Ben Stein Expelled

[Kaosu]

Originally Posted by Asmadai

I really didn't think anyone would bite that, but given they did...

Kaosu's brilliant deduction of how all Christians believe, or rather to say the assumption that they do has given me that of a headache. You would think 'critical thinkers' would have more of an ability to realize that even though 5% of a religion's followers might believe some serious wacked out shit, those same beliefs might not apply to the other 95%.

It's the equivalent to me calling the entire Scientific community a bunch of lunatics, because a small group of them still hold obvious bullshit beliefs that the Earth is fucking flat. Can you imagine how God damned (lol) retarded that would sound? Sure you can.

How can one expect to argue his side against such a one-sided debate? Honestly?

I didn't group all Christians in the same category; I simply made a parallel reasoning to the same people that are fairly fervent that evolution disproves god or somehow the only way to think;

Its not. And while I'm skeptical of ID'ers and natural healing, I'm not about disproving them - hell there might be even merit to the line of thinking. Edit: Reasoning was a bad choice of words, for this example.
Until I see sufficient evidence, rather than pointing out something that might be obvious e.g: Medical science can't explain the unexplainable (duh), there are data gaps or maybe certain trends that aren't exactly explainable by Evolution.

Evolution has proven itself to have much more evidence and research than any ID'ers have come up with on their side of the equation. The same for Natural healing; I can probably place my chips that the Medical industry has saved more lives than any Natural healing area.

So if you think I'm trying to group all religion or all Christians into the same scope, I'm not, and that wasn't my purpose at all.

However, if you want to play ball with science, don't act like ID is a religion and simply believe. Act like its a science and prove your points. Show evidence, observation trends, write a fucking hypothesis. Link articles, find peer reviewed articles that help prove your points.

Oh and:

You would think 'critical thinkers' would have more of an ability to realize that even though 5% of a religion's followers might believe some serious wacked out shit, those same beliefs might not apply to the other 95%.

You would also know that some of the biggest critics against ID'ers are Christian themselves. Never once did I group "Christians" into some fundamental category. You simply assumed that. I only mentioned "God" in my post because ID is so closely tied with religion.

I only argued against a certain line of reasoning that 'most' ID'ers have decided to bear upon for everyone else to see.

And if you didn't get it the first time and this doesn't mean to sound aggressive, but I'm arguing against illogical reasoning. Not religion. So, make that headache go away.

[Arakkis]

Originally Posted by Zerai

I've given up on understanding religion. Why anyone believes anything a people who were wrong about pretty much everything else, were right about one of the most important things ever (if a God was true, that'd be quite a major thing) baffles me.

Then gtfo if you aren't going to constructively contribute.

Originally Posted by Millie

Yes, and the reason that argument is horsecrap is because ID isn't a scientific theory. It isn't even a theory. It's a religious belief with no grounding in science whatsoever, and a complete disregard for the scientific method. Teaching it as "science" is hogwash.

The "Discovery Institute," btw, is little more than a creationist propaganda machine that first rebranded creationism as "Intelligent Design" and then set out to deliberately mislead the public by attacking evolution and promoting a religious agenda.

Discovery Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Another good read, which reveals the theocratic/religious goals of the Discovery Institute, and their "Wedge strategy" for accomplishing those goals:

Wedge strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To quote the Discovery Institute's own stated goals, it is trying to "...reverse the stifling materialist worldview and replace it with a scientific consonant with Christian and theistic conventions," and to "affirm the reality of God."

I suggest everyone who is even thinking of believing the Discovery Institute to be a credible source, or ID to be a credible theory, to read up on those links. It's all a load of crap, and it's a deliberate attack on sound science in the name of Bible thumping freaks. And I'm sorry for the harsh language, but that's what they are: Bible thumping freaks. Not all Christians are Bible thumping freaks, but the kind of people who interpret the Bible literally are. They are brain-draining America, and they are a major reason why this country is falling behind in science and other intellectual endeavors.

FFS, just when I think I have made progress, Millie of all people comes in and trolls my ass hard. OK, I will make this as polite as possible so I don't get the banhammer.

