I had no intention of watching Expelled. This thread is making me lean towards burning some minutes for it, but I doubt I'll enjoy it. I think Dawkins is an overbearing ass who should stick to his own research. He takes Occam's Razor, blows it up into the ridiculous notion that theology is crap and God definitely doesn't exist. The Scientific community are not all atheists or Dawkins minded. I recommend reading Evolutionary Biologist H. Allen Orr's review of the God Delusion. This is true. I don't take full stock in the several origin hypotheses floating around. I'm not sure many do. There's a tendency even for established scientists to pull things out of their bums when confronted with making an answer. OTOH, questions of our origin doesn't refute the processes of macro Evolution. I don't know whether it's deliberate, but ID tries to simplify the two by merging the assumptions together. I know you aren't addressing ID in this, but Intelligent Design is not a candidate for a paradigm shift. All it does is infect current evolutionary theory with the assumption of a falsifiable God (if you can "prove God" with science then...) and keep everything else in tact. With ID, how can you create a repeatable and testable experiment to absolutely conclude it's the sole "work of God"? Wouldn't that be the proof to creating more experiments on observing God? This is as ridiculous as Dawkins scientifically asserting through his linguistic mumbo jumbo that there is no God. I mention this in your quote because some members might assume that ID is a perfect candidate for your concerns in science. It is not a classically defined paradigm shift, nor does it pretend to be. Science and bio especially are growing at exponential rates because there's a lot of undiscovered territory. The boxes aren't defined yet for them to be closed. My first gut feeling against ID and this movie is that instead of opening minds, they're continuing to seed doubt into people who don't trust evolution for whatever reasons and make them more likely to ban or water down school curriculum. I mention this over and over because our bio lessons are becoming weaker and weaker despite new advances coming in every year. That is far more dangerous to me than an evolutionary biologist scoffing at a molecular or systems biologist's credentials.
Now that you have decided to be a bit of an ass, allow me to rebuke. No. You do not offer the "null" hypothesis as part of the scientific method simply because you do not know. Period. We cannot travel back in time, and therefore we'll never know for sure. The most we can do is to work on various theories and try to test them to see if we can increase our understanding. ID cannot be tested. You cannot even test predictions - because it has none. Postulating possiblilites (as Dawkins apparently did regarding aliens) is not the same as advocating those possibilites are "scientific". They are important to think about - BUT THEY ARE NOT SCIENCE.
I think most people don't look critically which is ironically what you say I'm guilty of. Explain to me why magic is a better explanation than evolution by natural selection. We have scientific models that explain how life could have come about. Experiments have been able to generate nucleotides and amino acids in conditions simulated by an early Earth environment (in as much as we can know). The fact that we can't make life in a lab because of unknown variables and suitable time (we are talking about BILLIONS of years here) doesn't in any way suggest that there isn't a natural explanation for the phenomenon.
Question: Why is pure luck a better explaination that Intelligent Design? Pure Luck sounds like more bull**** and haphazard and more based on FAITH than anything else. You watch how computers developed . . .like basically in principle from the Abacus . . . . to the Edvac. . to the modern computer . . . the evolution of computer systems was an intelligent design of improvement in the coming years. . .computers will basical reproduce and improve on themselves [computers building computers ] The level of complication may out distance what man himself could have conceived. Will their be a doubt that these new machines were created by man? Which is more Probable. . . . Pure Luck . . .or Intelligent Design? Just because you don't know how it was done. . . you are currently unable to duplicated it . .. doesn't mean someone else doesn't and or can't do it . . . . Evolution to me . . .in alot of ways comes down to . . IF WE DON'T KNOW HOW IT WAS DONE . . AND WE CANNOT DO IT . . . THEN IT MUST HAVE BEEN HAPPENSTANCE BECAUSE FRANKLY WE ARE THE MOST BRILLIANT THINGS IN THE UNIVERSE AND UNLESS SOMEONE SHOWS ME SPECIFICALLY . . . IT CANNOT BE DONE BY ANOTHER BEING PERIOD!!!! Rocket River
I understand, all I am saying is we don't seem to have a clue...yet. So it's difficult to dismiss anything at this point. I have absolutely no problem with evolution, and I am not one of those people that dismisses it either. I apologize if I came off as otherwise. And rhad, I didn't mean to be condescending, I respect your opinion and I think we agree on most points. I am not on some 'crusade' to have ID taught in science classes, in fact, I am perfectly OK with it not being included. I just wanted to highlight an aspect of scientific 'dogma' that is -- sadly -- pervasive in some research settings/academia. Anyways, I've made my points and I will gracefully bow out now...
IF, You're right, I am not addressing ID at all, just a general statement/observation I had when I was involved with academia. I don't think ID has solid scientific backing, you're right. What I noted was especially prevalent in the social sciences, where I saw first hand how 'nasty' and personal things could get if you dare to challenge the dominant paradigm in the field. You're hype sensitive, I didn't mean to tick you off, but I guess it's too late... It's not about offering the null hyp are arguing for it, it's about proving your original theory, and one popular way of doing so is to disprove the null hypothesis, which is not always feasible. However, the feasibility of alternative explanations severely impacts the validity of your original hyp. Agreed, and as I said, I fully recognize the need to move forward based on a set of assumptions. It's the only way to make scientific progress. We all do it... You're probably right, I can't comment on that however since I haven't actually run into much literature on that specific 'theory' or 'philosophy'. As I've said, I have no problem excluding ID and other 'off the cuff' theories about the origin of life, I agree it wouldn't make much sense in terms of scientific knowledge. ID is not the issue for me, specifically.
I don't think it's a matter of opinion, most social scientists (at least in the U.S.) apply the scientific method to their respective disciplines. A lot of progress has been made over the years in many of those fields, and they've had serious impact on society/the way we live in terms of social/political policies.
Pure luck is the opposite of what evolution by natural selection means. To say we are here by pure luck is neglecting our miraculous existence and circumstances. Just think how many genetic variations your parents could have wound up with just in making you. We did beat the odds. There's no emptiness winning the cosmic genetic lottery. It does make us more aware of others' misfortune if anything. If it is not amazing luck and God is actively choosing that I should be born in a prosperous America while some one else is placed into practical servitude in North Korea... I don't accept that I was chosen because I am special in some mysterious way. Our circumstances we are born to are very random (luck), our existence as a species is not.
I don't know if you can describe it as pure luck. Otherwise, you could still say that we're lucky God chose to make us (50/50). The computer example or a 747 example carries a flaw in that you're looking from the top down. I realize initial theories formed from top down observations, but the difference is the predictions evolutionary theories are able to make. Some concepts of ID contain the notion of a final evolutionary destiny or that we're just steps before perfection. Evolution, for the most part, assumes we continue to change until we become extinct or start using an unnatural process wholesale like cloning. In many cases, Evolution can rock people's personal notions of their God, but it isn't an outright disproof or even a threat to some of religions core principles. I would think some tests in solidified faith are healthy from time to time. The current Pope has more or less acknowledged Evolutionary theory. That makes him no more an atheist or heretic. All he's saying is that God can act through Evolution. He's not calling to inject his beliefs into schools or forcing scientists to research on this idea.
I feel good when my team beats the odds. But I'd still be curious about how it happened. If the Rockets pull off this playoff series, we will have beaten the odds but I won't assume it's because the game was rigged. We say luck like it's some negative or positive thing. It just is.
yes . . .it just is My point is. . . How is cosmic Luck . . . a better explaination that ID? Rocket River
Apparently this movie debunks darwinism. . . Ben Stein Debunks Darwinism in New Movie <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EYTTkenu60Y&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EYTTkenu60Y&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Wow...so Ben Stein believes we need an eye in the sky or we'll go ape. Then he goes and confuses social Darwinism with evolution. I'm not a fan of dishonest discussion. I think I'll take a break from this topic.
Ah, the classic "they don't believe in God because they don't want to be accountable for their actions" fallacy. If God did exist, we would be accountable to her whether or not we believed. Additionally, there could exist a God that punishes believers rather than non-believers, in which case the latter are morally superior.
I did not research anything about the movie before I saw it, and I might of been lied to in convincing fashion. The point for me wasn't whether ID is valid, scientific or even presented that way in the movie, I was interested more in the way the scientists portrayed were being treated and I was touched by the Jewish context in the movie. I don't know what trickery was used and manipulation if any in the interviews and the editing of such for the movie. But what I did like was the content of the interviews taken under any pretext they were interesting and honest. I can't see how someone could see the movie and make this big a deal out of it since it really isn't some huge attack against science. It is like a big question asked concerning the protection of evolution in academia. Why is evolution such a huge sacred cow? That's how I saw it.
I never said magic explained anything. I said I believe in creation. I said I made a choice to do that based upon my faith and the confidence I personally have in the context of the words of Christ. I don't think I'm responsible to explain a better explanation that evolution to come to a rational and intelligent decision that it is not a perfect explanation or even a good and reasonable explanation of origins. You have the same problem I did when I was an evolutionist, no one could question me without me feeling responsible to point out their delusion. My theory was sacred, truth, and beyond critical analysis and or any other kind of free thought.
Evolution is rigorously defended in academia because religious fundamentalists never rest in their crusade to discredit it. There is a conscious effort on their part to make our children dumber by removing actual science from the classroom and replacing it with fairy tales. Intelligent design does not, never has, and never will have any place in legitimate scientific discourse. You guys have your tax-exempt churches to discuss theology. Leave our laboratories alone.
