creationism theme park in the making - (Dec/16/2007 )
Check out this Ben Stein movie coming out.
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/video.php
It makes me wonder why people don't even want the discussion. I thought science was all about discussion?
you mean the movie mentioned in the thread below this one? here ?
Because ID is just another way of saying [a] god[s] did it. To get an idea of how open to discussion the ID group behind Expelled are, google PZ Myers, Pharagula and expelled from expelled (or just go to Dawkins net). As an argument ID doesn't have any hard facts going for it. This includes the bacterial flagellum (because the constituents are not used anywhere else in the cell - WHICH IS WRONG) & bananas (they seem unwilling to acknowledge selective crop breeding has resulted in the modern day banana as it has for wheat, barley etc).
oh, I don't know anything about the debate for ID or Darwinism really. I could care less, it seems as though both sides are blind. I'm just wondering why it's not a more open, scientific discussion?
I mean, I used to work on PPAR gamma, now work on seizure research. People come up with crazy ideas, but we all listen and critically analyze and get what we can from data and ideas. In the case of ID and Darwinism/evolution (which for some reason are thought of as mutually exclusive), alot of people choose a side and are fanatical about it. The irony of a 'religious zealot' type attitude for Darwinism never gets old to me 
I mean, I used to work on PPAR gamma, now work on seizure research. People come up with crazy ideas, but we all listen and critically analyze and get what we can from data and ideas. In the case of ID and Darwinism/evolution (which for some reason are thought of as mutually exclusive), alot of people choose a side and are fanatical about it. The irony of a 'religious zealot' type attitude for Darwinism never gets old to me
I guess the reason for evolution and ID being mutually exclusive is that: evolution = change over time in response to environmental factors (food etc) for which there is *some* evidence which is falsifiable and ID = there was/is a designer (the Christian god, more often than not) for which there is NO evidence. ID, obviously, requires a designer ... the question that 'they' never seem to answer is: what / who designed the designer? I am yet to hear a convincing argument for ID - I am about to listen to a talk by Michael Behe on point of inquiry to see what hist arguments are - I did get to take part in a review of one of his papers which was a subtle allusion to ID. It appeared to be without evidence.
My mutually exclusive innuendo was more to the fact that a creator (maybe some scientist a long time ago doing an experiment to create humans to see how long it would take for them to destroy themselves) could have set the changes in motion to slowly create our current biological system here on earth. Maybe GOD isn't so magic after all and he lives in a universe governed by physical laws, maybe he's a pretty smart guy and guy set those kind of things in motion. Heck, I've seen some not some smart guys set into motion the steps necessary to 'select' out only their lovely GFP transfected cells. Those GFP expressing cells sure as heck didn't randomly happen! Well, actually their was an element of randomness, and darwinism, and ID.
You want evidence? Well, then such research would need funding - on both sides. I would rather do other research, so even with funding I wouldn't want to do it.
Still BOTH sides seem a little to religious about their positions. Scientists claim to be all about evidence, but how many times do you hear, or have you said yourself, I don't 'believe' that paper.
You want evidence? Well, then such research would need funding - on both sides. I would rather do other research, so even with funding I wouldn't want to do it.
Still BOTH sides seem a little to religious about their positions. Scientists claim to be all about evidence, but how many times do you hear, or have you said yourself, I don't 'believe' that paper.
The Alien creator eh?. I would like some clarification. Did they create humans and put us here as we are now, alongside an already existent biological system (for which there are fossils etc) or as some creationists would have you believe, that fossils etc were put here (by God[s]) to cover their tracks? or did they dump the parts and e Either way you are starting to sound like a theist. My question would have to be: what created those aliens that put us here? a designer? Were they an experiment too? If not, how did they come to exist? Given the amount of evidence we have about development on this planet it, would it not be reasonable to assume that they had gone some through some evolution?
Just because we don't understand something does not mean that we should explain it away, either in the form of a god[s] or little green men. What use is part of an eye? A whole lot more than none at all. The eye didn't form overnight!
I almost agree with you on your last point. I think both sides are aggressive/religious. However I do feel that the scientists have a better leg to stand on. I also don't think your point about reading a paper and thinking 'I don't believe that' is really a good argument. Given a published scientific paper, suitable time and funding I should be able to repeat the work and get the same result - it is falsifiable. If I can't, I am either incompetent, they omitted things from their details or, worse, they are liars (we know that some scientists are (crystallography and stem cell research)). The problem with ID is that 1) there are no published papers because there is no solid evidence for their statements. 2) you can't prove god/aliens, in much the same way that I can't disprove. Therefore we (scientists) make our decision based on the *facts* around us - in this case - life on this earth has evolved.
If you can provide evidence that conclusively proves ID please go ahead.
You also mention funding, perhaps you should check out the discovery institute - it is funded to prove that ID is correct. At the moment they are failing - the result - Expelled. Evolutionary studies are very well funded (in the UK by MRC/BBSRC etc and in the US NIH I assume others too) - it was what Dawkins did and it is what many biologists continue to do - much of the work I was involved with was about evolution.
And you have to consider that both the creationists as the 'religious' scientist counterparts (Dawkins et al.) are minorites. Vociferous but a minority. Most Christians and many scientists can live or accept the other 'world', I read somewhere that about 40% of the scientists believe. And church (Roman, protestant, etc.) accept now scientific facts and theories that were in mediaeval times reason to burn them at the stake. And there are enough approaches to reconcile both, e.g. Alister Mc Grath's book "The Dawkins Delusion: Atheist fundamentalism and the denial of the divine" (I didn't read, except a review).
As a scientist I hope that most of the aggressive style of the scientists is attributed to the strong expansion and missionary work of the fundamentalist Christians. Most of the discussion was already done in 19th century, insofar a revenant discussion.
P.S. I love still Stanislaw Lem's story (The Star Diaries) that life on Earth by chance was created by a saucer landing here and emptying the organic waste bin on a till then dead planet.
As a scientist I hope that most of the aggressive style of the scientists is attributed to the strong expansion and missionary work of the fundamentalist Christians. Most of the discussion was already done in 19th century, insofar a revenant discussion.
P.S. I love still Stanislaw Lem's story (The Star Diaries) that life on Earth by chance was created by a saucer landing here and emptying the organic waste bin on a till then dead planet.
I would very much like to see where you got that 40%.
I do feel that scientists are being motivated by the attempted use of ID to get God into science lessons. I prefer the orbiting teapot creator (Bertrand Russell).
As a scientist I hope that most of the aggressive style of the scientists is attributed to the strong expansion and missionary work of the fundamentalist Christians. Most of the discussion was already done in 19th century, insofar a revenant discussion.
P.S. I love still Stanislaw Lem's story (The Star Diaries) that life on Earth by chance was created by a saucer landing here and emptying the organic waste bin on a till then dead planet.
I would very much like to see where you got that 40%.
I do feel that scientists are being motivated by the attempted use of ID to get God into science lessons. I prefer the orbiting teapot creator (Bertrand Russell).
Actually nobody counted them , but a wild guess?? Perhaps a poll would be interesting here.
And I'm not defending the believers or their view, I'm agnostic. Anyway we've also to divide between belief and religion/church, I also mixed it up. IMO a liberal and private way of faith, why not? Most people need something spiritual. If it is going institutional and tries to influence or mission the society or science, respectively, then there is reason for defence.
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." B Russell
But isn't religion trying to influence society? Take global stem cell research and the recent catholic church comments about embryonic work (here in the uk). If you want a great example take the US, where the constitution has already been violated.
------
ooh a poll. Excellent. Now how do we do one of those? Hmm looks like we have to start a new topic. Before doing so shall we agree on categories for the experiment?
Monotheistic (Abrahamic)
Polytheistic (e.g. Hindu)
Cult ($cientology, Raelians)
Non-believer (Atheist, agnostic)
I am sure we could divide the groups further but it may get complicated
------
ooh a poll. Excellent. Now how do we do one of those? Hmm looks like we have to start a new topic. Before doing so shall we agree on categories for the experiment?
Monotheistic (Abrahamic)
Polytheistic (e.g. Hindu)
Cult ($cientology, Raelians)
Non-believer (Atheist, agnostic)
I am sure we could divide the groups further but it may get complicated
Yes it is. I don't like it. But you cannot avoid spiritual feelings or belief, but try to direct it in a reasonable direction. I.e. also to support the liberals. If not the 'classic' church is doing it, then sects, gurus and all the freaks try to take over. And they do already...
The poll list is okay for me, but just non-believer/non-religious - believer/religious (both in any kind) would be also a basic but neutral division (perhaps natural religions and believers in greek gods are also here and they feel uneasy in cult
)