Yaoi Huntress Earth Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 I came across an ad for this film: http://www.expelledthemovie.com/home.php It's a documentry by Ben Stein about how Intellegent Desgin is being shut-off by "big science". Some arguements I have is: 1) the IDers have been just as bad toward evolution when they get in power so I hope Stein points that out, 2) Stein says that "big Science" teaches that creation is an an "accident", but isn't the message of ID even worse because it tells people that they're evil scum who deserve a firey afterlife of eturnal torture just because two naked idiots made a mistake thousands of years ago unless they worship the right form of god?; 3) if the Iders got their way, I worry that they might start demanding other "undesireable" sciences be stopped or replaced with their own psuedo-sciences like teaching kids about ecology (because it might encourage them to become environmentalists ), the reproductive system (sex is evil), or maybe the flat earth believers might want in the action; and finally, (I know Stein is Jewish) didn't Jesus say religion should be a private thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordofGondor Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 but isn't the message of ID even worse because it tells people that they're evil scum who deserve a firey afterlife of eturnal torture just because two naked idiots made a mistake thousands of years ago unless they worship the right form of god?; The essence of Intelligent Design theory is that there is a scientifically reliable method to detect 'design' in something (like the universe) from which a designer can be inferred. You're equating Intelligent Design with a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation, which isn't accurate. As for the film, I think all ideas should be considered as long as they can hold their own in the face of scrutiny, and if they can be called 'scientific'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GraphicsGuy Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Hey, I think that's the movie Dawkins and a few others are trying to sue over. They were lied to over what the movie was about and have been misrepresented in the film I guess... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Jeff Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 ID isn't a scientific theory. It's just a "back door" method that fundies are trying to use to get their absurd creation myths taught alongside legitimate science. IMHO, Ben Stein is an idiot, and so are all IDers. Creationism doesn't have a scientific or factual leg to stand on. I despise creationists of all stripes for the ignorant liars that they are, especially those who are intentionally dishonest - which many of them are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GraphicsGuy Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Okay, I watched the trailer thinking this would be some kind of a joke...holy shit it's really serious! It seems to be the IDers trying to force their way into the spotlight I guess. I wouldn't mind seeing the movie to see what kind of "proof" they bring to the table, but it's going to be the same old shit really. Xians are going to love this because it's the supposed "conspiracy of evolution" that they're always crying about being supposedly exposed. The fact is that scientists are open to any new valid hypotheses with enough proof to develop into a theory. ID is a hypothesis that there isn't enough evidence to support a theory of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordofGondor Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 I wouldn't mind seeing the movie to see what kind of "proof" they bring to the table, but it's going to be the same old shit really. I agree. I wish the producers would divert their efforts into creating a balanced documentary style film where both sides are portrayed accurately and fairly. This looks like pure propaganda. Featuring Richard Dawkins as the mustachioed villain... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 I wouldn't mind seeing the movie to see what kind of "proof" they bring to the table, but it's going to be the same old shit really. I agree. I wish the producers would divert their efforts into creating a balanced documentary style film where both sides are portrayed accurately and fairly. This looks like pure propaganda. Featuring Richard Dawkins as the mustachioed villain... The problem with a "balanced" documentary is that the issue is not balanced. ID has no theory and is not science. You can't build a theory on a negative, e.g. arguning that something couldn't have evolved. You have to have a positive argument, which the IDiots do not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordofGondor Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 I wouldn't mind seeing the movie to see what kind of "proof" they bring to the table, but it's going to be the same old shit really. I agree. I wish the producers would divert their efforts into creating a balanced documentary style film where both sides are portrayed accurately and fairly. This looks like pure propaganda. Featuring Richard Dawkins as the mustachioed villain... The problem with a "balanced" documentary is that the issue is not balanced. ID has no theory and is not science. You can't build a theory on a negative, e.g. arguning that something couldn't have evolved. You have to have a positive argument, which the IDiots do not. Intelligent Design may have no merit, but there's more to the ID theory than irreducible complexity. What about Dembski's application of information theory, specified complexity, or his 'design filter'? Since the question is whether ID belongs in science class, the argument from the ID side is that such things are perfectly legitimate and scientific tools to determine if something is designed. And you're right, it's not balanced, that was a bad choice of words on my part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Intelligent Design may have no merit, but there's more to the ID theory than irreducible complexity. What about Dembski's application of information theory, specified complexity, or his 'design filter'? Since the question is whether ID belongs in science class, the argument from the ID side is that such things are perfectly legitimate and scientific tools to determine if something is designed. And you're right, it's not balanced, that was a bad choice of words on my part. ID is yet to be formalized as a theory because all evidence to support their theory has either A. failed or B. hasn't been tested yet. That documentary completely turned me off as biased propaganda bullshit when they said galileo wasn't persecuted for his theories. BULL FUCKING SHIT, the guy was put under house arrest the rest of his life after publishing his reports. Which he did when he was much older. edit: add in NOVA Documentary stuff watch the NOVA documentary on the Dover trial for a evolution biased documentary. Although, I think they did give ID fair ground, it just overwhelmingly favors evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 Intelligent Design may have no merit, but there's more to the ID theory than irreducible complexity. What about Dembski's application of information theory, specified complexity, or his 'design filter'? Since the question is whether ID belongs in science class, the argument from the ID side is that such things are perfectly legitimate and scientific tools to determine if something is designed.I guess I should say they don't have anything better than IC. I haven't read too much about Dembski's (mis)application of information theory, but if I remember correctly he argues something along the lines of mutations don't add information. I don't even think he came up with that argument, but maybe he did. Either way it is just as retarded. I haven't read about his "design filter," but with no way to tell if something is "designed" (hell, I don't think they even have a good definition of "design"), a "filter" concept is utterly useless.One reason I like to bring up IC is that Behe concedes evolution happens, just not for every trait. AFAIK IC is considered a fundamental part of ID, which automatically negates the argument that it is a "competing" theory. At best it is an unfounded addendum to evolution. (I'm not sure if "addendum" is the right word to use here, but I think you can figure out what I mean.) And you're right, it's not balanced, that was a bad choice of words on my part. Well, when talking about media, balanced is usually a good thing. The IDiots are using this as a way to get attention because people don't seem to realize this isn't how science works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sexton Blake Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 Tell a woman who has just been through many hours of labour, painful despite painkillers which have only been around for several decades (something all our ancestors had to do without); that god used intelligent design for the birth of children but make sure they do not have a gun within easy reach as they may violently disagree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts