Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/ ^

Posted on 11/01/2007 5:53:26 PM PDT by truthfinder9

This will be interesting, a documentary movie by Ben Stein on the new wave of thought police and academic suppression in academia and science:

Ben Stein, in the new film EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed

His heroic and, at times, shocking journey confronting the world’s top scientists, educators and philosophers, regarding the persecution of the many by an elite few.

In theatres near you, starting February 2008

Ben travels the world on his quest, and learns an awe-inspiring truth…that bewilders him, then angers him…and then spurs him to action!

Ben realizes that he has been “Expelled,” and that educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired – for the “crime” of merely believing that there might be evidence of “design” in nature, and that perhaps life is not just the result of accidental, random chance.

To which Ben Says: "Enough!" And then gets busy. NOBODY messes with Ben.

***

At Big Science Academy we take our motto seriously: “No Intelligence Allowed.” And this year, we are proud to report that in every subject but Science, students and faculty are free to challenge ideas, and seek truth wherever it may lead.

But Science is different. In Science, there is no room for dissent, for dissent is dangerous. That is why we at Big Science simply refuse to allow it. Like dancing, “dissent” can lead to other things.

As Class President Richard Dawkins put it so well: “Shut up!”

As you know…last year we had the misfortune of “presupposition of design” rearing its ugly head, with several students challenging Neo-Darwinian materialism, and arguing incessantly for the right to examine Intelligent Design.

They were all Expelled, of course – but still: it just goes to show where academic freedom can lead, if not shut down immediately!

Sincerely,

Charles Darwin Principal, President, Admissions and Diversity Affairs Officer, Big Science Academy “No Intelligence Allowed”


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: benstein; education; expelled; highereducation; id; intelligentdesign; moviereview; religion; science; stein; universities
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-271 next last
To: js1138

Apparently you don’t understand what a tautology is. The question of the particular mechanism for survival is beside the point. The point is that “fitness” is defined in terms of survival, and survival is explained in terms of “fitness.” That’s a tautology.

I’m not claiming that the theory of evolution is nothing but a tautology. I am merely saying that it can be cynically viewed as a tautology just as easily as ID can, if not more so. People in glass houses should avoid throwing stones.


51 posted on 11/02/2007 11:48:01 AM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: RussP

ID is vacuous, if not tautological for the reasons I have given. Mainstream theory of evolution makes specific statements about how genomes change over time. ID makes no such statements. It says nothing about how or why genomes change over time.


52 posted on 11/02/2007 12:55:20 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: js1138

We have no naturalistic explanation for the first living cell, nor are within a billion light years of one. Furthermore, mathematical analyses have demonstrated over and over beyond any reasonable doubt that it could not possibly have come about by purely naturalistic mechanisms. The only other logical possibility is intelligent design.

People like you simply close your eyes and then insist that the world is dark. Your thought process is what is “vacuous.”


53 posted on 11/02/2007 1:04:44 PM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: RussP

Russ, would you mind explaining how ID can be disproven?


54 posted on 11/02/2007 1:05:57 PM PDT by Shryke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: RussP
We have no naturalistic explanation for the first living cell, nor are within a billion light years of one. Furthermore, mathematical analyses have demonstrated over and over beyond any reasonable doubt that it could not possibly have come about by purely naturalistic mechanisms.

I wouldn't expect a mathematical analysis to solve a novel problem in chemistry, but I expect progress by actual chemists to continue.

Are you using light year as a unit of time, or of distance? It's hard to tell from the context.

Are you suggesting that unsolved problems in science should be abandoned? What about unsolved problems in medicine?

55 posted on 11/02/2007 1:12:32 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: RussP
But I.D. doesn’t just posit that abiogenesis is impossible by naturalistic means, they say that the biological innovation necessary for common descent requires the intervention of a ‘designer’.
56 posted on 11/02/2007 2:00:05 PM PDT by allmendream (A binary modality is a sure sign you don't understand the problem. (Hunter 08))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Shryke

“Russ, would you mind explaining how ID can be disproven?”

I’ll make a deal with you. First, you tell me how the random origin of the first living cell can be disproven, then I’ll tell you how ID can be disproven.

Disproving the random origin of the first living cell is a bit like disproving the idea that the entire text of the Gettysburg Address once appeared randomly on the Sahara desert due to random winds.

People who reject ID a priori don’t seem to understand what they are buying into.


57 posted on 11/02/2007 2:45:19 PM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: js1138

“Are you using light year as a unit of time, or of distance? It’s hard to tell from the context.”

Give me a break. It’s an expression.

“Are you suggesting that unsolved problems in science should be abandoned? What about unsolved problems in medicine?”

Non sequiter


58 posted on 11/02/2007 2:47:01 PM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: RussP

No, what you cited is circular reasoning. A tautology is a compound proposition’s truth value being unconditionally true regardless of the truth value of the propositions components.


59 posted on 11/02/2007 4:35:31 PM PDT by raygun ("I know its none of of my businesst, but" should immediately be punctuated with a period..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Frumious Bandersnatch
Its absolutely untrue that a rational reason must need be offered with respect to disbelief. However, the converse is NOT true, and a rational reason FOR belief in anything must be offered.

In logical debate, the burden of proof is always upon the person making the positive assertion. This principle is rather simple, but also rather deceptive. There exists a standard formation of a question to determine whether or not the proposition is indeed a positive assertion. As a common example, many people claim that those who claim that gods do not exist have the burden of proof, just as much in fact as those who claim that gods do exist. First of all, it should be perfectly clear to all that those who claim that "gods exist" have the burden of proof. However, those who claim that "gods do not exist" are in fact making an assertion, but a negative one. The standard formation of the assertion is Not There Exists gods. From this formation, it becomes clear that although it is indeed an assertion, it is not a positive assertion and does not in argument have the full burden of proof. However, the burden of proof may be properly shifted to such a person however if a prima facie case is established, which brings us to the next point.

Some people do not really understand the why on that last point, so I shall attempt to explain further. The reason that a negative claim does not have the full burden of proof is because of the fact that they are claiming something to be false. To prove that in science is nearly impossible. While that hardly excuses a proposition, it is however a form of default position. If one assumes that things are false until shown otherwise, one is not likely to believe a positive assertion without reason, and that is part of the point of having the burden of proof--to avoid believing something is established when it has not yet been so. However, one is in danger of believing something false that is true, for this reason, there is some burden of proof on the belief in the negative. Again, the burden is to establish a prima facie case in support of ones position. Once one has done that, then one has established at least a reasonable reason for ones position. The phrase Burden of Proof is deceptive, for it doesn't mean rock solid proof, it means establishing of a rational case in defense of the position.

A prima facie case means a case that is sufficiently developed to require a response. This may mean a little or a lot. The claim is established to the point that if no refutation is offered, it stands in debate. As a general rule, it is better to err on the side of granting a prima facie case when one might not exist, than to allow a prima facie case to go unchallenged.

A proof is an argument that establishes that its conclusion must be true. A standard of proof is a formulation identifying the types of facts needed to establish a conclusion on a given subject matter. In general: the burden of proof is on the party claiming to know something (or making a positive assertion). The onus then falls upon the other party to refute either the logical inference of the conclusion to the premises, the validity of the argument, or its soundness.

Scientists who shift the burden of proof onto their critics by claiming they are correct if they haven’t be refuted, are guilty of the fallacy of drawing a conclusion from false assignment of burden of proof.

An arbitrary assertion is a claim devised entirely by the imagination, but asserted in defiance of the need for evidence. Arbitrary assertions of possibility shift "burden of proof" from "burden to provide evidence" to burden to discount imagination. Scientists sometimes say theories must be “falsifiable” to be admissible: really possibilities should be based on evidence to begin with, not arbitrary assertions. Recall that "proof" means ruling out possible conclusions consistent with the evidence.

A rational argument is one in which a reason or evidence is presented for which a reasonable inference can be made concerning a proposition. For a rational deductive argument to be considered valid, it must be impossible for the conclusion to be false given the premises. A sound argument is one which is valid and the premises are in fact true, and so the conclusion necessarily follows.

Inductive arguments on the other hand concern themselves with probabilities, i.e., given certain premises, the infered conclusion is improbable to be false. If the conclusion more likely than not follows the premise, then the inductive argument is considered strong. However, if the conclusion is not more likely to follow the premise, then the inductive argument is considered weak. A further distinction is made with respect to inductive arguments in that if a strong inductive argument's premise is indeed true, then the argument is considered to be cogent. All weak inductive arguments are considered to be uncogent.

Inductive arguments are subject to erosion however. Given that 9:10 Englishmen smoke a pipe, and Bob is an Englishman, then Bob smokes a pipe is a cogent inductive argument. However, if I add the premise that Bob belongs to Englishmen-Against-Smoking Association, then the argument becomes uncogent (in that it went from strong to a weak argument). Deductive arguments on the other hand are erosion proof. For example, if you're pregnant, then you're a woman. You're pregnant. Therefore, you are a woman. If it rains the streets get wet. It rained today. Therefore, the streets are wet today. For unsound or valid deductive arguments erosion is irrelevent. If it rains the streets are wet. The streets are wet. Therefore it rained. This is NOT an erosion issue.

The issue pertaining to the ID/Darwanist debate pertains to causality, i.e., the origin of species. All reasoning with respect to causal conclusions is ultimately inductive. To be fallacious, a causal argument must violate the canons of good reasoning about causation in some common or deceptive way.

Causal conclusions can take one of two forms:

  1. Event-Level: reasoning that establishes cause of a particular event in terms of dependence on other specific events. Mistakes about event-level causation are the result of confusing coincidence with causation.
  2. Type-Level: Here, we are not talking about a causal relation holding between two particular events, but the general causal relation holding between instances of two types of events. Mistakes about type-level causation are the result of confusing correlation with causation. Two types of events may occur simultaneously, or one type always following the other type, without there being a causal relation between them.
It could be argued that proponents of ID aren't refuting Darwanists, but are making their own positive assertion. In philosophy positive assertions are considered false by default, unless compelling evidence or reasons are presented to the affirmative. Any argument FOR ID must be careful in its reasoning with respect to any argument AGAINST evolution (especially any argument predicated on a basis of ignorance), and must stand on its own merits (or not). An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence.

It is a logical mistake to assert that because a phenomenon is unpredictable (or inexplicable) by current scientific theories, that a better scientific theory cannot be found that provides an adequate natural explanatory model for the phenomena in question; and that therefore, one must assert that the only viable explanation of the unexplained phenomena is supernatural action. This variant is known as the God-of-the-gaps argument.

It is reasonable to, at least provisionally, reject an improbable proposition for which no adequate evidence has been presented. So, if it can be shown that all of the common arguments for a certain proposition are fallacious, and the burden of proof is on the proposition's proponents, then one does NOT commit a fallacy of Argumentum ad Logicam (Fallacy fallacy) by rejecting the proposition. Rather, the fallacy is committed when one jumps to the conclusion that just because one argument for it is fallacious, then no cogent argument for it can exist.

Statements which begin: "It is hard to see how...," "I cannot understand how...," or "it is obvious that..." (if obvious is being used to introduce a conclusion rather than specific evidence in support of a particular view), are usually the foundations for fallacies of the type Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, and specifically the fallacy of the sub-type "argument from personal incredulity". This is the case if the person making the assertion has solely their particular personal belief in the impossibility of the one scenario as "evidence" that their alternative scenario is true (the proponent lacking relevant evidence specifically for the alternative scenario).

Quite commonly, the argument from personal incredulity is used in combination with some evidence in an attempt to sway opinion towards a preferred conclusion. However, it becomes a logical fallacy to the degree that the personal incredulity is offered as further "evidence." In such an instance, the person making the argument has inserted a personal bias in an attempt to strengthen the argument for acceptance of her or his preferred conclusion.

Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer. Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, believe the designer to be God. Advocates of intelligent design claim it is a scientific theory, and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.

However, science is utterly mute with respect to the supernatural; there's nothing that it can say about it. It can't confirm it empirically, and it can't logically deny it. The supernatural is entirely outside of its purvue, and is opposed on two accounts.

  1. the supernatural is contrary to natural law (with which science is exclusively focused upon); the scientific method is concerned exclusively with quantitative qualities used to measure nature, and prediction which is a central tenet of science. Science deals with the stable (that which is unstable is attempted to be stabilized), the repetative, the observable, and unified data by striving to explain as much as possible under general principles.
  2. its limitations; Whatever is genuinely novel or unpredictable is not capable of genuine scientific treatment (genuine novelty science cannot understand). Qualities can be stated in terms of quantities, but the quantity is NOT the quality of a natural phenomenon. A deaf man can learn the physics of sound, and may photograph a pattern of a given note of the scale and see it, and it can be empirically ascertained the number of impulses traveling along the auditory nerves for a given frequency. However, none of these quantifications are qualities. The genuine individuality of the personality can not be comprehended by science. Orderliness of nature is an absolutely central presupposition. Not only are elements and processes constant throughout the universe, they are constant throughout time (why this is so is unexplained but it is considered to be an unshakeable foundation of science). The integrity of the human personality must be presupposed. If a scientist's mind is constantly playing tricks on him, they could not perform experiments, nor reason, and any mistakes that he makes he's certain its assumed that somebody else will have the rationality to detect them. If the scientist is careful enough, they should be able to add up the figures correctly. The scientists memory must be trusted with unabashed confidence. Even so, why the scientist is even able to depend on his rationality and/or memory is not explained. Furthermore, science absolutely depends on a theory of truth, but no experiment can be devised to verify it.
ID is semantically identical to the Clockmaker hypothesis. Some proponents of ID may claim that this is compatible with the theory of evolution (evolution through natural selection might be a process pre-ordained by God in order to carry through his act of creation). However, as the hypothesis is worded, with events that take place outside of the universe, it is not testable and is therefore unfalsifiable. In other words, there is no experiment that can be created to disprove the existence of this "clockmaker" (in that they purportedly exist outside of the universe). Falsifiability is essential in forming a scientific hypothesis, so the Clockmaker hypothesis is not a hypothesis in the scientific sense of the word (and by extension neither can ID be). Without the existance of a "Clockmaker", where does the intelligence for the purported design come from? It would beg the question of where does the clockmaker of ID's proposition live? If the Clockmaker lives within the universe, it can not be responsible for the universe, and this then begs the question of how did the Clockmaker come into existance.

The unscientific aspect of the ID proposition notwithstanding, nothing can be said in an absolute sense regarding the truth value of the propostition. The converse is also true however, in that despite the inherent scientific nature of the theory of evolution, nothing is known whatsoever regarding the truth value of its proposition. Despite a monumental mountain of evidence in support of the inference made for the proposition, its at best inductive logic (and could very well be false regardless of the probabilities). At the same time probabilities have been calculated with respect to processes and events with respect to the mechanics of evolution that have been found to be staggeringly inconceivably improbable. If on the one hand I point to mind boggling quantity of evidence FOR, and yet rational mathematics suggests it to be virtually impossible, am I left with I can't understand how it can be false so therefor it must be true? Isn't that fallacial reasoning?

Its been said that faith is reasonable because there's plenty of evidence for it (even so such evidence can never prove the cause). The converse is however NOT true, in that reason to exist by reason alone does not exist. Quite frankly I accept both propositions to be true in and so far that evolution is limited and constrained in accordance to the tenets of my Christian faith. Scripture is not only literally true, but its Absolutely True. Evolution on the other hand is only provisionally true in so far as the present state of scientific refinement of the model of the hypothesis.

60 posted on 11/02/2007 4:53:28 PM PDT by raygun ("I know its none of of my businesst, but" should immediately be punctuated with a period..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: js1138; RussP
To the best of my knowledge, ID asserts that some unspecified entity or entities, having unspecified capabilities and limitations, did some unspecified thing or things at unspecified times and places, for unspecified reasons, using unspecified methods.

If that is the "best" of your "knowledge," trying doing some research, the scientists over at the RTB think tank have postulated a testable design model that specifies those things, see:

Creation As Science: A Testable Model Approach to End the Creation/evolution Wars

http://www.amazon.com/Creation-As-Science-Testable-evolution/dp/1576835782/

and:

Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off

http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Life-Biblical-Evolutionary-Models/dp/1576833445/

Evolution has completely failed to describe or explain the initial origin of life. Kind of undermines the whole theory deosn't it?

And another problem evolution consistently fails at explaining, is man's origin:

Who Was Adam?: A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Was-Adam-Creation-Approach/dp/1576835774/

61 posted on 11/02/2007 6:38:05 PM PDT by truthfinder9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
"All "dissent" needs to do is bring evidence -- scientific evidence."

And where are they to bring it cman when all the doors are closed to them. When to mention "design" is career suicide.

I've always felt you are an honest observer and respect the way you defend your position, however, perhaps the adherents of your position could benefit from some sincere self examination.

The acadamie is held in low regard, and science, heretofore above the fray, is being dragged down w/ it. The same ostracization that is heaped on ID is being heaped on critics of climate change. The same iron grip. The same "junk".

The only thing evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

62 posted on 11/02/2007 6:51:22 PM PDT by Pietro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9
Evolution has completely failed to describe or explain the initial origin of life. Kind of undermines the whole theory deosn't it?

No. And you know better than to ask such a silly question.

Evolution deals with changes in the genome since the origin of life.

Here are five hypothesis regarding the origin of the first life forms.

Evolution (change in the genome) works just fine with any of these.
63 posted on 11/02/2007 6:51:27 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Pietro
All "dissent" needs to do is bring evidence -- scientific evidence.

And where are they to bring it cman when all the doors are closed to them. When to mention "design" is career suicide.

Perhaps there has not been sufficient evidence presented of a "designer." In the mean time, science has accumulated a huge amount of evidence, while dealing with the natural world, that suggests evolution could have occurred naturally.

I've always felt you are an honest observer and respect the way you defend your position, however, perhaps the adherents of your position could benefit from some sincere self examination.

Appreciate the compliment.

The acadamie is held in low regard, and science, heretofore above the fray, is being dragged down w/ it. The same ostracization that is heaped on ID is being heaped on critics of climate change. The same iron grip. The same "junk".

But there is a difference here. There is evidence either for, or against, the idea of man-made climate change. Like ID, the idea of man-made climate change has been largely pushed by political means. But in the case of man-made climate change, the scientists who oppose the idea are beginning to be heard, and the whole thing is going to crumble in a couple of years.

ID, on the other hand, is really a religious idea masquerading as science. The whole sordid scheme was laid out in the Wedge Strategy, a planning and fund-raising document which unfortunately leaked from the Dyscovery Institute. For additional evidence of this, just use the Wayback Machine and look at the DI website in its early years.

Or, here is a good blog on the subject: Uncloseting the Discovery Institute: The IDea that Dare Not Speak Its Name (Part 1).

64 posted on 11/02/2007 7:02:40 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Saved me the trouble, AND did a better job than I had planned.

Mainstream science does, however has done a lot of productive research on the origin of life, and progress in recent years has been encouraging.

One minor thing that creationists seem unaware of is that replication and Darwinian evolution has been observed in naked RNA molecules — no cellular machinery or cell membrane at all.

And what is the alternative? Stop asking questions? stop being curious? Stop all research on the subject?


65 posted on 11/02/2007 8:30:17 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Pietro
While a person still needs a degree to really get ahead in life, for the most part academia has become not much more than a indoctrination mill, and ‘science’ along with it.

You know, I did some post grad work in a few fields, and saw how much cult and personality driven some of it was, and these were all science fields. There are many reasons people don't get a PHD in some areas, for one maybe they think it is junk.

I wonder if the academics with an agenda really understand just how much of their learning is regurgitated back to them, and then tossed away like the garbage it is just to get the sheepskin.

66 posted on 11/02/2007 8:30:19 PM PDT by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

I haven’t been able to find a summary of the argument proposed in your creation as science book. Perhaps you would be kind enough to give us the argument in your own words.


67 posted on 11/02/2007 8:46:58 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: js1138; Coyoteman
Are you suggesting that is what should happen?

Your pompous sanctimonious attitudes concerning dissent need to cease.

"Difficult as it may be, it is vitally important to separate argument sources and styles from argument content. In argument the medium is not the message." - author unknown
Allow me to be clear, js1138, the remainder of my post is directed at Coyoteman (take it for whatever you will).

Firstly, it is abundently clear to me that your post (#5) is egregiously guilty of an attempt to foist a Genetic Fallacy on the unwashed masses. This is the most general fallacy of irrelevancy involving the origins or history of an idea. It is fallacious to either endorse or condemn an idea based on its past—rather than on its present—merits or demerits, unless its past in some way affects its present value.

