[_ Old Earth _] ITS ABOUT TIME!!

[freeway]

Explain to me how ID is any more scientific than the spaghetti monster theory. You can't. Neither can be proved. It has no criteria for examining its validity.

Oh I see just because it ID it can't be scientific, but if main stream science digs up a bone in Africa it explains the origin of man?...um..and that proves what, and how again...

You implied it.

"One such case was a 7 yr old girl that asked the biology teacher what about God, like her mommy and daddy says.. The teacher ridiculed the little girl in front of the class, to the point of tears.. now I ask you who's in the wrong..."

You said that. Now either you only meant that ONE teacher was in the wrong (which would be pretty much a pointless addition to the post), or you infer that this is a general trend. So, since you claim you're not saying this behavior is "vast," you pretty much made a pointless comment about one person being mean. Congratulations! You found a mean person

I think it is very much becoming a trend. the scientific community "the ones that put their faith in evolution" as you yourself, do not like anyone saying that there could be an alternative answer.

You didn't read my post very carefully. Nice analysis of what I was trying to say. By nice, I mean inaccurate, and fairly terrible.

yes, I did read your post and read it again...like I said before as long as evolution is pushed down the throats of anyone in school, there's not going to be alternate theory, because they wont allow it..

 

[freeway]

back to topic as jw says.. as you can see the outcry is already starting just because someone or a group questions the main stream scientific community..and bring to the forefront just how anyone that does not become bed partners with the evolutionist, just what they can expect..

 

[jwu]

back to topic as jw says.. as you can see the outcry is already starting just because someone or a group questions the main stream scientific community..and bring to the forefront just how anyone that does not become bed partners with the evolutionist, just what they can expect..

What exactly is the outcry? People criticizing that some of the interviewed persons were lied to in order to get them into the movie? Is lying for Jesus ok?

If the ID crowd holds the moral high ground, as it claims - where is the outcry about such methods from their side?

 

[Deep Thought]

I found this quote regarding Expelled very enlightening

In 1974 I matriculated at Pepperdine University as a born-again Christian who rejected Darwinism and evolutionary theoryâ€â€not because I knew anything about it (I didn't) but because I thought that in order to believe in God and accept the Bible as true, you had to be a creationist. What I knew about evolution came primarily from creationist literature, so when I finally took a course in evolutionary theory in graduate school I realized that I had been hoodwinked. What I discovered is a massive amount of evidence from multiple sciencesâ€â€geology, paleontology, biogeography, zoology, botany, comparative anatomy, molecular biology, genetics and embryologyâ€â€demonstrating that evolution happened.

It was with some irony for me, then, that I saw Ben Stein's antievolution documentary film, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, opens with the actor, game show host and speechwriter for Richard Nixon addressing a packed audience of adoring students at Pepperdine University, apparently falling for the same trap I did.

Actually they didn't. The biology professors at Pepperdine assure me that their mostly Christian students fully accept the theory of evolution. So who were these people embracing Stein's screed against science? Extras. According to Lee Kats, associate provost for research and chair of natural science at Pepperdine, "the production company paid for the use of the facility just as all other companies do that film on our campus" but that "the company was nervous that they would not have enough people in the audience so they brought in extras. Members of the audience had to sign in and a staff member reports that no more than two to three Pepperdine students were in attendance. Mr. Stein's lecture on that topic was not an event sponsored by the university." And this is one of the least dishonest parts of the film.

 

[jwu]

It gets even better...they included a copyrighted anmation in their movie.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008 ... r.php#more

So, essentially they stole intellectual property of that company which is about to sue them.

What has become of "Thou shalt not steal"?

 

[John]

It was altered, not a direct copy, it was just based on the original. i've contacted Expelled.com and they said the movie is still going to be released and all is well.

besides evolution breaks probably all the commandments, so don't try to use bible verses to give a blow to me and fellow creationists when your worse off then us.

 

[Dunzo]

besides evolution breaks probably all the commandments,

Huh??? Name just ONE commandment that evolution, a natural process, somehow manages to break.

 

[jwu]

It was altered, not a direct copy, it was just based on the original.

Altering doesn't remove copyrights from the underlying material.

I can't take a song from a random famous pop artist, mix some extra drumming into it, and then sell it as my own work either, can i?

I cannot record a cover version which does not contain a single second from the original record without the copyright holder's consent either.

besides evolution breaks probably all the commandments, so don't try to use bible verses to give a blow to me and fellow creationists when your worse off then us.

Don't distract. Do you condone what the makers of that movie did?

 

[Ignatz]

The reason ID is not considered "Science" is because it is completely without content. It postulates nothing, and is therefore NON-scientific. It consists solely of holes in ToE, holes which were pointed out and discovered by evolutionists, by the way, holes which are constantly being filled as our understanding increases.

From Slate Magazine:
"The problem I have with presenting ID in school classrooms is that ID has not yet "run the gauntlet" that evolution, relativity, and other established theories have before being presented as reliable science to high school students.

Why should ID be excused from the process of peer-reviewed study? Why does ID, which is less than 20 years old, get a "pass" when it took evolution over 60 years before it was even allowed to be taught at all?

Getting a scientific theory of any kind accepted takes time. It took decades for the expanding universe model to replace steady-state. Years of study by experts in the field, endless debates in the relevant scientific journals, led to the change in that scientific paradigm.

Not a court case. Not action by a school board. Not a carefully orchestrated political campaign outside the realm of science.

Yet ID supporters want to circumvent the scientific review process and get their idea shoved into school by a combination of the above mentioned litigation and political action.

…Now why should we be in such a rush to get ID into schools? What is it about ID that makes it so urgent a matter? Why can't its proponents go through the same processes that any other scientist would to get their ideas heard?"

What would a class about ID even teach? It contains no facts or theories, (Scientific, evidence-based theories, not "This-is my-best-Guess" theories. everybody should know the difference).
It is not science.

Similarly, ToE is not religion, in spit of what creationists like to tell each other about ToE. It does not involve worship. It is not faith-based, it is evidence-based. One does not need to believe in anything on insufficient evidence to be an evolutionist. the details of ToE may change as our understanding changes and new discoveries are made. Religions do not do this.
Making a commitment to intellectual rigor and honesty is not a faith-based commitment.

 

[freeway]

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.

ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion.

Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the "messages," and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life.

Intelligent Design is an intellectual movement that includes a scientific research program for investigating intelligent causes and that challenges naturalistic explanations of origins which currently drive science education and research.
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

Just because you guys call ID not science by no means make it not so... here is the reason that you try and knock ID because admitting ID is real science means that you have to admit that ToE could be wrong.. little advice, get together build you guys a nice big building and instead of putting a cross on top, hell put a monkey and fall on your knee and worship your god, because ToE is a religion plain and simple... :

 

[Ignatz]

Just because you guys call ID not science by no means make it not so... here is the reason that you try and knock ID because admitting ID is real science means that you have to admit that ToE could be wrong.. little advice, get together build you guys a nice big building and instead of putting a cross on top, hell put a monkey and fall on your knee and worship your god, because ToE is a religion plain and simple... :

No, the reason ID isn't science is that it explains nothing. It consists solely of current gaps in our understanding of Darwinism. ID isn't an explanatory theory in its own right. It's just a restatement of the first half of the Dover School Board's policy: a discussion of gaps in Darwinism. I, and most other scientifically-interested people are perfectly willing to admit that some day, we may discover a different theory that turns our present understanding of ToE on it's head. That's what science does, but ID cannot be considered "science" because it is completely void; Pointing out gaps in Darwinism is NOT therefore PROOF of ID, anymore than those gaps "prove" the existence of the flying-spaghetti monster. ID proponents seem to have a difficult time understanding this.

Similarly, and conversely, the reason ToE is not a religion is because it is not faith-based, a hallmark of all religions. It is evidence-based; people look at the evidence, then develop hypotheses based on the observed evidence. They then make predictions and then test those predictions to see if they support the hypotheses. If the hypotheses are sound and withstand scrutinizing by others, over time, they will become unified into a "Theory".

NO religion has this kind of intellectual honesty. If it did, by definition it would cease to be a religion, and would become a science.

As for the building with a monkey on top, I don't see the point. No evolutionist "worships" evolution. Who gets this wound-up over the Theory of Electro-Magnetism, for example? We know for a fact that electro-magnetism exists, the ToE-M simply describes HOW it works. Similarly, we know for a fact that living things evolve. We've been applying selective pressure to our livestock and crops for several thousand years. (as opposed to "Natural Selection" applied by the environment). Modern medicine would not be possible without an understanding of ToE. The ToE just unifies the facts and describe HOW things evolve.

 

[Dunzo]

^^^ Heidi take note!

 

[Jayls5]

^^^ Heidi take note!

Sorry, it was too cohesive and factual. She'll ignore it or post some irrelevant garbage.