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

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by 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."

Yes, that's all true, but is not what's going on here. What's going on here is that there is no B, C, or D that is incongruent. Quite the contrary, at this point B, C, D...T, U, V have been found and are all congruent. In that case, just stomping your foot and pouting does not get you to call the prevailing theory into question. You need to actually find actual incongruence. If you do, bingo, you get published. That's what scientific journals live for. ID is trying to get the reward without doing the work. I say that's because it can't be done, because they're wrong. If they're right, then they need to do this work.

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."

Actually, there is nothing happening that we don't understand. If they think there is, they need to do the research and show this is the case. And please don't whine that they can't get published; they have millions of dollars that they spend instead on litigation and propaganda, because they're not scientists, they're propagandists.

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

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.)

There is. It's called natural selection, and I'm pretty sure the biologists are familiar with it.

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

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.

Order can come from chaos.
I sometimes suspect that this whole "order cannot come from chaos" is something that people like to toss out because they think it makes them look smart.
Autodidact demonstrates order out of chaos quite nicely with the snowflake.

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

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.)

It is not my fault that you were in error with the example you presented.
However, this does not mean that what you claim is not happening.
I do suspect that it does happen.
I also suspect that it does not happen nearly as much as you would like to believe.

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

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.

you are funny.
You failed at showing there is any truth and now want others to show it is lies?
Don't give up so easily.

Originally Posted by 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."

I think it interesting that the first and only "example" of this 'unfairness' you present was not an example of the unfairness you claim.

You have made several statements in this above quote yet have not been able to provide any evidence to back it.
I sincerely hope the movie does a better job.

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

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."

Actually, the critics are making claims that the scientific community is engaged in some kind of conspiracy to suppress the belief in Creationism.
The seven minute trailer for that movie was a whine fest about just that.
Hopefully the actual movie will not be as big a disappointment as the trailer.

[Autodidact]

More beautiful snowflake images can be found at snow crystals



If you are religious, you can enjoy them as examples of God's glory. If not, you can just enjoy them. Either way, you don't have to believe that God cut each one out of spun sugar individually.

[Popeyesays]

Intelligent Design is not really a scientific theory because one cannot experiment on it to prove or disprove it.

One cannot test a theological argument by means of the scientific method.

Regards,
Scott

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by Hope

Actually, I think it provides a good countering perspective to the evolutionistic propaganda that permeates our society. And I believe that is really the whole point of the film. It's not so much about ID vs. evolution as it is about freedom of speech, and freedom of ideas.



Question: why is merely considering the possibility that there is a Higher Intelligence not science? If that's where the evidence leads, then why stifle such a conclusion? It has nothing to do with religion. Religion says this is such and such a deity that one must believe in on faith. Merely admitting the evidence points to a non-specific higher intelligence is not religion and perfectly in line with science.

Define science.

Regards,
Scott

[Popeyesays]

It's actually pointless to discuss it since you have shown an immediate prejudice to the question.

"Actually, I think it provides a good countering perspective to the evolutionistic propaganda that permeates our society. And I believe that is really the whole point of the film. It's not so much about ID vs. evolution as it is about freedom of speech, and freedom of ideas." Hope

Your bias makes the discussion propagandistic in your intent. That makes it a "strawman" argument at best for your real agenda.

Regards,
Scott