Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

bjspurple said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGCxbhGaVfE

Note that I am not a creationist. If you look at my CF profile you will notice that I have listed "Theistic Evolution" under my Origin of Life view. However, I find that it is unfair for scientists who question evolutionary theory to be labeled as pseudo-scientists or theocrats, and I find it unfair that such scientists are either not taken seriously or discriminated against as this video suggests. Appeals to authority should not matter, only appeals to evidence should hold substance. We must remember that evolution is a theory, and yes, there is evidence for it, but that does not mean that we should dis-consider or exclude the evidence against it. And we should certainly not ridicule scientists who question the status quo. Whatever happened to academic freedom, or should we just prostitute ourselves to popular notions of truth?

Click to expand...

When they have to make up and misinterpret stuff, they have a problem.

The basic premise of the film is silly. Creationists do absolutely no science, yet when their ideas are not allowed entry in schools they flail around and yell "help, help! I'm being repressed!"

bjspurple said:

Note that I am not a creationist. If you look at my CF profile you will notice that I have listed "Theistic Evolution" under my Origin of Life view. However, I find that it is unfair for scientists who question evolutionary theory to be labeled as pseudo-scientists or theocrats, and I find it unfair that such scientists are either not taken seriously or discriminated against as this video suggests. Appeals to authority should not matter, only appeals to evidence should hold substance. We must remember that evolution is a theory, and yes, there is evidence for it, but that does not mean that we should dis-consider or exclude the evidence against it. And we should certainly not ridicule scientists who question the status quo. Whatever happened to academic freedom, or should we just prostitute ourselves to popular notions of truth?

Click to expand...

Me and every other Atheist here agrees with you, you are right to question everything,
so if creationists wish to question evolution, go ahead, produce your evidence and go for it,
prove evolution is wrong, we will stand behind you all the way.

BUT PLEASE, do not think for one minute the bible is evidence, because it is not,
if you have a problem with a theory, put something else forward to replace it, point out where it is wrong,
do not try to prove something is wrong unless you can say why it's wrong.

I'm sorry, but the theory of evolution is well established, and scientists, especially biologists, who do not accept the theory are going to be judged accordingly. It's like if a chemist disagrees with atomic theory.

The evidence for the theory is so overwhelming, that there is absolutely no doubt that organisms have evolved into their current state. There is no weakness there, there is no doubt. Any biologist who expresses doubt either couldn't be bothered to examine the evidence, because there is more literature to read than one has time to read in an entire lifetime of the subject, or the individual allows preconceived conclusions to get in the way of the science. If a scientist does either of those, he or she is not a viable scientist, and hence the prejudiced against individuals who do not support such a well evidenced theory.

Remember, the debate isn't within the scientific community, the debate is within the lay population. A biologist should know better.

bjspurple said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGCxbhGaVfE

Note that I am not a creationist. If you look at my CF profile you will notice that I have listed "Theistic Evolution" under my Origin of Life view. However, I find that it is unfair for scientists who question evolutionary theory to be labeled as pseudo-scientists or theocrats, and I find it unfair that such scientists are either not taken seriously or discriminated against as this video suggests. Appeals to authority should not matter, only appeals to evidence should hold substance. We must remember that evolution is a theory, and yes, there is evidence for it, but that does not mean that we should dis-consider or exclude the evidence against it. And we should certainly not ridicule scientists who question the status quo. Whatever happened to academic freedom, or should we just prostitute ourselves to popular notions of truth?

Click to expand...

There was a time I would have agreed with you and I have always accetped Evolution. I use to be in support of fairness of the two, but the problem is, there is no evdances for ID. If there was, I be cool with it, I could have a real debate on the subject. ID is religous and was made only to bring creation into the class room. I did play it fair at frist, I try to hear the evadances for ID, but its ether ether half-scinece or flat out lies or simply asking how could this have happen and then just answering God did it, with out any evadance to back up there claims.

This film makes it look like that we dont want ID in the class room becasue we are scared of it. It seems to sujest that schools, the midea, the goverment and scinentist are all working against Creationist and religon becasue were trying to hide somthing. That not right or ture, we have given the Creationist more chancse then they should have had and ever time they have failed. They dont even want to test there own theroy. Alot of times when I ask the hard qustions about Creation, few try to answer or not answer at all. 90% of these people (in the US) are Christians who think every thing that not from the bible is just a lie and that we are all going to hell if we dont belive them. So they dont want to hear what we have to say. ID would not be here if was not for religon and I am a theist saying this.

TheKingOfImmortality said:

There was a time I would have agreed with you and I have always accetped Evolution. I use to be in support of fairness of the two, but the problem is, there is no evdances for ID. If there was, I be cool with it, I could have a real debate on the subject. ID is religous and was made only to bring creation into the class room. I did play it fair at frist, I try to hear the evadances for ID, but its ether ether half-scinece or flat out lies or simply asking how could this have happen and then just answering God did it, with out any evadance to back up there claims.

This film makes it look like that we dont want ID in the class room becasue we are scared of it. It seems to sujest that schools, the midea, the goverment and scinentist are all working against Creationist and religon becasue were trying to hide somthing. That not right or ture, we have given the Creationist more chancse then they should have had and ever time they have failed. Most of the time they dont even want to test there own theroy. Alot of times when I ask the hard qustions about Creation, few try to answer or not answer at all. 90% of these people (in the US) are Christians who think every thing that not from the bible is just a lie and that we are all going to hell if we dont belive them. So they dont want to hear what we have to say. ID would not be here if if was not for religon and I am a theist saying this.

Click to expand...

Dont get me wrong, I am not saying dont qusiton Evolution, by all means, qusiton it, but I think people for ID are avoiding qusitons and answers now. I did put evolution into qutions at one point but I am more convinces then every before that its the real deal.

It's not that the creationists aren't given a fair hearing. They got one, the first time they turned up with their ideas. Their ideas were disproven. Yet they persist in an extremely dishonest fashion with the same arguments.

In fact, they stopped attempting to be scientific because they knew they had no argument, and now attempt to win the public over with propaganda pieces like this.

They're a joke to be honest, they deserve all the derision they get.

bjspurple said:

I agree. The Bible is not a book of scientific discourse- it was not written to be as such either. Therefore, one can not cite the Bible as scientific documentary evidence that disproves evolution.

Click to expand...

Can I ask you somthing?


What scientific evidence do Creationist have that has not bin shot down by everyone els?

I have yet to see this.

bjspurple said:

Note that I am not a creationist. If you look at my CF profile you will notice that I have listed "Theistic Evolution" under my Origin of Life view. However, I find that it is unfair for scientists who question evolutionary theory to be labeled as pseudo-scientists or theocrats, and I find it unfair that such scientists are either not taken seriously or discriminated against as this video suggests. Appeals to authority should not matter, only appeals to evidence should hold substance. We must remember that evolution is a theory, and yes, there is evidence for it, but that does not mean that we should dis-consider or exclude the evidence against it. And we should certainly not ridicule scientists who question the status quo. Whatever happened to academic freedom, or should we just prostitute ourselves to popular notions of truth?

Click to expand...

This is not about academic freedom. The problem is not that they hold an unpopular view, it's why they hold it. Scientists have the right, no the obligation to evaluate their peers and hold them to certain standards. If a scientist holds a scientifically relevant view in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, shouldnt that affect the credibility of that scientist? If this view is not only inherently pseudoscientific but definitively disproven shouldnt that affect the credibility of the scientist? I also think that a biologist who does evolutionarily relevant work and doesnt accept evolution is being PROFOUNDLY intellectually dishonest. It's like being a vulcanologist who denies plate tectonics.

bjspurple said:

We must remember that evolution is a theory, and yes, there is evidence for it, but that does not mean that we should dis-consider or exclude the evidence against it. And we should certainly not ridicule scientists who question the status quo. Whatever happened to academic freedom, or should we just prostitute ourselves to popular notions of truth?

Click to expand...

I agree that we should consider evidence against anything.

"Theory" A scientific theory is not the same as a hunch, guess or a hypothesis. It's more a way of describing how things work.

Please take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Furthermore Creationists doesn't come up with a mode of explaining how the world works, it just asserts "goddidit", and critisize evolution rather than build up under their own hypothesis (And creating a "theory of inteligent design", or whatever). Also creationism doesn't have any uses. What ever would a biologist do with the statement "godidit" when trying to create a new type of medicine?

The theory of evolution work in practice (and thus confirms itself as a theory) as it helps biologist understand things. Creationism would stop science FIRMLY in its tracks.

If the creationists could build up under their hypothesises with evidence (sans bible) in a way that made better sense of the world than evolution they could chalange the status quo as you say. Until then, they are dishonest, speculative crackpot pseudoscientist WHORING themselves before the religious masses by telling them what they want to hear, rather than what the evidence shows.

Athrond

bjspurple said:

Note that I am not a creationist. If you look at my CF profile you will notice that I have listed "Theistic Evolution" under my Origin of Life view. However, I find that it is unfair for scientists who question evolutionary theory to be labeled as pseudo-scientists or theocrats, and I find it unfair that such scientists are either not taken seriously or discriminated against as this video suggests. Appeals to authority should not matter, only appeals to evidence should hold substance. We must remember that evolution is a theory, and yes, there is evidence for it, but that does not mean that we should dis-consider or exclude the evidence against it. And we should certainly not ridicule scientists who question the status quo. Whatever happened to academic freedom, or should we just prostitute ourselves to popular notions of truth?

Click to expand...

No, we discriminate against scientists who practice 'Creation Science', because it isn't science - They attempt to understand the natural world by invoking supernatural elements and make it metaphysical: ie, it's impossible to find ANY evidence for God at all, but they still practice their science as if the evidence for him was irrefutable.

Also Evolution is both a fact and a theory.

I hope Ben Stein gets laughed out of hollywood.

bjspurple said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGCxbhGaVfENote that I am not a creationist. If you look at my CF profile you will notice that I have listed "Theistic Evolution" under my Origin of Life view. However, I find that it is unfair for scientists who question evolutionary theory to be labeled as pseudo-scientists or theocrats

Click to expand...

I disagree. What we find is that, of all the people who claim to be creationist scientists, they either do not do science in any relevant area (e.g. they are chemists) or what they are proposing is nothing that anyone can really label science.
Now, the generalisation doesn't necessarily follow, and I don't necessarily advocate it, but it's a fairly logical step given the data we have.

and I find it unfair that such scientists are either not taken seriously or discriminated against as this video suggests.

Click to expand...

They're not taken seriously because they don't have the actual science to back them up. Michael Behe is probably the nearest to a respectable scientist you can get (and he's ID, not YEC) but what he presents is not science, but a series of fallacious and in some cases falsified arguments.
A "creation scientist" does not really work with data. He makes his conclusions first, from the Bible, then tries to fit the evidence into that belief. He presents ad-hoc, unfalsifiable "explanation" that make a mockery of scientific method.

Any good scientist, of course, should be prepared to be proved wrong, so feel free to chuck some research or papers our way which indicate otherwise. But I expect you'll have a hard time doing so.

We must remember that evolution is a theory, and yes, there is evidence for it, but that does not mean that we should dis-consider or exclude the evidence against it.

Click to expand...

Evolution as a theory is about as well established as the theory of General Relativity.

And we should certainly not ridicule scientists who question the status quo. Whatever happened to academic freedom, or should we just prostitute ourselves to popular notions of truth?

Click to expand...

No. But we shouldn't kid ourselves into thinking that, just because it is possible that evolution is wrong, that means we have to entertain that possibility seriously. New data may come along and force us to, but, right now, I doubt the evidence against evolution you just mentioned holds much, if any weight at all.

bjspurple said:

Note that I am not a creationist. If you look at my CF profile you will notice that I have listed "Theistic Evolution" under my Origin of Life view.

Click to expand...

How would you, as a theistic evolutionist, answer the following question: Why does there need to be a god?

However, I find that it is unfair for scientists who question evolutionary theory to be labeled as pseudo-scientists or theocrats, and I find it unfair that such scientists are either not taken seriously or discriminated against as this video suggests. Appeals to authority should not matter, only appeals to evidence should hold substance.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, verifiable evidence is what matters, and that is exactly why most of those who question evolution are not taken seriously.

We must remember that evolution is a theory, and yes, there is evidence for it, but that does not mean that we should dis-consider or exclude the evidence against it.

Click to expand...

Let me quote a prominent theistic evolutionist: "Evolution is both a fact and a theory. It is a fact that evolutioanry change took place. And evolution is also a theory that seeks to explain the detailed mechanism behind that change." Kenneth R. Miller, Finding Darwin's God, 2000, p.54.

Those who question evolution generally fall into two groups:

1. Those who question evolution as a historical fact (e.g. Christian Creationists).
2. Those who accept evolution as a historical fact, but debate and argue over the detailed mechanism behind evolutionary change (e.g. Evolutionary Biologists).

It is very important that we distinguish between the two groups.


MB.

bjspurple said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGCxbhGaVfE

Note that I am not a creationist. If you look at my CF profile you will notice that I have listed "Theistic Evolution" under my Origin of Life view. However, I find that it is unfair for scientists who question evolutionary theory to be labeled as pseudo-scientists or theocrats, and I find it unfair that such scientists are either not taken seriously or discriminated against as this video suggests.

Click to expand...

there is a reason for this, and it is that everyone who questions evolution does it for religious purposes.

bjspurple said:

Appeals to authority should not matter, only appeals to evidence should hold substance. We must remember that evolution is a theory, and yes, there is evidence for it, but that does not mean that we should dis-consider or exclude the evidence against it.

Click to expand...

what evidence against it? care to present some?

bjspurple said:

And we should certainly not ridicule scientists who question the status quo. Whatever happened to academic freedom, or should we just prostitute ourselves to popular notions of truth?

Click to expand...

we should ridicule them because there is overwhelming evidence for evolution, and the only scientsits who question or doubt evolution do it for religious purposes.

bjspurple said:

Note that I am not a creationist. If you look at my CF profile you will notice that I have listed "Theistic Evolution" under my Origin of Life view. However, I find that it is unfair for scientists who question evolutionary theory to be labeled as pseudo-scientists or theocrats, and I find it unfair that such scientists are either not taken seriously or discriminated against as this video suggests.

Click to expand...

And in using the Sternberg/Meyer incident to illustrate that "such scientists are either not taken seriously or discriminated against" the video shows exactly why such scientists as Sternberg and Meyer are not taken seriously. They try to make end runs around established procedures. Ben Stein has either been duped or is playing stupid in order to make the point, while ignoring the truth of the matter.

Take a look at these excerpts from video clip.

After introducing Sternberg as a "mild mannered research scientist" who until 2005 edited a "small scientific journal," Stein says Sternberg lost this job because he published an article by Stephen Meyer and that as a result . . .

The ploy here is, of course, to paint Sternberg as a martyr for publishing the ID views of Meyer, AND to imply that Meyer was unduly denied the right to voice his very scientific (the journal is, after all, a scientific one) "suggestions." So what's wrong with that. Well it ain't the truth.

So, should scientists like Sternberg, who ignored established and required review procedures be taken seriously? He pleads only that he have the "freedom to follow the evidence where ever it leads." But a lack of such freedom is not why he has been shunned and discredited. He's been shunned and discredited because he tried to promote his own views by circumventing the rules of his employment.
Should a scientist like Meyer be taken seriously? Someone who, according to Stein, thinks his suggestion that "perhaps we weren't mud animated by lightening after all" is worthy of a peer reviewed science journal. The Council of the Biological Society of Washington certainly did not. And Sternberg obviously knew Meyer's paper was not up to the journal's standards and those of the reviewers, which is why he deliberately by passed them.



Stein's example of the Sternberg/Meyer incident to show why we may be coming a "less of a free society" and are "losing our right to believe and say whatever we want." is a laughable one, as is Sternberg's whining about his treatment for trying to slip a fast one by his employer.
This dishonest attempt to miscast science as the villain should be taken as a red flag warning for the rest of the video. Creationists can NEVER be trusted to present the truth. It's as simple as that.

bjspurple said:

However, I find that it is unfair for scientists who question evolutionary theory to be labeled as pseudo-scientists or theocrats, and I find it unfair that such scientists are either not taken seriously or discriminated against as this video suggests.

Click to expand...

What the video fails to mention is that these scientists are held to the same standards as every other scientist.

Take, for example, Guillermo Gonzalez. He was denied tenure at Iowas State University. It is claimed that he was denied tenure because of his ID leanings. Nothing could be further from the truth. During his time at ISU he acquire just 20-30,000 dollars in research money. His peers in the same department averaged 1.3 million dollars in funding during that same time period. In fact, Gonzalez never even attempted to apply for a grant through the major granting institutions such as the NSF and NASA. Even worse, Gonzalez was not able to start a research program, help graduate students complete their theses, or publish peer reviewed papers on research done at ISU. These are all big NO-NO's for every single scientist at a research university. Intelligent Design had nothing to do with denying tenure to Gonzalez, and to claim otherwise is nothing but propoganda.

Appeals to authority should not matter, only
appeals to evidence should hold substance.

Click to expand...

What evidence are anti-evolutionists putting forth? Where can I find this evidence in peer reviewed journals? Where can I find scientist who are publishing papers based on theories other than evolution within biology?

We must remember that evolution is a theory, and yes, there is evidence for it, but that does not mean that we should dis-consider or exclude the evidence against it.

Click to expand...

What is this evidence?

And we should certainly not ridicule scientists who question the status quo.

Click to expand...

And we don't. In fact, we celebrate the scientists who challenge the status quo AND TURN OUT TO BE RIGHT!! Those scientists include Galileo, Einstein, Pasteur, Koch, Lemaitre, and possibly in the future the pioneers of String Theory. The dream of every scientist is to prove everyone else wrong AND BE RIGHT!! Cdesign proponentists have done neither.

Whatever happened to academic freedom, or should we just prostitute ourselves to popular notions of truth?

Click to expand...

I agree. What happened to it? Shouldn't an academic department have the freedom of kicking bad scientists out of their programs?

It's not the fact that Evolution is being questioned that gets the questioners labeled as practitioners of pseudo-science, it's the fact that the questions they raise are pseudo-scientific. Yes we should always be open for questions, but at the same time, we must never relax the standards by which we investigate criticism.

RobotHouse said:

I hope Ben Stein gets laughed out of hollywood.

Click to expand...

After that video, I would have to agree. After about the third time that he said humans were mud (doesnt the bible say we are dirt?) I wanted to yell at him, then he kept using the words accident and chance when he obviously has no idea what he is saying...