Expelled (preaching, pagan, verse, religion, science)

[camanintx]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

When the scientist says that ID is not science, what they mean is that it does not meet the more stringent criteria which the real world adds onto the base requirements mandated by the scientific method.

But isn't it the "more stringent criteria" which professional scientists and university professors are held to when decisions on employment and tenure are made? If someone wants to work on the theory of ID on their own time or get a job at a place like the Discovery Institute, what's stopping them? But until they can support their work with hard data, why should they get special treatment?

[camanintx]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

http://www.amasci.com/freenrg/evolv.txt

Mr. Milton's article was rejected by a British weekly newspaper, not a pier reviewed journal. With statements like the following, I'm not the least surprised.

Further, if neo-Darwinist evolutionary ideas of gradual genetic
change were true, then one would expect to find that simple
organisms have simple DNA and complex organisms have complex DNA.

Exactly where in evolutionary theory does it say that simple organisms will have simple DNA and complex organisms will have complex DNA?

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

And from the opposite side:

http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2006/09/help_help_im_being_repressed.php
The latter excuses the censorship with “What we are telling them is that they can't teach their lies in the public school science classroom.” The fact that the “lies” calling orthodox ideas into question are based on uncontested facts is irrelevant.

I would be interested to know what "uncontested facts" you think ID is based on.

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

Sure. Dawkins. Ask him if morphic fields are involved.

That is all you have in reply?
I am greatly disappointed.

I highly suspect that he is the only one who defines neo-darwinism in such a manner.

Neo-Darwinism
Darwinism as modified by the findings of modern genetics, stating that mutations due to random copying errors in DNA cause variation within a population of individual organisms and that natural selection acts upon these variations.

The American Heritage® Science Dictionary Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Ne·o-Dar·win·ism
n. Darwinism as modified by the findings of modern genetics.

Neo-Dar·wini·an ) adj.
Neo-Darwin·ist n.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Main Entry:neo–Dar·win·ism:
a theory of evolution that is a synthesis of Darwin's theory in terms of natural selection and modern population genetics
neo-darwinism - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

So far I have not found any...

[Hope]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

No, I think that like most people you're just not very familiar with science in general and evolution in particular.

Perhaps you're right. And I'll readily admit that. And maybe that's why all these arguments, based on what I do know of science and evolution, seem so convoluted to me.

[Hope]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

O.K. You should know, though, that science is basically a process of finding out that common sense is wrong.

For example, my common sense tells me that the world is flat. It isn't, and it took science to show us that. Common sense tells me that the keys are solid. They aren't they're 99.9% nothing. Weird. That's what science tells us.

Common sense isn't always wrong, though.

You make fair points. But in the particular instance I was referring to, simple logic tells me that the opposite of deliberate order and design is randomness and chance. Even a child could figure that out.

[Rolling_Stone]

Look, I don’t have a dog on this fight. My theology works better with evolution than without. I just don’t like the unfairness of the “scientific” community. Science proceeds by continually questioning its theories: if B, C, and D happens and are incongruent with our understanding of what happens in A, either the theory pertaining to A is wrong or is in need of revision. Science is no longer science when questioning the prevailing theory of A with the facts is called "lying."

All the critics are saying is, "Let's take another look. Something is happening we don't understand. Let's go where the evidence leads, even if it contrary everything we want to believe."

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Hope

...simple logic tells me that the opposite of deliberate order and design is randomness and chance. Even a child could figure that out.

Order does not need design. You have created the logical fallacy of a false dichotomy.

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

Order does not need design. You have created the logical fallacy of a false dichotomy.

False? even a child knows randomness is not a causative effect. And please don't come up with the "chaos theory" or how it's been shown that order can come from chaos. All those things involve rules and are therefore not chaotic at all.

Please, Mestemia, if there is something else at work other than mechanism, let the biologists know. I'm sure they'd like to know. (And if you believe that, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.)

But back to the topic: is there any truth in what Ben Stein says in the trailor? No? Then show where he is lying or follow the advice Dawkins gives.

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

False? even a child knows randomness is not a causative effect.

You seem to assume the opposite of randomness is design. That's a false dichotomy.