Expelled is up on YouTube

[Arch-Angel]

the movie was not to prove no ID vs. ID, Ben was just wanting to know why you couldn't question it. a great example he used was Richard Dawkins saying that we could have come from a seed planted by an ancient civilization, or the other guy that said we could have been created of the backs of crystals, or the idea of lightning striking a puddle of mud. i dont see how God created the universe and all things therin is so preposterous when the opposite arguement is based off the "i dont know either" template.

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by Arch-Angel

the movie was not to prove no ID vs. ID, Ben was just wanting to know why you couldn't question it. a great example he used was Richard Dawkins saying that we could have come from a seed planted by an ancient civilization, or the other guy that said we could have been created of the backs of crystals, or the idea of lightning striking a puddle of mud. i dont see how God created the universe and all things therin is so preposterous when the opposite arguement is based off the "i dont know either" template.

Good point. This is a conspiracy theory video exploring why ID has been systematically prevented from getting a hearing at universities and so forth. And the answer, repeatedly, is that ID has yet to pass muster as a scientifically relevant theory. And this has both intellectual and social dimensions. At the intellectual level, ID wants a great deal of improvement. But even if that were amended, there's still the social hurdle, the fact that if ID were scientifically respectable, there's precious little to do with it. What research would it inspire (aside from that which it might inspire in theological seminaries, which is of no interest to biologists)? What interesting new scientific questions would it press? It seems the answer to both questions is "none". And that means that even if ID is true, it's scientifically of no interest.

[fantôme profane]

Originally Posted by Arch-Angel

i dont see how God created the universe and all things therin is so preposterous when the opposite arguement is based off the "i dont know either" template.

It is not preposterous at all, but it is unscientific. In order to be taken seriously a scientific theory must be subject to evidence. There must be some kind of conceivable evidence that would support it, and some kind of conceivable evidence that would falsify it. I.D. fails on these points. It opens up no new avenues of research, it solves no problems, it answers no questions.

Consider the idea that you mentioned of organic molecules piggybacking on crystal forms. It may seem to be a preposterous idea. But scientists are actually doing real research into this area. On the other hand there is no real research being done, or even being proposed by the intelligent design movement. Scientists may find evidence that supports or falsifies the crystal hypothesis. There is no possible way for scientists to find evidence that supports or falsifies I.D. If it turns out that there is sufficient evidence to support the crystal theory we will then have a viable answer to the question of how the first living cells formed. I.D. still does not even propose an answer to how the first cells formed, much less propose a way of investigating the question.

And what is important to realize that even if the crystal theory is proven, it still does not disprove the existence of “God”. That is not what this is about. Science is about studying the natural world, not the supernatural.

That is what bugged me most about this film. They went out of their way to avoid talking to people like Ken Miller or Francis Crick, or any of the other thousands of legitimate scientists who believe in a personal deity. They interview Richard Dawkins and declare that science is atheistic because Richard Dawkins is an atheist. It is a false controversy and an attempt to create black and white thinking. Intelligent Design fails as a science, so its only hope is to convince religious people that its failing is not because it is scientifically invalid, but because there is some great all-encompassing atheist conspiracy. It is a paranoid delusion.

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by Arch-Angel

the movie was not to prove no ID vs. ID, Ben was just wanting to know why you couldn't question it. a great example he used was Richard Dawkins saying that we could have come from a seed planted by an ancient civilization, or the other guy that said we could have been created of the backs of crystals, or the idea of lightning striking a puddle of mud. i dont see how God created the universe and all things therin is so preposterous when the opposite arguement is based off the "i dont know either" template.

The point is that ID is not science. You can believe and talk about it all you want, but not as science. If you're a professor teaching biology/science, you shouldn't be teaching ID. If you're in a philosophy class or religion/theology class, have at it, but not in science. Beyond that, go to Expelled Exposed: Why Expelled Flunks and you'll see that no one was "expelled" for mentioning ID. There was a lot more to it, and generally they weren't even fired.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by fantôme profane

Thank you, that was a much better video. You have restored my faith in humanity, and in felinity.

Maybe if there were more degrees offered in Felinity than Divinity, the world would be a better place. It would certainly be cuter and fuzzier.

[methylatedghosts]

"freedom, freedom, freedom, freedom." in the first 5mins...

remind me what this is about exactly? 0.o

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by methylatedghosts

"freedom, freedom, freedom, freedom." in the first 5mins...

remind me what this is about exactly? 0.o

It's about literalist religious dogma and the right to replace science with it. I'm for the right to try. I'm also for the right of everyone making an effort to approach the world in a rational way to ridicule the nonsense that is creationism as the empty literalist religious dogma it is, vainly trying to masquerade as science. Sure, you have the right to try to push your religious creeds in a science class. And the science faculty and administration, which is well . . . duh . . . trying to provide a science education . . . has a right to fire you for it. So even if were true that people were fired for trying to push their religious creeds on science students, I don't see anything wrong with that. They should go teach religion instead.

[methylatedghosts]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

It's about literalist religious dogma and the right to replace science with it. I'm for the right to try. I'm also for the right of everyone making an effort to approach the world in a rational way to ridicule the nonsense that is creationism as the empty literalist religious dogma it is, vainly trying to masquerade as science. Sure, you have the right to try to push your religious creeds in a science class. And the science faculty and administration, which is well . . . duh . . . trying to provide a science education . . . has a right to fire you for it. So even if were true that people were fired for trying to push their religious creeds on science students, I don't see anything wrong with that. They should go teach religion instead.

But like one woman in this, was fired (at the end of the semester) for mentioning ID. I've heard several lecturers mention ID before... even in a Bioanthropology class. But it doesn't somehow take away from the science of it...

It's a pity they didn't show the slides that were so out of order that caused her to get fired.

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by methylatedghosts

But like one woman in this, was fired (at the end of the semester) for mentioning ID. I've heard several lecturers mention ID before... even in a Bioanthropology class. But it doesn't somehow take away from the science of it...

It's a pity they didn't show the slides that were so out of order that caused her to get fired.

She didn't get fired. You can read a more detailed explanation at Expelled Exposed: Why Expelled Flunks. She had her contract with the university, she finished that, and then it was not renewed. Nothing happened to her at the time of the incident. Also, at that site you'll find a link to a newspaper article about her first day of class at her next job, where she proceeds to teach that evolution is false and engage in discussion about ID and creationism. It was much more than just "mentioning ID".