Secondly, your post appears to be a protest of sorts respecting Appeal to Misleading Authority in that the "authority" cited is not an expert on the issue, that is, the person who supplies the opinion is not an expert at all, or is one, but in an unrelated area. The now-classic example is this is now cliched television commercial about some actor stating: "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV...." And then actor then proceedes to recommend some brand of medicine.

Well, I'm not an actor, and I've never stayed in a Holidy Inn Express, but I can recognize Poisoning the Well when I see it.

"Poisoning the Well" is not (strictly speaking), a logical fallacy in that it's an actual type of argument. Rather, it is a logical boobytrap set for the unwary to engage in Argumentum ad hominem. As with all forms of the ad hominem, one should keep in mind that an argument can and must stand or fall on its own, regardless of who makes it.

Anyone bold enough to enter a debate which begins with a "well-poisoning" either steps into an insult, or an attack upon one's personal integrity. As with standard ad hominem, the debate is likely to cease to be about its nominal topic and become a debate about the arguer. However, what sets "Poisoning the Well" apart from the standard Ad Hominem is the fact that the poisoning is done before the opponent has a chance to make a case.

You did this early (post #5), and you did this quite subtly, and you did this several times. Your accumen concerning devious debating tactics is commended. However, I can not confer to you any measure of respect concerning that. In my view, perhaps you would increase your debating accumen through use of an "ad hominem argument". That is, in your refutation or rebutal, employ as one (or more) of your premisses those that are accepted by the opposition to argue for your position. In other words, use premisses that your oppostion accepts — whether or not you believe them yourself. This is not necessarily a fallacious argument, and is often rhetorically effective. Not only will you obtain credibility in your opponents view, but it definitely will make you a better debater.

Let me tell you something: we don't need more intelligent, geniuses with puffed up self-centered esteem. Or perhaps the tiny clenched-fisted temper tantrums of a minority should not be listened to because they're just too tiring to deal with, eh? I have none less than 5 links to those asking for prayers for what I'm certain your rational, reasonablness of various categorizations of philosophical sciences can meke everybody feel good.

68 posted on 11/02/2007 9:18:25 PM PDT by raygun ("It is wrong always, everywhere, anf for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: raygun
Let me tell you something: we don't need more intelligent, geniuses with puffed up self-centered esteem. Or perhaps the tiny clenched-fisted temper tantrums of a minority should not be listened to because they're just too tiring to deal with, eh? I have none less than 5 links to those asking for prayers for what I'm certain your rational, reasonablness of various categorizations of philosophical sciences can meke everybody feel good.

I am not sure what the prayers "5 links" means...

The rest of your post is a study in logic, while ignoring the facts.

You trash my post #5 as a "Genetic Fallacy on the unwashed masses" but you offer no substantive rebuttal. Here is the post:

All "dissent" needs to do is bring evidence -- scientific evidence.

But there you encounter the problem: ID is religious belief masquerading as science. It has made a lot of claims, but it has produced no evidence that has withstood scientific scrutiny. Even Behe has backed away from most of his earlier claims.

Look at the efforts of the Dyscovery Institute in support of ID. Check out their blogs. Most are authored by lawyers, with an occasional English major or journalist for diversity. Where is the science? What a joke!

Are you claiming that ID as "dissent" brings scientific evidence?

Are you claiming that ID is not religious belief masquerading as science?

Are you claiming that ID has produced evidence that has withstood scientific scrutiny?

Are you claiming that Behe has not backed away from most of his earlier claims in his recent book?

You have spun a long and interesting post on the rules of logic, but you have not linked that logic to the real world (my post) in any substantive way.

Good debate tactics, but lousy science.

We are back to where I started: All "dissent" needs to do is bring evidence -- scientific evidence.

69 posted on 11/02/2007 9:34:19 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

“Are you claiming that ID as “dissent” brings scientific evidence?”

You wouldn’t know “scientific evidence” if it bit you on the rear end.

“This most elegant system of the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen without the design and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.” —Sir Isaac Newton, The Principia

“Overwhelmingly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us.” —Lord Kelvin

“The Darwinian theory has become an all-purpose obstacle to thought rather than an enabler of scientific advance.” —Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel-laureate physicist

“So if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of in pondering this issue over quite a long time seems to me to have anything like as high a possibility of being true. ... The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.” —Sir Fred Hoyle, British astonomer, from a lecture in 1982 (1824-1907)


70 posted on 11/02/2007 10:12:58 PM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

I wouldn’t go bragging too much about how you’re not getting the responses you’re looking for (or imagine you’re not), considering you haven’t replied to a single point I made in post #32. I’m guessing it has something to do with not being able to dismiss everything I say on the basis that I’m religious.

