I think that's because the central tenet of the movie is hogwash. I've lost alot of respect for Ben Stein. He really blew it on this one. Alot of the interviews were done under false pretenses (the interviewees were told the movie was about the conflict of science and religion and was to be called "Crossroads"). Even the main thrust (people losing their jobs for promoting ID) has proven to not be true.

This movie seems to be sort of like a Lee Strobel book - it fires up the religious masses, but really doesn't have any substance.

Here's some good reading:

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-04-17.html#part1

Edit: Another good website:

http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth

The real scary thing to me is the deceptive lengths the ID proponents will go to in an attempt to drum up some sympathy for their cause. They can't win in the classroom (or the courts) so they come up with a movie chocked full of false premises.

It is obvious that they must resort to these tactics as their "theory" can't stand on its own. Sad, really. I can't believe Ben Stein is mixed up in this.

Of course you do, you are the poster boy for the central tenet.

Whether you think it is hogwash or not, as a man of science myself, I have to agree that the scientific community tends to reject those ideas that go against the prevailing wisdom. This is true throughout science, not just in evolutionary science.

It probably has a lot to do with the fact that people who devote their lives to the study of an area get very personally invested in the "truth" of their ideas. It's only natural, you don't want to feel like your life's work has been wasted. I'm sure those people who spent their lives showing that the world was flat had the same reactions to Columbus and his radical ideas....

The scientific community is skeptical of new ideas, and, if these new ideas are sound enough, they will stand on their own. Often times it takes independent research leading to a supporting conclusion before the skeptics come around. It's the scientific community's way of implementing the survival of the fittest. :)

ID is not science, it is religion pretending to be science.

"Man of Science"? That is not what your signature implies. Beside, getting through medical school hardly qualifies you as a scientist. I met plenty of med students who were as deluded as any YECer. They were called the christian medical society. I had many an interesting discussion with them. Very telling.

Not where I work. At what scientific facility do you work, again?!?

Sure, sidestep my answers with the old 'irrelevant' charge.

And why didn't you address the birth of living machines? I've noticed most are staying away from that one, when it is so obviously proves the possibility of intelligent design. I contend cloning is deliberate, intentional, intelligent design...but even if someone wants to discount cloning, there is no doubt that the birth of living AI will be "ID" by any sensible definition of the term.

To cherry pick things to answer is pretty disingenuous. And yeah, to me, how or why we live longer is VERY MUCH relevant to this discussion, and that is no joke.

IMO you just can't claim evolutionary influence when there is a very good chance that any change was born of technological innovation. And besides, don't the scientists quoted earlier state that this sort of thing takes millenia to observe anyway? :-P

I agree. That phenomenon is pretty blatantly obvious.

-----------------------------------------

Jeez Iroc, you make Nathan's Dad's case for him here.

The violence of many posters responses to this thread is pretty amazing.

Wow, a 2 for one!!


LOL. A degree in Biomedical Sciences with research background in evolutionary genetics, a Doctor of Medicine and a currently practicing physician and I'm not good enough for you? Point proven.

What does the creation of "living machines" have to do with the biological process of evolution? I think that you're changing the discussion to "What about all these ways we can act as intelligent designers by artifically manipulating machinery or biological creatures?" That's a totally different subject, so, that's why I think you may not be getting any takers to your challenge. It's off topic on this off topic thread. :)

Because intelligent living machines would be borne purely of intelligent, deliberate, purposeful design.

That would prove beyond any reasonable doubt that "ID" does in fact exist as a viable way to be the starting point for life.

There are no living machines now. When we make the first one, the guy that does it, is their "Creator."

Seems to me so many here are saying ID is not possible, period...but the creation of living AI would prove that it's not just possible, but demonstrable.

This question could not be more relevant IMO.

PS: The human body, or any other living thing, is just a machine too. Sure a living machine would be based on silicone, we are not, but it is a small distinction, in reality.

Alive is alive.

Is it your assertion then, that all scientists are atheist or agnostic??

Respectfully disagree. Everyone is entitled to express an opinion and their beliefs. When someone starts to make authoritative statements on a topic and attempts to pass them off as "science" or "fact", they should be able to back them up.

eg I don't delve into the deeper arguments on economics, mechanical issues, etc because my knowledge base there is limited. I will offer opinions and beliefs but that is about it. I don't however beat a drum ad nasueum about how capitalism as an economic theory is BS and actually the world market controlled by Santa and the Tooth Fairy.

A person should know their limitations. Or at least have a clue.

Based on his posted creds, Natan seems pretty damn qualified to have an opinion.

PS: As americans it is our god given right to have no idea as to what our limitations are!

(this is humor)

I agree with your premise, Nostatic, however would you not agree that someone could be very learned in a topic without having a formal university education in it? I'm not saying this is the case and honestly I skipped over much of the mudslinging when I read the thread last night, the whole thing just felt like schoolyard debate tactics to me...


Also, if you were concerned about the credentials of those discussing the topic, why did you not question the credentials of IROC or sjf911 or Jim Richards?

his signature is a quote from Albert Einstein I believe, hack pseudo scientist who made his bones working in a patent office

your bias is showing, pull down your skirt

I'm not talking about Nathan'sDad...I already know his qualifications. I'm talking about the OP.

Don't bother reading the whole thread...idiotic. Suffice it to say that at one point the OP essentially laid down a challenge that those arguing didn't have the background/qualifications in science to be doing so. Admittedly this was after I had brought the topic up, but it was fairly evidently to me that the OP was not "learned". If someone is trying to argue (poorly) against science, then I'm going to ask their background. SOP...I want to know who I'm talking to.

and for the record I believe in a higher power and believe that religion and science can co-exist. But I also understand the difference between science and belief.

The arrogance on this thread is strong...



KT

Actually it is William F. Buckley during an audio essay for "This I Believe" on NPR...

Einstein did say this though, which I think is apropos:

"Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . . . They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres."

Maybe I should change my sig...

I enjoy reading the different responses posted here.

Some are very predictable and harsh. That's too bad.

Nathan's ( rick ), I appreciate your contribution.
Respectful and well composed. Thank you!


KT