This thread stems from the comments from Oklahoma: One Step from Doom blog. I am always one up for a good intellectual converation and this seems like a good place to debate Evolution.

From the last comment:
BTW, I recently heard about Ben Stein's "Expelled" on radio and watched trailer on YouTube. He seems to understand my frustation of ID being totally excused as idiotic and is not even worth mentioning or questioning, although science has yet to 'prove' anything.

Any thoughts?

Welcome. I hope you enjoy your time in BAUT Forum.

Its location would be: BA Blog: Oklahoma: One Step from Doom, and the specific comment is: from Jason on 24 Mar 2008 at 12:03 pm (164467).

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

First, welcome LoneSt@r.

My first thought is the, yes "science" cannot prove (as in 100%, cannot be wrong, cannot be challanged) things. That's not it's purpose. What science CAN do is give us the framework to build theories which A) Fit all available data and B) make predictions about what will occur in the future.

"Intelligent Design" on the other hand has done neither. And while it may be seen as an uncharitable description, all ID says is that at some point, an unknown force performed an unknown action that resulted in things being the way they are now. It has zero descriptive and predictive power. That's just not science.

Now, add to that the fact the the Discovery Institute is one of the primary backers of ID, AND that the Discovery Institute's policy is to support public policy that promotes a "Christian Agenda" (see the Wedge Document). It's easy to see why those who do not see this agenda as benign are equally concerned with Intelligent Design

__________________
Carl Matherly

Offical Battlestar Galactica Apologist

Named Time Magazine's 2006 "Person of the Year"

Why do people have faith that some type of "God" must have created the universe because the universe could not have "just happened?"

Why don't they take it one step further and ask themselves, "who created God?"

It seems they have a double standard. On one hand they believe the universe could not have "just happened," but on the other hand "God" COULD HAVE "just happened."

Evolution is change. The universe continuously changes, always has and always will. There was never a beginning and there will be no end. Saying there is a beginning and end is like saying space begins and ends. What, is there a wall with a sign at the "beginning and end" of space that reads, "this is the end?" Doesn't one have to ask themselves HOW there could possibly be a beginning and end to space?

If you want proof, try math or alcohol. Science works off of empirical evidence, an area in which intelligent design is severely lacking. It makes no useful predictions, presents no testable hypotheses, cites no mechanisms, and is little more than a reworking of theological arguments that fell out of use by competent theologians early last century.

There is a difference between teaching sound science and giving face time to ridiculous wedge arguments that have been debunked ad nauseum for decades. There is no grand conspiracy on behalf of the scientific community. "Intelligent design" simply doesn't work scientifically. Get used to it.

If you follow this line of reasoning to its inevitable conclusion, then you should reasonably concede that the ranting of any crank with enough of a public following should be taught as valid resource material. Why not teach alchemy alongside chemistry? How about magic alongside physics? Let's throw some holocaust denial in there with history. There are a few academics and Phd's who support the idea. What could it hurt?

A couple. First, there is no such thing as absolute proof in science. There is, however, a great deal of evidence for evolution.

Second, Mathis (the movie's producer) is himself arguing that ID is religion. I wrote a post on this earlier with links:

PZ Myers expelled from "Expelled"

Religion doesn't belong in the science classroom. I wouldn't call ID idiotic so much as missing the point. Religion is about faith, science is about evidence.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

I don't necessarily think ID should automatically be labeled as Religious, maybe philosophical or ideological. Many have claimed to believe in ID, but yet to define the designer. Religion attaches ID to a specific designer, depending on the religion, but for purposes of this thread I guess ID is mostly views as religion/faith based.

The hard part is to determine a way to confirm ideology, I think that is what science has a problem with, where's the framework, it's a little hocus pocus. Can someone build a case for ID by means of developing models using laws of Entropy and probability? As i mentioner in blog, I think it's funny how the same 'intelligent' people who think gambling/lottery is dumb because of the odds, “might as well throw money away, stupid tax”, deny or discredit any possibility of intelligent design. Now that I think about it, I think certain parts of evolution theory could be considered ideology.

Isn't that what black holes, dark matter and the BIG BANG are; undefined forces.

Why is it that science seems to view ID as idiocracy, and strive to push for more 'scientific' evolutionary teaching and remove any mention to ID, as it is religion? Is it a matter of ID, or a matter of specific religion?

From blog
Don't know Ben Stein's full position, as I just recently heard about it, but I did hear on an interview that he is not claiming to be right, just wants all the facts, theories, and ideas to all be equally represented. When certain things are not allowed to be discussed, one must question the agenda, such as the case with the BBC and the Global Warming Activist demanding a revised story.

Evolution demonstrates a lack of necessity for an intelligent designer.

I.D. simply injects an intelligent Designer into the mix as a superfluous figure for fulfilling the human desire for a superior entity or being.

The NOVA program "Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" does an excellent job describing both evolutionary theory and ID. And yes, ID really is nothing more than Biblical Creationism in a new coat. Chapter 10 of the NOVA program I linked above (you can watch it online from that link) shows the transitional fossil between creationist and intelligent design proponent: "cdesign proponentsists."

Name one. Go ahead... I'll wait.

But maybe before you do, you should head over to Talk Origins and look around. In particular, the Index to Creationist Claims has excellent responses to many things you may have misheard about evolution.

__________________
"What do you care what other people think?" -- Richard Feynman
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Feynman, at the conclusion of his Challenger report

I don't see "science" in that list.

Well, the ones I've heard (many times!) were based on misunderstandings of the subjects.

Two points: First, people do win at lottery quite regularly. The odds are only bad for the individual. That's actually one of the points of evolution: There are many simultaneous trials. Second, there is no evidence of ID. That isn't the same thing as saying it isn't a possibility. And, if we're going to consider options not supported by evidence, it isn't the only alternative available. For instance, maybe the universe is truly infinite and regions just form here and there. Perhaps, five minutes ago, there was a region that happened to form us, with all our memories, the planets, stars, etc. We can't say it's impossible. We could also get into arguments that the world is an illusion, too.

Should we teach that in science class as well?


By no means, they are defined by observation and theory. They are subject to possible falsification and research is going on all those areas.

Stein has also compared evolution with Nazism. You can read about some of that from the links in my previous post. From his statements, it's clear that Stein is operating from a strongly religious position. Many of his statements are, frankly, very insulting and miss the mark so widely it's hard to accept he is merely ignorant and not being deliberately deceptive.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

All ideas and theories aren't equal though, some have solid evidence, can be falsified and have predictive power.

What he wants is equal time for 'his' own personal beliefe to be considered a scientific theory.

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

But there are just as many intelligent people, people who undertand the reality of evolution, who do believe in (at least the possibility of) a intelligent designer / creator /whatever. I am one of the many who have faith in a creator who is responsible for the Universe. But I also understand that my faith is in something unobservable, untestable, and unfalseifiable. My faith is not science, and should not be represented that way.

By the way Lonest@r, I just wanted to compliment you on the measured, well spoken way you are presenting your case. We obviously disagree, but I repect the way you are carrying yourself in the debate.

__________________
Carl Matherly

Offical Battlestar Galactica Apologist

Named Time Magazine's 2006 "Person of the Year"

For the last couple of centuries we (science) have been knocking off the gods one by one. The sun god. the god of war, and others have been laid to rest as we have progressed with our understanding of the universe. Could it be that we are on the cusp of debunking all religion through science? Is ID just one of the last thrashings of the religious community to keep a higher power entrenched into our psyche?
In 100 years will religion be thought of along the lines of cultism?

Expelled is based on lies: they lied to the people they were interviewing, set up a phony company name & website, then lied about why they were only allowing religious groups to preview the film. Once some scientists and film critics started to see the previews, the big flaws came to light: namely, misrepresentation of science, trying to state that Evolution caused the Holocaust, and generally poor filmmaking.

Here's a review by Scientific American magazine.

__________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
Philip K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
Mark Twain

Avatar courtesy of Bunny.

That's funny. I wasn't aware that the existence of Apollo or Ra was a claim that could be experimentally falsified.

This where I disagree, and why I sense some arrogance and animosity towards ID. The ability for science support evolution does not disprove ID, nor does the failuire of science to support evolution prove ID.

Missing links, Lucy was proven false, but yey science believes its still out there.....

I never try to represent it as being so

so they are still not understood?

meterology can 'predict' weather, but we all know how accurate the weather forcast is

I realize ID/ideology/theology/religion is unscientific, and that is the very reason science as a problem with any part of it..... although it does not disprove it.

I have a hard time finding any, or atleast any that will discuss both science and ID in the same room....

I think that is the life purpose for some scientist, it is their desire to disprove religion. Maybe it is this very reason their is so much animosity towards certain religions that wil not cave to darwin evolution.

Haven't seen it, or researched it much. I do agree, you lose credibility when your found leaving out certain facts and twisting the truth, this goes for sciense also.... It's scary to learn how much the media filters what we actually read and hear. BBC changed it's entire story due to an activists.

I've been directed towards talk origins several times. Maybe some may be interested in reading up on some thoughts from the ID side as well. I don't know the credibility of site as I just found it recently, but I think the pic accurately depicts the argument....
http://www.answersingenesis.org


Thanks, I don't expect for everyone to to agree, atleast you guys are allowing me to share ideas and have the ability to agree to disagree without becoming hostile.....

Just curious, why does my post have to be approved, hopefully it will go through, I would like to hear you guys commments to my response, I think I addressed everyone, it's the second time I wrote it, the first time I think I timed out gathering info....

If you added links, it has to be checked by a moderator. That's a (very necessary) anti-spam issue for all new posters.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser