Topics of interest

[georgia2]

There have been many threads on several subjects that MANY are interested in and have very varied opinions on them. A new movie that has just come out on dvd addresses these issues and digs down to the beginnings and backgrounds of such things as evolution, racism, Margaret Sanger, Intelligent design, scientific research and new discoveries. THe name of the movie is "Expelled" starring Ben Stein. If you check it out you probably will have to ASK for it because they will only have a few copies.

I thought it was great and ties many of todays hottest issues together and is very thought provoking. Anyone else see it? check it out and let me know what you think!

[Guest Godless]

I haven't seen it. I strongly disagree with the premises that he based the movie on, such as his insinuation that Darwinism can be tied to the Holocaust (classic reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy), and of course his main premise that seems to suggest that peer review equates to some sort of discrimination.

Now, before you jump on me for commenting on the movie without watching it, please know that I believe that all scientific theories should be questioned and challenged, to include the modern theory of evolution. I believe that ID was a very legitimate alternative to evolution. However, it has been disproven. Such is the way of science. Perhaps a day will come when evolution is debunked, but for now it's the prevelent theory and a rather rock solid one as well. Those who want to challenge it should do so via scientific means, not appeals to emotion and ignorance, which is exactly what Stein did with his film.

[FatherOfSix]

I am waiting on NetFlix to deliver. I really want to see the movie and it was only open in the theaters near the house for a week.

[georgia2]

I haven't seen it. I strongly disagree with the premises that he based the movie on, such as his insinuation that Darwinism can be tied to the Holocaust (classic reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy), and of course his main premise that seems to suggest that peer review equates to some sort of discrimination.

Now, before you jump on me for commenting on the movie without watching it, please know that I believe that all scientific theories should be questioned and challenged, to include the modern theory of evolution. I believe that ID was a very legitimate alternative to evolution. However, it has been disproven. Such is the way of science. Perhaps a day will come when evolution is debunked, but for now it's the prevelent theory and a rather rock solid one as well. Those who want to challenge it should do so via scientific means, not appeals to emotion and ignorance, which is exactly what Stein did with his film.

I hear what you are saying. This is why I recommend to everyone on here to watch the movie. All I knew about the film was that it interviewed scientist regarding the evolution theory. Some of the topics it leads in to are very unexpected, interesting, and worth contemplating. YOu may be very surprised as you watch this that your opinions take on new depth and scope of what you have previously had been lead to think.

[FatherOfSix]

The wife and I are watching it tonight. We found out you can stream it from NetFlix so we don't need to mail in a DVD to get it.

[pam]

The wife and I are watching it tonight. We found out you can stream it from NetFlix so we don't need to mail in a DVD to get it.

That's what my son does.

[a-train]

Watched it a little over a month ago. I don't think it equates peer review with discrimination at all, on the contrary, the claim in the video is that peer review has been stifled and scientists writing on the subject have been silenced by the prospect of job loss.

The most poignant and startling point in the video for me was the climax in which Professor Richard Dawkins said: "It could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose its possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, microbiology. You might find a signature of some sort of designer."

He continued "And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable or ultimately explicable process. It couldn't have just jumped into existance spontaneously. That's the point."

For the Mormon who rejects the ex nihilo doctrine, this is all quite intriguing.

-a-train

[georgia2]

The wife and I are watching it tonight. We found out you can stream it from NetFlix so we don't need to mail in a DVD to get it.

cool, Let us know what you think!

[Guest Godless]

Watched it a little over a month ago. I don't think it equates peer review with discrimination at all, on the contrary, the claim in the video is that peer review has been stifled and scientists writing on the subject have been silenced by the prospect of job loss.

Behe's theory of irreductible complexity was fairly debunked in the Dover, PA case, just to give one example of peer review disproving ID. And it's perfectly fair that ID scientists should be threatened with job loss when the theory they're defending has no real scientific evidence to stand on. They're promoting a "God-of-the-gaps" theory, and that isn't science. I have yet to see a single ID theory that is actually based on the scientific method.

The most poignant and startling point in the video for me was the climax in which Professor Richard Dawkins said: "It could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose its possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, microbiology. You might find a signature of some sort of designer."

He continued "And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable or ultimately explicable process. It couldn't have just jumped into existance spontaneously. That's the point."

Dawkins is an idiot when it comes to origins theory. He should stick to his areas of expertise, which are memology and evolution.

[FatherOfSix]

We didn't get to see the whole thing last night (sick kids kept waking up) but we got 40 minutes into it. Very interesting.

I am certainly no expert in evolution or intelligent design, but from my personal reading and research I have problems with both. It has been a couple of decades since reading it, but my take on Origin of Species was that Darwin had some excellent observations that he wove into a good "first attempt" theory that needed more work. For example, when I was in college (back in the last century), there were still major issues with evolution theory like an inability to fully define what a species is.

I don't think ID has all the answers either, but I think it brings another point of view to discussion. In science, any new discussion, even if it is wrong, is good at least to the point that it can generate new ideas and new discussion that bring scientific advancement. I strongly oppose any outright censorship in the overall discussion. I have also personally observed that ID appears to not be a single theory of one person but instead a group of ideas that elaborate on evolution coming from many people - some of these contradicting with each other as well.

In physics, when someone had a revolutionary idea, they had to stand up and defend that idea. Math and physical observations had to back up claims. Any idea that could be presented in an intelligent and peer review capable format would be listened to - even those that most physicists thought were "bogus". Many have turned out to be bogus when I flaw was found in the math or another explanation was found for the observations, but some ended up leading to a new approach and eventual advancement.

I don't understand why biology can't follow a similar model due to religious, ideological, and philosophical wars inside the community.

[Guest Godless]

We didn't get to see the whole thing last night (sick kids kept waking up) but we got 40 minutes into it. Very interesting.

I am certainly no expert in evolution or intelligent design, but from my personal reading and research I have problems with both. It has been a couple of decades since reading it, but my take on Origin of Species was that Darwin had some excellent observations that he wove into a good "first attempt" theory that needed more work. For example, when I was in college (back in the last century), there were still major issues with evolution theory like an inability to fully define what a species is.

I don't think ID has all the answers either, but I think it brings another point of view to discussion. In science, any new discussion, even if it is wrong, is good at least to the point that it can generate new ideas and new discussion that bring scientific advancement. I strongly oppose any outright censorship in the overall discussion. I have also personally observed that ID appears to not be a single theory of one person but instead a group of ideas that elaborate on evolution coming from many people - some of these contradicting with each other as well.

In physics, when someone had a revolutionary idea, they had to stand up and defend that idea. Math and physical observations had to back up claims. Any idea that could be presented in an intelligent and peer review capable format would be listened to - even those that most physicists thought were "bogus". Many have turned out to be bogus when I flaw was found in the math or another explanation was found for the observations, but some ended up leading to a new approach and eventual advancement.

I don't understand why biology can't follow a similar model due to religious, ideological, and philosophical wars inside the community.

Biology does follow that model. The ideological conflict sometimes downplays it, but the scientific model is there.

[georgia2]

Behe's theory of irreductible complexity was fairly debunked in the Dover, PA case, just to give one example of peer review disproving ID. And it's perfectly fair that ID scientists should be threatened with job loss when the theory they're defending has no real scientific evidence to stand on. They're promoting a "God-of-the-gaps" theory, and that isn't science. I have yet to see a single ID theory that is actually based on the scientific method.

Dawkins is an idiot when it comes to origins theory. He should stick to his areas of expertise, which are memology and evolution.

You should watch the film. All kinds of scientist are interviewed. The interesting thing is in their answers.

[Guest Godless]

I am certainly no expert in evolution or intelligent design, but from my personal reading and research I have problems with both. It has been a couple of decades since reading it, but my take on Origin of Species was that Darwin had some excellent observations that he wove into a good "first attempt" theory that needed more work. For example, when I was in college (back in the last century), there were still major issues with evolution theory like an inability to fully define what a species is.

There's no such thing as a perfect scientific theory. Even gravitational and germ theories have their respective grey areas. Darwin's original assertions had some major flaws, and those have been addressed as our knowledge has expanded in the areas of genetics, paleontology, and microbiology. Our current knowledge has disproven some of Darwin's theories but it has also enhanced and confirmed his central theory of natural selection. We're still making new discoveries and learning new things, but we currently have enough evidence to name evolution through natural selection the best theory.

I don't think ID has all the answers either, but I think it brings another point of view to discussion. In science, any new discussion, even if it is wrong, is good at least to the point that it can generate new ideas and new discussion that bring scientific advancement. I strongly oppose any outright censorship in the overall discussion. I have also personally observed that ID appears to not be a single theory of one person but instead a group of ideas that elaborate on evolution coming from many people - some of these contradicting with each other as well.

Peer review isn't censorship. ID concepts like irreducible complexity have been examined and disproven by the scientific community. The only reason why we have this controversy over the issue is because of the religious factor. When one scientist's theory is proven superior to another's it's called scientific progress. When a scientific theory clashes with religious teachings, however, it's called persecution. See the problem here? Old theories regarding relativity and gravity were crushed by Einstein, but I don't believe that there was nearly as much fuss made over it as we've seen over evolution. I agree that evolution should be questioned and scrutinized, but I also believe that those who wish to do so should respect the scientific method and acknowledge the flaws in their theories.

The funny thing about this issue, and the thing that has hurt ID theory more than anything else, is the fact that most ID scientists fully embrace the theory of evolution through natural selection. As I said though, evolution isn't a perfect theory. There are still things we don't know, and the thing that seperates ID scientists from the rest of the pack is their approach in addressing these gaps in knowledge. Rather than look for a biological answer to the problem, they claim that the answer is an intelligent designer (God). That's called Gap Theory, and it's a mockery of the scientific method.

In physics, when someone had a revolutionary idea, they had to stand up and defend that idea. Math and physical observations had to back up claims. Any idea that could be presented in an intelligent and peer review capable format would be listened to - even those that most physicists thought were "bogus". Many have turned out to be bogus when I flaw was found in the math or another explanation was found for the observations, but some ended up leading to a new approach and eventual advancement.

I don't understand why biology can't follow a similar model due to religious, ideological, and philosophical wars inside the community.

Biologists do use that model. The ideological conflict often underscores it, but the model is there and all scientists are expected to adhere to it. The concept of an intelligent designer can't be supported with biological, geological, or genetic evidence, and that's why the scientific community has a hard time taking the idea seriously.

[georgia2]

You need to see the film.

[Guest Godless]

You need to see the film.

Tell you what, I'll watch Expelled if you'll watch Flock of Dodos. It's available on Netflix. It examines the Evolution/ID debate, and particularly the fight that's been going on in our nation's school boards. It's just as biased towards evolution as I'm sure Expelled is towards ID. I personally wasn't that fond of it because of the bias, but it made some very valid points. I'm willing to look at the opposing side's bias if you'll do the same.

[HiJolly]

I have yet to see a single ID theory that is actually based on the scientific method.

Same here. So sad to see peoplel taking ID seriously as legitimate science. Ugh.

HiJolly

[Moksha]

So sad to see people taking ID seriously as legitimate science. Ugh.

HiJolly

Yeah, that presupposes we are all from Backwoods, Georgia. Although, I reckon I could pick a few notes on the banjo while HiJolly sang.

[georgia2]

uuummmmmmm

ok, never heard of that film. but will definitely look into it and check it out.

I was surprised at what the scientist called "intelligent design" it wasn't what I had always thought it was.

[Guest Godless]

uuummmmmmm

ok, never heard of that film. but will definitely look into it and check it out.

I was surprised at what the scientist called "intelligent design" it wasn't what I had always thought it was.

Cool. I rented Expelled on iTunes. It's downloading now.

Just curious, how do you view the idea of Intelligent Design and how does it differ from the way the scientist described it?

[FunkyTown]

I don't understand why biology can't follow a similar model due to religious, ideological, and philosophical wars inside the community.

The problem, Father, is that Physics can be proven with scientific experimentation. Biology, on the other hand, can not be forced in the same way. If it took billions of years of sunlight hitting organic molecules on lifeless planets to create life on one planet, scientific observation will never observe this given our limited ability to observe and control the universe. On the other hand, Intelligent Design takes these gaps and assigns what those outside the ID group would call arbitrary values to them.

The problem lies in the fact that nobody on either side is really admitting those gaps exist. Despite never seeing a life originate under controlled circumstances(Or uncontrolled circumstances, to be fair), both groups are applying arbitrary values. Both groups apply logic, coming to different conclusions.

The truth is that we will either only know for certain God created it after death, or we will never know for certain because death is an absolute end, or we will know for certain when we achieve a much broader ability to manipulate and observe our universe.

None of those three options are available to those who want to provide answers now. This is why origin of life can come to no effective argument one way or the other. We simply don't have the knowledge or capability to gain that knowledge. That's offensive to many scientists of both stripes.

[FatherOfSix]

Yeah, that presupposes we are all from Backwoods, Georgia. Although, I reckon I could pick a few notes on the banjo while HiJolly sang.

I could stick a microphone out my window and upload an MP3 since I live in Backwoods, Georgia...

[HiJolly]

I could stick a microphone out my window and upload an MP3 since I live in Backwoods, Georgia...

Hey, might work! (since my voice is heard in Georgia...)

HiJolly

[Guest Godless]

I just finished watching the film. Here are my thoughts.

1. I was right about the Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy. The fact that people have tried to apply Darwinism to society via eugenics and genocide doesn't make it any less valid as a scientific theory.

2. Stein seemed intent on focusing on Darwin. This was a mistake considering that, as I said, many of his original ideas have been found lacking in the face of modern discoveries. Darwin had inadequate knowledge in areas of cellular composition, genetics, molecular science, and paleontology. Our current knowledge in each of those areas, however, has allowed us to correct and enhance his theory of natural selection.

3. Stein pointed out the gaps in mainstream scientific knowledge, but didn't bother to point out the same gaps in ID theory. One major flaw with ID as a scientific theory is the fact that the existence of a designer cannot be observed, tested, or proven. ID scientists are looking at an end result and using the unprovable concept of a designer to explain the means of achieving this result. Conventional science doesn't have these answers either, but we do have evidence in the form of fossil records and DNA that suggests that species have arisen and evolved over millions of years. We are able to use the fossils of transitional species to pinpoint the links between modern organisms and their common ancestors. We are constantly making new discoveries to shrink the gaps in knowledge that we have. What discoveries have ID scientists made to support the existence of an intelligent designer? That has always been one of my biggest questions in regards to ID, and Stein failed to answer it.

4. Stein seemed to be operating under the assumption that the origin of species (evolution through natural selection) and the origin of life (abiogenesis) are related and that evolutionary biologists should have some authority in areas of abiogenesis. This is incorrect. As Stein showed, people like Dawkins have their own respective theories about how life got started, but as of right now there is no evidence to support these theories, and people like Dawkins will freely admit to that. The only thing that gives Dawkins' alien theory more credibility than conventional ID theory is his admission at the end of the film that, if such a designer exists, it must have developed through Darwinian means, which leaves us back at square one wondering how this designer came into being. ID assumes the existence of a designer, but doesn't speak to the designer's origins.

5. I agree with the scientist who said that Dawkins has little credibility on matters of religion and cultural anthropology. Dawkins is a biologist, not a theologian, and not a cultural anthropologist. I read The God Delusion and was rather disappointed. He raised some good points, but ultimately I believe that his crusade against religion is a futile one. One of the major things that I disagree with Dawkins on is his assertion that studying evolution will automatically lead one to atheism. I think that this is a fairly common result, but it's certainly not a given. There are plenty of theists out there who reject ID in favor of conventional evolutionary biology. There is no need for science to be at war with religion. I personally believe that the two are incompatible, but I respect the fact that there are theists who are able to reconcile them.

6. I was a bit surprised that Stein didn't interview Michael Behe, the scientist who developed the ID-friendly theory of irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity, though it has been debunked, remains one of the central arguments for ID theory.

7. Lumping the ID debate with freedom of speech was a mistake. Until more substantial evidence can be provided to support it, ID has no place in our nation's schools. Evolution is the dominant theory and it has a lot more evidence to support it than ID does. The standard of education in science has always been to teach the dominant theory and leave weaker alternatives out of the curriculum.

8. I must admit, I was looking for an image similar to the one below at the end of the film when images were shown of the Berlin Wall being torn down. Isn't the kid in the red coat adorable???

Edited January 7, 2009 by Godless