Qwinn


71 posted on 11/03/2007 3:20:10 AM PDT by Qwinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: RussP
“Overwhelmingly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us.” —Lord Kelvin

"Malaria was intentionally designed. The molecular machinery with which the parasite invades red blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts. (...) What sort of designer is that? What sort of "fine-tuning" leads to untold human misery? To countless mothers mourning countless children? Did a hateful, malign being make intelligent life in order to torture it? One who relishes cries of pain? Maybe. Maybe not." (Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, p.237)

72 posted on 11/03/2007 5:48:43 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: RussP
None of those statements were regarding Scientific evidence. I myself feel that the symmetry of the universe speaks of the obviousness of a creator, but I do not confuse my feelings about predictable phenomena and forces with actual data about how those laws and forces came about. Moreover, I.D. is a retreat from the path of these noble men of Science who sought to explain how the universe was laid out UTILIZING THOSE PREDICTABLE PHENOMENA AND FORCES, not assumed that it was Incompetently Designed and that ‘the designer’ had to fill in the cracks by hand or push things in the desired direction utilizing celestial powers of unknown and unmeasurable quality.

That is why Incompetent Design is not Science and is anti-Scientific in its goals, outlook, and philosophy.

73 posted on 11/03/2007 5:49:38 AM PDT by allmendream (A binary modality is a sure sign you don't understand the problem. (Hunter 08))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

“None of those statements were regarding Scientific evidence.”

Baloney. These men were some of the greatest scientists of all time, and they were commenting on what they had learned from their studies of nature. If that is not “scientific evidence,” then “scientific evidence” does not exist.

And what I find interesting is that, in the case of Newton and Kelvin, they made those statements before we had much of an understanding of the amazing complexity of every living cell. Just imagine how much more convinced they would be of ID if they knew about that.

I must admit that I am perplexed by people like you. Whenever I post these quotes, I get people who, through some sort of mental acrobatics that must be painful, manage to reject those quotes as the most straightforward testimonials in favor of ID that could possibly be made.


74 posted on 11/03/2007 10:52:27 AM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: RussP
...the most straightforward testimonials in favor of ID that could possibly be made.

Testimonials are not evidence, and certainly not scientific evidence.

Testimonials are not necessarily even accurate.

If you want to do science, bring evidence.

75 posted on 11/03/2007 10:55:14 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Coyoteman, I must tell you that people like you who can’t see the “evidence” for intelligent design actually frighten me.

The simplest known living cell is perhaps more complex than all of man’s technology, and we are virtually clueless about how it could have come into existence by purely naturalistic, random mechanisms ... but you don’t see any “evidence” of ID.

And the idea that we understand how the evolution of complex organs occurred is nonsense.

Several months ago, I challenged someone here on FR to cite a peer-reviewed scientific paper explaining *in detail* how the human ear evolved or could have evolved.

What happened? Someone provided a link to a little three-page document that simply glossed over the problem at a very high level. But all evolutionists need is the slightest hint of plausibility, and they are satisfied that their theory is rock solid. They are absolutely deluded.

Oh, and some bozo here on FR snickered about how embarrassed I must be for not finding the three-page paper on the ear, as though the link even remotely answered my challenge. But that’s the kind of baloney that occurs constantly.

The slightest hint of plausibility is taken as a “mountain of evidence” in favor of Darwinian evolution, but *real* “mountains of evidence” for ID are casually dismissed with a wave of the hand.

People who cannot recognize the overwhelming evidence of ID in nature are frightening. You close your eyes and then proclaim that the world is dark, and no one can convince you otherwise. What scares me is what other absurdities you are willing to believe.


76 posted on 11/03/2007 12:43:01 PM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: RussP
Only if I.D. was synonymous with the idea that the universe was designed. I think such is also the case, but I don’t believe what I.D. goes on to claim, which is that the biological innovation necessary for common descent requires the intervention of the ‘designer’ to guide the process. Newton and Kelvin didn’t invoke divine intervention in their calculations, they were doing Science. I.D. is invoking ‘god of the gaps’ but needs to also invent the gap.
77 posted on 11/03/2007 3:04:05 PM PDT by allmendream (A binary modality is a sure sign you don't understand the problem. (Hunter 08))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: RussP
I must admit that I am perplexed by people like you. Whenever I post these quotes, I get people who, through some sort of mental acrobatics that must be painful, manage to reject those quotes as the most straightforward testimonials in favor of ID that could possibly be made.

The fact that you resort to "straightforward testimonials in favor of ID", when asked for scientific evidence for ID, rather explains your perplexity, don't you think?

78 posted on 11/03/2007 3:41:58 PM PDT by disrgr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: RussP
People who reject ID a priori don’t seem to understand what they are buying into.

You are omitting something very crucial: people reject ID as a scientific theory. ID may very well be the origin of life. It is, however, fundamentally unscientific. I'll offer a retort:

People that embrace ID as a scientific theory have no idea what science is. Or, perhaps, don't care.

79 posted on 11/03/2007 6:52:22 PM PDT by Shryke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Shryke
You are omitting something very crucial: people reject ID as a scientific theory.

On the other hand, creationists accept the concept of ID, and use the political movement supporting ID as justification for their beliefs.

The current iteration of ID, pushed largely by the Dyscovery Institute, is 1) an attempt to "wedge" religion back into schools, and 2) an attempt to pretend creationism is supported by science, when it is not.

80 posted on 11/03/2007 7:07:42 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Shryke
You are omitting something very crucial: people reject ID as a scientific theory. ID may very well be the origin of life. It is, however, fundamentally unscientific.

OK, for giggles let's go with ID is THE mechanism for the OOL.

We'll also go with your statement that ID is fundamentally unscientific.

So, in effect, we have placed limits on the search for knowledge.

Our problem is that given the proposition that ID is THE mechanism for the OOL, we have placed the truth off limits to science.

You see a problem there?

81 posted on 11/03/2007 7:18:52 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
On the other hand, creationists accept the concept of ID, and use the political movement supporting ID as justification for their beliefs.

This assertion is, of course, nonsense. The only Justification us evil creationists are concerned with in matters of faith is that bestowed upon us by God. It's really a pretty simple concept.

82 posted on 11/03/2007 7:23:58 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
OK, for giggles let's go with ID is THE mechanism for the OOL. We'll also go with your statement that ID is fundamentally unscientific. So, in effect, we have placed limits on the search for knowledge. Our problem is that given the proposition that ID is THE mechanism for the OOL, we have placed the truth off limits to science. You see a problem there?

No, I do not. Because human science will never, ever, be able to grasp, much less measure or predict, God. Do you see a problem?

83 posted on 11/03/2007 7:49:15 PM PDT by Shryke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Shryke

Yup, guys like you who seek to place arbitrary limits on those seeking knowledge.


84 posted on 11/03/2007 8:26:11 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Yup, guys like you who seek to place arbitrary limits on those seeking knowledge.

That's really funny. What is your opinion of those seeking to figure out a naturalistic scenario for the origin of life?

85 posted on 11/03/2007 8:53:45 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: RussP; Coyoteman; MHGinTN

While I am convinced that order and complexity are evidences of intelligence and design, I am also convinced that randomness is not evidence of lack of intelligence or design.

The world is chock full of order and complexity that are known to have intelligence as it’s cause. Sometimes we know who the designer is, sometimes just that it’s a human; intelligent nevertheless. This establishes a precedent that can lead one to conclude that where order and complexity exist and the designer is not known, a designer was necessary.

Likewise, randomness is no evidence of lack of intelligence or design. Randomness is used by people in something as simple as a random number generator. It can be designed in systems where variety or unpredictability is needed.

There is no situation where randomness can be used to demonstrate lack of intelligence or design where it is not assumed to start with. The best anyone can do is say that they don’t know if there was intelligence behind either the order and complexity, or the randomness.

You can’t support an argument by assuming the conclusion. It’s not logical to say that because there’s no evidence for a designer, you have to assume there isn’t one and then say that randomness is therefore proof that there’s no designer.

Evos are always looking for *scientific* evidence only for a designer, yet they provide no evidence to disprove a creator, nor do they give any idea of what they would consider *scientific* evidence to show one. What is offered as patently obvious to the most casual observer, that is order and complexity, is considered *unscientific* for some reason. Both can be observed, measured, tested for. What else do scientists want?


86 posted on 11/03/2007 8:54:04 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

And science masquerades as the elitist avenue to enlightenment. Back at ya. What a joke.


87 posted on 11/03/2007 8:56:05 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: js1138
That's really funny.

Well a bad sense of humor is better than none at all I suppose.

What is your opinion of those seeking to figure out a naturalistic scenario for the origin of life?

The same as it has always been, I don't limit the search for knowledge. I also don't feel any threat by those searches.

Try it, it's liberating.

88 posted on 11/03/2007 8:58:16 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

I’m not quite sure what you mean. I hve consistently asked ID supporters what their research program is, and what theory they would teach to explain changes in populations.


89 posted on 11/03/2007 9:15:01 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Yup, guys like you who seek to place arbitrary limits on those seeking knowledge.

What arbitrary limits have I put? Are you suggesting that science can measure/predict/test God?

I think you are under the assumption that everything which is "true" must be part of science. Is that the case?

90 posted on 11/03/2007 10:12:11 PM PDT by Shryke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Shryke

“No, I do not. Because human science will never, ever, be able to grasp, much less measure or predict, God. Do you see a problem?”

Science does not necessarily need to “grasp, much less measure or predict, God” to detect evidence of intelligent design. Why some people have such a hard time grasping this concept is beyond me. Does SETI need to identify the source of an message from space to determine that the message came from an intelligent source? Of course not.

Oh, by the way, British Astronomer Fred Hoyle believed strongly in ID even though he also professed to be an atheist. So obviously he didn’t think that ID necessarily implies that God is the Intelligent Designer.


91 posted on 11/03/2007 10:26:01 PM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: disrgr

“The fact that you resort to “straightforward testimonials in favor of ID”, when asked for scientific evidence for ID, rather explains your perplexity, don’t you think?”

I have repeatedly offered the complexity of the simplest known living cell as an example of “evidence” of ID. But you and others here steadfastly refuse to pay attention. Perhaps intelligence is required to identify intelligent design, and perhaps you guys don’t have it. I just don’t know how else to explain your invincible ignorance on the matter.

Science certainly cannot explain how the first cell came into existence by purely naturalistic, random mechanisms. And the problem is not just that we “haven’t yet figured it out.” Mathematicians have proved that the first cell is extremely unlikely to have come to be by random mechanisms. And I mean unlikely as in 10**(-10,000,000) or less, or zero probability for all practical purposes.

To my way of thinking, the fact that we cannot explain the cell without resort to ID is strong evidence if not proof of ID in nature.

Perhaps you disagree, but will you at least quit claiming falsely that I have offered no “evidence” of ID? Good grief, am I wasting my time here or what?


92 posted on 11/03/2007 10:39:31 PM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: RussP
I have repeatedly offered the complexity of the simplest known living cell as an example of “evidence” of ID.

So is it your recommendation that scientists give up?

93 posted on 11/03/2007 11:19:26 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: raygun
The entire idea of this exercise is that we are not discussing whether or not ID is scientific. Rather, we are discussing whether or not it is logical. True, deduction cannot be used in proving the logic or illogic of ID, but induction can.

As for your statement that it is untrue that a rational reason needs to be offered for disbelief (I'm assuming you are talking of a logical discussion here), that is not necessarily so, since every disbelief can be couched in terms of belief. In fact, by implication we can see this is so, since a disbelief simply is a belief to the contrary of a given position.

I'm not addressing here the lack of belief one way or another.

In a logical debate, the burden of proof is always on the person making the assertive statement regardless of that statement being positive or negative. Traditionally, the first person in a debate makes such an assertion and opponents challenge it, followed by his defense, etc. This formula hasn't been followed generally in recent history unfortunately IMHO. I do believe, though, that we are talking of the same thing, just using slightly different terminology.

But again, this is not about science, per se. Rather, it is a challenge to both sides of the debate to logically prove their points either for or against ID. The reason for this, is that many in the scientific community (Dawkins included) believe that ID is a superstition while those on the side of ID believe that such anti-IDers are being close-minded. Both sides feel that the other is being unscientific, so it is useless to apply to that overbroad brush to determine the issue.

Rather, I have set up a challenge wherein logic only is to be used. I have stated before and will probably do so again that logic is only a part of science, but if a position cannot be explained logically, it is either not well understood or false.

So, given that, it should be reasonable to suppose that the logicalness of a position should be able to be established, more especially since this debate has raged on for 150 years or so.

Also, I might point out that those adhering to ID have such a wide-ranging set of opinions, to assume that ID must necessarily be separated from evolution in an "either-or" position is not a tenable solution.

And herein lies a problem for the anti-IDers. Because they tend to equate all IDers with those whose belief system does preclude evolution, they have ignored those who don't, thus invalidating their generally accepted dictums.

In fact, they refuse to address such issues. Just as they refuse to address the fact that they do accept design, just not the designer.

This is merely a logical exercise. I say "merely" but can attest to the fact that it aint easy for either side.

The standards of evidence should apply equally to both sides. If one side is not allowed to use inductive reasoning because of it's uncertain nature, then neither is the other side. IOW, if one side is not allowed to use an argument or a tool because it is not falsifiable, neither is the other side. I would suggest that both IDers and anti-IDers be careful is what arguments they will and won't allow in such a discussion, because they are bound by the same rules. If not thought through carefully, it could get messy right quick.

Lead on McDuff...
94 posted on 11/03/2007 11:42:03 PM PDT by Frumious Bandersnatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Frumious Bandersnatch

If we are going to use pure logic in this discussion, I would like to point out that one cannot logically assert that an event is impossible simply because it is improbable.

Second, one cannot assert that an event is improbable without knowing what the event in question is, and in what context it occurred. The event and its context must be described exactly and and fully before probability can be assigned. For example, on cannot say winning the lotto is improbable without knowing the conditions of the event, whether cheating might have been involved, and more importantly, whether it has already been won.

The last condition might seem trivial, but it is not. Nearly everyone on this forum agrees that life came from non-life. For believers, it is explicitly stated in the Bible. So the argument is not about whether non-living matter can become living, but rather, under what conditions.

If one could solve difficult problems in chemistry by assigning probabilities of molecules assembling themselves, I daresay research and development laboratories would be different from what they are. The chemical precursors to life are being studied in the conventional way by conventional science. At some point it may be possible to assign probabilities to a sequence of events. But until we have an actual sequence of events, it is irrational to assign probabilities.


95 posted on 11/04/2007 6:38:51 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

In your world of “science” in must be nice to be able to redefine theories whenever convienent or when something unconvienent challenges your theory. You obviously have no idea how complicated it is for life to come into being on its own, let alone complicated or intelligent life. Please, go back to school.

“Evolution deals with changes in the genome since the origin of life.” Even the great evolutionists of our day and history would laugh at that,


96 posted on 11/04/2007 6:49:41 AM PST by truthfinder9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: js1138

If aren’t literate than I probably can’t help you. I’m not a reading instructor.


97 posted on 11/04/2007 6:50:46 AM PST by truthfinder9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: RussP
Good grief, am I wasting my time here or what?

Ignoring your condescension and insults for the moment, I'd say that if what you've offered thus far on this thread is all you have for "proof", then yes, indeed, I think you're wasting your time--and everyone else's.

98 posted on 11/04/2007 8:21:04 AM PST by disrgr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9
If aren’t literate than I probably can’t help you. I’m not a reading instructor.

And fortunately, you aren't a writing instructor.

99 posted on 11/04/2007 8:25:11 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9
If aren’t literate than I probably can’t help you.

Let's all just enjoy the irony of that sentence fragment, shall we?

100 posted on 11/04/2007 9:04:32 AM PST by disrgr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-271 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson