple and got more complex over time. And I'm sure you know that fish are suggested to be an evolutionary ancestor. So, if fish can survive without the more complex clotting system we have, it's likely that a fishy ancestor can do the same.


Can't understand your point here. Can you clarify?


That, essentially, IC-like systems are expected in evolution, and provide no great hurdle or problem. And, further, that IC doesn't even support ID, it's really just an attempt to provide a negative test of evolution, and not really a good one.

So, if we find an IC system. Firstly, it could have evolved. Secondly, it provides no support for ID.

ID is nothing more than a rehash of Paley. It can never be falsified, and is therefore not science.

Just read the Dover testimony. ID was laid bare.

[edit on 25-8-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 09:42 AM
link   
The supernatural is not the fallback position when there is no answer. Science just keeps looking for an answer. So far, in every single thing we've worked out a proper answer for, there has been no supernatural driving force behind it.

Science does not deal in the supernatural. ID does. ID is not science. It is religion disguised as science, which makes people who claim it is equal to science either 1) deluded and misled by the people who sold them on the idea in the first place or, 2) outright liars who are well aware of the true agenda of ID and insist it's a science anyway.

The first group of people can be forgiven for their ignorance to a point: up to the point where they are told the truth and refuse to listen to it, much less understand it, but the second group -- who are Christians to a man -- are breaking the one of the main laws of their religion -- "Thou shalt not bear false witness." Which makes them not only liars, but hypocrites and poor Christians.

ID is not science. There is no argument on this point. The founder of the movement himself said it. If the founder said it, it is the truth -- ID is meant to put religion into the hands of people who otherwise would not be interested. Everyone who has fallen for this crock has been badly used and made a fool of.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join