Paranoia - Ben Stein - Evolution & No Intelligence FOUND

[_Moniker]

I'm sure a few of you have already seen this. I saw it a few months ago and tried to forget it. But I thought I'd share:

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Super Trailer)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGCxbhGaVfE

What was surprising to me was the paranoia! Look at the comments under the video and you'll see a bunch of flunkies saying, "RIGHT ON STEIN!"

My favorite line is, "Everything that exists is created by a loving God. That includes rooocks, trees, animals, people, really everything."

PROFOUND!

Just in case you want to continue the titillating suggestion of Stein being a "bad boy" here's the soundtrack to help ya out. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7VsoxT_FUY

[_asbestosman]

My favorite line is, "Everything that exists is created by a loving God. That includes rooocks, trees, animals, people, really everything."

And viruses, disease-causing fungus, bacteria, tapeworms, maggots, flies, cooties, weeds, cockroaches, mold, rats, Mormon crickets, plate techtonics with earthquakes and tsunamis, volcanos, etc.

I think there may be something to Ben Stein's movie though. It may be that people have to make a choice between keeping their jobs and trying to argue about Intelligent Design. Sure, ID may not be science, but it might still be used to refute a current theory just as Michelson-Morely refuted the idea of luminiferous aether before Einstein. Now, would refuting the current mechanism of evolution make it true that we were created by an intelligent designer? No, but it would be interesting and worthwhile to know.

[_Coggins7]

My favorite line is, "Everything that exists is created by a loving God. That includes rooocks, trees, animals, people, really everything."

PROFOUND!

And obviously way, way, way over your head.

[Guest]

I'm looking forward to seeing this film actually. (Has it already come out in the U.S.?)

I'm guessing it will demonstrate two things:

1. Most scientists don't view ID as legitimate science. (Which would be accurate)
2. Some scientists put up 'unreasonable' resistance to the very idea of ID. (Which has happened to every other truly 'ground-breaking' idea in the history of science).

I'm guessing many will promptly add 2 and 2 together to make 5.

[_Moniker]

My favorite line is, "Everything that exists is created by a loving God. That includes rooocks, trees, animals, people, really everything."

PROFOUND!

And obviously way, way, way over your head.

*blink*

[_Moniker]

I'm looking forward to seeing this film actually. (Has it already come out in the U.S.?)

I'm guessing it will demonstrate two things:

1. Most scientists don't view ID as legitimate science. (Which would be accurate)
2. Some scientists putting up 'unreasonable' resistance to the very idea of ID. (Which has happened to every other truly 'ground-breaking' idea in the history of science).

I'm guessing many will promptly add 2+2 together to make 5.

Last I checked it's supposed to come out in April here in the states. I want to see it too.

[_Moniker]

My favorite line is, "Everything that exists is created by a loving God. That includes rooocks, trees, animals, people, really everything."

And viruses, disease-causing fungus, bacteria, tapeworms, maggots, flies, cooties, weeds, cockroaches, mold, rats, Mormon crickets, plate techtonics with earthquakes and tsunamis, volcanos, etc.

Yes! How thoughtful of He!

I think there may be something to Ben Stein's movie though. It may be that people have to make a choice between keeping their jobs and trying to argue about Intelligent Design. Sure, ID may not be science, but it might still be used to refute a current theory just as Michelson-Morely refuted the idea of luminiferous aether before Einstein. Now, would refuting the current mechanism of evolution make it true that we were created by an intelligent designer? No, but it would be interesting and worthwhile to know.

Oh geez! You made me just go and read up on the theory of absolute relativity. Don't do that to me!!!! Yet, I still don't understand! Michelson-Morley was doing experiments though... Right?

[Guest]

I see that ID is not just challenging science -- but it is NOT science. You want to take on a scientific theory (fact) then use science to do so. Unless God happens to come riding down on his chariot then what is there to support ID? It derives from God.

To be fair to ID-ers...

...when we talk about the 'legitimacy' of ID as 'science', we have to differentiate between those that:

1. Put forward ID as a competing theory
2. Put forward ID as a grouping of 'criticisms' against 'natural' evolution being the 'full' answer to the diversity of life on Earth.

The first 'incantation' of ID is not scientifically viable. At least not yet...

The second one is - 'technically'. It's valid because it's critisising / attacking an existing scientific theory, and critisising / attacking an existing scientific theory is perfectly valid science. The problem is with the name 'ID'. It gives the impression that if one were able to knock over such concepts as 'Natural Selection' (at least NS being the 'full explanation'), then somehow the Intelligent Designer is scientifically 'proven'. And this simply isn't the case.

Even if the ID-ist in question denies it is so, the name of their 'group' clearly implies it.

I recently heard that the name 'Intelligent Design' is being phased out, and the name 'Rational Criticism of Natural Selection' - or something like this, is replacing it for this very reason...

[_Ren]

Actually, the name mentioned was 'Critical analysis of evolution'.

It's mentioned right at the end of this presentation by Ken Miller (start at 100 mins to see the 'Critical analysis bit...)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjv ... re=related

by the way - this presentation is great! I really recommend watching the whole thing...

[_Moniker]

I see that ID is not just challenging science -- but it is NOT science. You want to take on a scientific theory (fact) then use science to do so. Unless God happens to come riding down on his chariot then what is there to support ID? It derives from God.

To be fair to ID-ers...

...when we talk about the 'legitimacy' of ID as 'science', we have to differentiate between those that:

1. Put forward ID as a competing theory
2. Put forward ID as a grouping of 'criticisms' against 'natural' evolution being the 'full' answer to the diversity of life on Earth.

The first 'incantation' of ID is not scientifically viable. At least not yet...

The second one is - 'technically'. It's valid because it's critisising / attacking an existing scientific theory, and critisising / attacking an existing scientific theory is perfectly valid science. The problem is with the name 'ID'. It gives the impression that if one were able to knock over such concepts as 'Natural Selection' (at least NS being the 'full explanation'), then somehow the Intelligent Designer is scientifically 'proven'. And this simply isn't the case.

Even if the ID-ist in question denies it is so, the name of their 'group' clearly implies it.

I recently heard that the name 'Intelligent Design' is being fazed out, and the name 'Rational Criticism of Natural Selection' - or something like this, is replacing it for this very reason...

I don't want to be fair!

I've been reading some on ID lately. I read quite a bit about 2 years ago on evolution (had a lil fit of interest:) and then tried to stay up with it. Just, haven't really understood ID so much. I just see so many people that do state that they're creationists or IDers and they propose myths about the theory of evolution. That sort of irritates me....

Anyway, I started reading a board a few months back with a lot of debate in it. But it was so bogged down with nonsense I didn't get a lot out of it. So I've been looking at websites to try to better understand precisely what their criticisms are. Yet, if they start out with misstating what evolutionary theory is to begin with I sort of zone them out.

The only thing I found really interesting in what I linked is the paranoia... it reminded me a bit of Coggies (blink) and other people I've come across that get rather excited about it.