There are a lot of ID people out there that don't just thump the Bible, they try and point out why evolution is not at this point the be all end all explanation in the propagation of life on this planet. The point I have been TRYING to make this whole time is that the theory of evolution has some glaring problems that have left me (and many other somewhat intelligent people) unconvinced as to it being the only explanation, but the Bible burning crowd fight any criticism of evolution because it is the best non-God explanation to date.

Of course the Discovery Institute is biased and unreliable, there is a lot of right wing religious money being thrown into it. But it is also a place where REAL science is used to try and show the questions within the evolutionary theory that are as yet unanswered. This is very scary to hard line atheists and they have done everything within their power to smear any opposition. There are very few people that will come out and openly criticize evolution because of how viciously they are attacked. Look at your reaction to a link I posted with a big skeptical disclaimer. Vitriol and spite. That is why intelligent discussion is lacking on this topic, people get all worked up when any mention of religion is made. Well screw the religious crap. Look at the goddamned SCIENCE. There are BIG problems in evolutionary theory but it has been accepted and is promoted as the ONLY explanation. What the hell is so scary about reading the opposition? If it is bullshit it can be refuted line by line right? Well, a lot of the information linked there CAN'T be refuted because we just don't know enough. Will it be explained in time? Sure, there is a good probability of it. But what if there is data out there and people throw it aside because it doesn't fit with their preconceived notions? The various powerful religious institutions have done this all throughout history, but now we see brilliant scientists doing the same thing.

EDIT Stupid comments.

[Zuuljin]

Originally Posted by Arakkis

There are BIG problems in evolutionary theory but it has been accepted and is promoted as the ONLY explanation. What the hell is so scary about reading the opposition?

The problem here is that there IS no opposition or differeng viewpoint. ID is not a theory. All ID says is that evolution is not right. Do this. Explain the ideas and concepts of ID WITHOUT using evolution. You cant, because ID is nothing more than anti-evolution. That sad paragraph I quoted above is the ONLY concept of ID not dealing with evolution in the entire document.

Scientists are all for questioning evolution or theories, and if you, the ID people, christians, come up with a better explanation, or even an equal explanation, then we will teach it, and I really dont think anyone will argue with you. But as of yet evolution is the ONLY explanation we have.

[Screamfeeder]

Originally Posted by Arakkis

Discovery Institute

This is the place to go to see the scientific research being done in support of ID.

AWESOME!

Originally Posted by Arrakkis

Of course the Discovery Institute is biased and unreliable, there is a lot of right wing religious money being thrown into it.

uh...

I seem to be having a problem finding a single paper on the discovery.org site that shows all these "BIG problems in evolutionary theory".

[Millie]

Originally Posted by Arakkis

Millie of all people comes in and trolls my ass hard.

"Trolled" you? So sorry if debunking the Discovery Institute and all that it stands for hurts your feelings. But no one's "trolling" you here.

And for fuck's sake, enough with that "I don't want to get banned, but..." preamble. Have the courage of your convictions or don't. Don't feel the need to qualify your opinions with phrases like that. No one on this board has ever been banned simply for disagreeing with me.

[Schatze]

What big problems in evolutionary theory?

Care to name a few that I can't easily discredit? And don't bring the fact that you were (p. > .95) essentially brainwashed by your parents as a child into believing certain things that you cannot reconcile with science as a problem with evolution.

If you take this challenge up, don't read the following

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

They'll bring up the eye, the flagellum, or blood clotting, or some other mechanism which in the past has been claimed to be "irreducibly" complex when in fact, it has been shown that the development of these systems was in keeping with evolutionary theory (e.g. incremental mutations). Two, that they'll bring up biogenesis, which is NOT part of evolutionary theory. Three, they'll wave their hands and say they don't understand or don't believe it or don't think it's plausible and toss out a bunch of word salad about angry atheists and other gabbledygook. Or gross misinterpretations or misunderstandings of evolution, e.g. directionality, that evolution is random (mutations are, evolution is not), etc.

And the Discovery institute? LOL. Those're the fuckers who claimed to C14 dated a diamond to 50 000 years. They apparently get their geological knowledge from watching Superman movies.

Jesus F'ing christ man. Those're the guys who claimed, until recently, that the Grand Canyon was formed 6 000 years ago in the great flood. Those are the fuckers who claimed that fossilized human and dinosaur tracks have been found together (they haven't, heavily eroded tracks with less eroded tracks), etc. etc.

Those are farking young earth creationists who jumped on the ID bandwagon to try to get it taught in schools. They are fucking whackjobs. "biased"? LOL. Crazy more like. If you think the Earth is 6000 years old, I'm sorry, you're just fucking stupid.

P.S. A theory is a theoretical framework supported by a large body of evidence used to explain a specific facet or phenomena in the natural world. The scientific use of theory and the lay use of theory is vastly different. People seem to be playing that game where they use one definition of theory interchangeably with an entirely different definition.

P.P.S. Just thought I'd throw this in as I realized it in a discussion somewhere else. Did you know there's more direct historical/archeological evidence supporting the epic poem Beowulf than there is the bible? Which is not to say that any dragons were actually killed (or men raised from the dead). Just thought I'd toss that out because I found it very amusing.

edit: good summary of the Discovery Institute and ID'rs in general

According to a New York Times article, The Templeton Foundation, who provided grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, later asked intelligent design proponents to submit proposals for actual research. Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, was quoted as saying "They never came in." He also said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned. "From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said.[70] The Templeton Foundation has since rejected the Discovery Institute's entreaties for more funding, Harper states. "They're political - that for us is problematic," and that while Discovery has "always claimed to be focused on the science," "what I see is much more focused on public policy, on public persuasion, on educational advocacy and so forth."[20][71]

[Zerai]

You ID people keep thinking you're the only ones who know there are holes in evolution. NO SHIT. You know how you fill those holes? you study. You know what you don't do? Throw your hands up and say god did it.

There are holes in a lot of scientific theories. When something better comes along, it trumps it, and that becomes the new theory. Whats with this scientists get angry when something beats their theory? No, they don't. They only get angry when you say your shit sucks and offer some bullshit instead. If you propose something THAT HAS EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP, it causes controversy, yes, but scientists don't get angry, they get excited.

The reason people answer with vitriol and hate is because you're not offering anything to the discussion. ID has no credible scientific evidence. So you're basically going and taking people's lifelong work, take a dump on it, and then say this book from 2 thousand years ago says god did it as if it's irrefutable evidence. Can you see the problem there?

Scientists attack everything. If another scientist proposes a new theory, all the other scientists will dig in and rip it apart. The 'shield' to this is evidence. If they rip into it and are faced with a proof of the theory, it's accepted. It happens to all scientific theories that come to light. Why ID thinks they should be exempt from this rule is downright retarded. There really is no other way to describe it. They act like they are some unique snowflake suffering the wrath of horrible athiests. You're not special. No one gives a shit about you above anyone else. You're just one more failed theory on a pile of other theories. The only reason it stays alive is because of the money of the church behind it. If the only support it had was some institute it'd be dead or dying like every other failed theory (see flat earth society).

[Schatze]

What holes in evolutionary theory?

Holes imply problems. That's what they're using the term to mean. There are no holes. There are areas where things are not fully understood yes. But that is a result of the fragmentary nature of the fossil record.

Holes, as they use the term, do not exist in evolutionary theory from a scientific perspective. Do not fall for the semantic games. Misuse of the term theory, using "holes" which can mean "areas where knowledge is lacking" but also "flaws in the theory as a whole", etc. etc.

edit; why do ID'rs think they're different? Because they don't have advanced degrees from legitimate schools, let alone have to do a thesis defense, etc. There are a few with real degrees, but they're rare.

[Zerai]

Well I take "not fully understood" as a hole. But that's just semantics. I'm fully ok with that. I know that there are brilliant people working on it and filling it in. And not just throwing their hands up and saying "well shit, I guess god did it. Let's go have a beer."

[Millie]

Originally Posted by Zerai

Well I take "not fully understood" as a hole. But that's just semantics.

That's not a "hole" in the sense that the ID people are claiming there to be holes. When ID proponents claim "evolution is full of holes," they're saying that they think the framework of evolutionary theory is unsound -- that it contains fundamental flaws as a theory. When you use the word "hole," you mean that there are certain bits of the fossil record, etc., not fully studied or understood yet. That's a very important semantic distinction to make -- just as the lay use of the word "theory" and the scientific use of the word "theory" should not be conflated or confused, as ID proponents often try to do.

Bottom line is, I just think it's prudent to be very clear what we mean when we use terms like "holes."

No one to date, within the scientific community or without, has presented a credible and evidence-backed theory to counter the theory of evolution. ID is not a scientific theory. It is a belief based on a complete lack of evidence and pure faith in an ancient book of stories. When we call something like ID a "theory," we do the very definition of a scientific theory a grave disservice.

Similarly, when we say that there are "holes" in evolution, we are doing the theory of evolution a disservice. There are no fundamental "holes" in the theoretical framework of evolution. No one has ever proven that there are. Anyone who's tried has been pretty easily and readily debunked. The day some ID activist wants to undertake a scientific study in favor of ID and back up that study with proper scientific methodology is the day I'll take ID seriously.

[Schatze]

Yes, you take the meaning of a "hole" as having areas not fully understood or occluded by circumstances. So would I. And using that definition I would agree with the statement.

But when they say "hole" they mean "problem or flaw" in the theory as a whole.

Again, it's just like with the word theory. Either they misunderstand what the term means, or they like to switch up or misuse the different definitions. It's endemic, talk to any ID'r or creationist, and inevitably they'll start playing semantic games. Evolution is "just a theory", they'll say. While I would not say "just", I would agree, yes, it is a theory! But when I agree that it is a theory, I mean it in the scientific sense. Whereas, when they say it's, "just a theory", they mean it as in "uncle Bob has a theory that if he puts pennies in his mouth he can pass a breathalyser even while hammered!" I don't know whether it's because they just don't know what a theory means in the scientific sense, but I can tell you I've talked to literally dozens of creationists or ID'rs in various places and they all pull the same crap.

edit: beaten by Millie.

[Zerai]

Originally Posted by Schatze

edit: beaten by Millie.

Yeah, she beat me pretty good.

[Millie]

The other thing to keep in mind is that 100% of ID literature is just an attack on various aspects of evolution. No one in the ID camp ever tries to actually prove ID. All they try to do is attack evolution.

I mean, even using the lay definition of "theory" to describe ID is a huge stretch. It's just an article of faith. Nothing more, nothing less. It has no business calling itself science, or entering into scientific discourse.

[Arakkis]

OK Millie, but people tend to get nasty when opposing viewpoints to their own are presented, and when a forum mod gets nasty people get bant. If you can handle people treating you like any other poster on here it will say a lot for your character.

You people are not going to put me in a position where I have to defend the Discovery Institute. I have readily admitted that it is a biased group that uses religious propaganda to further its agenda. I offered it as the alternative viewpoint, not some sort of fucking fountain of knowledge. You rabid atheists and you stupid reactionary bullshit. Calm the fuck down, seriously.

I am tired so I am going to be concise. I will post more tomorrow.

Schatze: I peeked so that I could see if my favorite part of ID was on your list. You claim that biogenesis is not part of evolution, so why the hell isn't it the very first instance of molecular evolution? I will talk more about this later.

The short version: second law of thermodynamics argues against spontaneous generation of life since life is a localized region where entropy is reduced that can replicate itself, thus reducing entropy in a quantum manner.

You continually say that irreductable complexity has been debunked. If that is the case than why does anyone still give it credence? Because it hasn't been debunked I say, it is continually argued against because there arte many systems that are IC.

[Screamfeeder]

Originally Posted by Arakkis

You people are not going to put me in a position where I have to defend the Discovery Institute. I have readily admitted that it is a biased group that uses religious propaganda to further its agenda.

My reply was about as zen as it gets. You posted the Discovery Institute as your only source for an alternative viewpoint and then went on to say its biased.

Originally Posted by Arakkis

You continually say that irreductable complexity has been debunked. If that is the case than why does anyone still give it credence? Because it hasn't been debunked I say, it is continually argued against because there arte many systems that are IC.

Did you really just use the "if this argument is false, how come people still bring it up" tactic?

Originally Posted by Arakkis

Calm the fuck down, seriously.

Sorry I fly off the handle sometimes. How calm do you want me?

Originally Posted by Arakkis

...fucking fountain of knowledge...rabid atheists...stupid reactionary bullshit...fuck down

Uh..