Look What I Found!

[blackpudd1n]

I just watched a documentary called Judgement Day: Intelligent Design On Trial, and it was absolutely FASCINATING!!!

 

For those of you that have followed posts I've put in this section of the forum, you'll be aware that I've been rather confused by evolution, trying to get my head around the whole idea due to my complete lack of Scientific knowledge, and the fact that I am a former young earth creationist.

 

Well, holy fuck, this documentary really helped me to understand evolution. I was just enthralled by the explanation of it, the evidence for it, and the way genetics and DNA supported it. I mean, fuck, I put it on so I could go to sleep watching it... But I ended up utterly enthralled, just absolutely breathless at the wonder of it all.

 

It was so exciting to finally get some idea of what was going on with evolution. I knew creationism was bullshit, but I just couldn't quite grasp the concept of evolution. But look! I persevered, I'm getting somewhere!!!

 

For anyone interested in watching the documentary, which also focuses on the Federal Court Case into the Dover School District's attempt to have Intelligent Design taught in Science classrooms, a link to the documentary is here: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/judgment-day-intelligent-design-on-trial/

[blackpudd1n]

One question that did arise for me, while watching the doco, was why a law professor (can't remember his name) was the one to come up with Intelligent Design and propose it as a scientific theory. That just doesn't make any sense to me. I mean, science isn't even his field of expertise. That would be like me being an English professor and telling a mechanic how a rocket works, even though I have no expertise or clue in that field, nor have ever worked in it. like, shouldn't science be left to scientists?

[par4dcourse]

Any topic that talks about millions and billions, whether it be years or dollars, is very hard for we mortals to grasp. Good video.

[Thought2Much]

One question that did arise for me, while watching the doco, was why a law professor (can't remember his name) was the one to come up with Intelligent Design and propose it as a scientific theory. That just doesn't make any sense to me. I mean, science isn't even his field of expertise. That would be like me being an English professor and telling a mechanic how a rocket works, even though I have no expertise or clue in that field, nor have ever worked in it. like, shouldn't science be left to scientists?

 

DING DING DING DING DING DING! We have a winner!

 

Yes, you are correct. You'll also find that among the few actual scientists trying to peddle Intelligent Design, virtually none have expertise in biology, geology, or related fields. This would be more like a racecar mechanic telling airplane mechanics how to repair a 747; yes, both may be very qualified in their fields, but you wouldn't want one trying to do the other's job without some serious training first.

[blackpudd1n]

Any topic that talks about millions and billions, whether it be years or dollars, is very hard for we mortals to grasp. Good video.

 

I absolutely loved the doco! It was like I had fireworks going off in my head, so many things were clicking into place. The last time I felt like that was the weekend I lost my faith, lol. It was just a massive click in my head. I knew I'd eventually get there, just had to keep persisting.

[blackpudd1n]

One question that did arise for me, while watching the doco, was why a law professor (can't remember his name) was the one to come up with Intelligent Design and propose it as a scientific theory. That just doesn't make any sense to me. I mean, science isn't even his field of expertise. That would be like me being an English professor and telling a mechanic how a rocket works, even though I have no expertise or clue in that field, nor have ever worked in it. like, shouldn't science be left to scientists?

 

DING DING DING DING DING DING! We have a winner!

 

Yes, you are correct. You'll also find that among the few actual scientists trying to peddle Intelligent Design, virtually none have expertise in biology, geology, or related fields. This would be more like a racecar mechanic telling airplane mechanics how to repair a 747; yes, both may be very qualified in their fields, but you wouldn't want one trying to do the other's job without some serious training first.

 

That's even crazier! Not to mention extremely arrogant!!

[Denyoz]

Any topic that talks about millions and billions, whether it be years or dollars, is very hard for we mortals to grasp. Good video.

 

I absolutely loved the doco! It was like I had fireworks going off in my head, so many things were clicking into place. The last time I felt like that was the weekend I lost my faith, lol. It was just a massive click in my head. I knew I'd eventually get there, just had to keep persisting.

 

Now you make me feel like watching it. Thanks blackpudd, I think this is what I will do right now.

[Margee]

For anyone interested in watching the documentary, which also focuses on the Federal Court Case into the Dover School District's attempt to have Intelligent Design taught in Science classrooms, a link to the documentary is here: http://topdocumentar...esign-on-trial/

Thanks Pudd very much ............tonight.....hot chocolate, popcorn and this documentry!! I am just starting to learn also. I'll comment tomorrow. Thanks for helping me figure out what to do with this Friday night!!

 

I lead such an exciting life......................

[Suzy]

One question that did arise for me, while watching the doco, was why a law professor (can't remember his name) was the one to come up with Intelligent Design and propose it as a scientific theory. That just doesn't make any sense to me. I mean, science isn't even his field of expertise. That would be like me being an English professor and telling a mechanic how a rocket works, even though I have no expertise or clue in that field, nor have ever worked in it. like, shouldn't science be left to scientists?

 

One of the leading proponents of ID in my country is a Professor - in the field of computer science. ID fans like to refer to him by his titles as Dr., Professor... only evolution, biology is not his field of expertise. Seems to be common in the scientists who are in support of ID.

[Thought2Much]

One question that did arise for me, while watching the doco, was why a law professor (can't remember his name) was the one to come up with Intelligent Design and propose it as a scientific theory. That just doesn't make any sense to me. I mean, science isn't even his field of expertise. That would be like me being an English professor and telling a mechanic how a rocket works, even though I have no expertise or clue in that field, nor have ever worked in it. like, shouldn't science be left to scientists?

 

One of the leading proponents of ID in my country is a Professor - in the field of computer science. ID fans like to refer to him by his titles as Dr., Professor... only evolution, biology is not his field of expertise. Seems to be common in the scientists who are in support of ID.

 

This kind of behavior also seems common in the scientists who are against anthropogenic climate change, and the scientists who believe childhood vaccination causes autism, and so on.

[FeelHappy]

I'll have to watch this, I love stuff on evolution. You should consider picking up a book on evolution. I liked Why Evolution is True, and I'm all for other recommendations if people have them.

[marmot]

Thanks for posting this documentary. I just watched it at the same time I was doing dishes/cleaning/watching Norfolk State take down Missouri in March Madness (if that means anything to you folks down under ). I haven't done much reading on ID in a few years (as I fully discarded it in college, at the time of this controversy).

 

My thoughts:

 

1a. ID is really an argument from naivete/lack of a capacity to understand evolution. Just because Michael Behe and these dim witted fundamentalist types at the Discovery Institute can't wrap their brains around evolution does not invalidate it. It is almost akin to saying, "quantum theory is really hard for me to grasp and I can't understand it, so it has some major flaws." Uh...no.

 

1b. Fundamentalists/laypeople have a poor understanding of the scientific meaning of "theory" and "fact". It annoys me that they view it as a victory when scientists admit that evolution is a theory and could be disproved (and then they ignore that the same could be said of gravity). On a related topic, they don't understand what it means to present a theory as "testable", and what a negative hypothesis is.

 

2. Philip Johnson and others of his ilk are grossly misinformed about evolution. I almost spit out my pizza when he said, "this whole Darwinian story it very much seems to me has been oversold. Everybody has been told that it is absolutely certainly true and because it's called science, it has been proved again and again by absolutely unquestionable procedures. But this is not true. It's an imaginative story that has been spun on the basis of very little evidence." He must really have his head up his ass if he truly believes this. The bolded statement could apply to ID, if you replace "very little" with "none". It blows my mind that he graduated from UChicago, Harvard and has held tenure at UC Berkeley for all this time and is still this dense/obstinate.

 

3. The creation science movement is very disingenuous. Lying about who bought the books (local Dover people, not the Discovery Institute), the "Wedge" strategy, replacing creation science with intelligent design in their panda book. It is all very dishonest. It was irony on a cosmic level when the lawyers discovered the "cdesign proponentsists", or the transitional fossil between creation science and intelligent design. It was a farce that they tried to convince the judge that they were not trying to do this to get religion in the classroom.

 

4. Some folks simply can't be reasoned with until they take off their blinders. Bill Buckingham called the judge a jackass and said he belongs in a circus...because he recognized your case for the sham it was and didn't appreciate their side committing perjury?

 

 

 

5. Education is truly the greatest and best hope for freethought in our world. Keep funding the schools, folks.

 

 

I was familiar with a lot of the arguments here about evolution/ID, but I never heard the details of this case. Great documentary, thanks again for posting. I hope you continue to read up on evolution, it really is the theory that ties all of biology together and has helped me make sense of a lot of different things in our world.

[blackpudd1n]

Now you make me feel like watching it. Thanks blackpudd, I think this is what I will do right now.

 

Thanks Pudd very much ............tonight.....hot chocolate, popcorn and this documentry!! I am just starting to learn also. I'll comment tomorrow. Thanks for helping me figure out what to do with this Friday night!!

 

I lead such an exciting life......................

 

Let me know what you both thought of it. My only regret is that I didn't watch it sooner! I kept looking at it, and thought it was going to be so boring. That's the reason I put it on- to make me fall asleep! But I was absolutely enthralled by it, and it just made everything so easy to understand, because they went step-by-step through the most important arguments for evolution, showed the "arguments" for ID, and trashed them! Definitely on my list of all-time favourite documentaries, if not my favourite doco of all time now! I'm going to watch it again this afternoon!

 

And Margee... It was my Friday night entertainment, too! LOL!

[blackpudd1n]

One question that did arise for me, while watching the doco, was why a law professor (can't remember his name) was the one to come up with Intelligent Design and propose it as a scientific theory. That just doesn't make any sense to me. I mean, science isn't even his field of expertise. That would be like me being an English professor and telling a mechanic how a rocket works, even though I have no expertise or clue in that field, nor have ever worked in it. like, shouldn't science be left to scientists?

 

One of the leading proponents of ID in my country is a Professor - in the field of computer science. ID fans like to refer to him by his titles as Dr., Professor... only evolution, biology is not his field of expertise. Seems to be common in the scientists who are in support of ID.

 

This kind of behavior also seems common in the scientists who are against anthropogenic climate change, and the scientists who believe childhood vaccination causes autism, and so on.

 

So... Generally, if a scientist is making claims about a field outside of their expertise, and has no inclination to defer to scientists who specialise in the actual field that they are making claims about, disregard everything they say?

 

The main reason this particular thing stuck out at me was because prior to watching this documentary, I'd been watching Dawkin's two-part doco, The Root Of All Evil? In it, he told a story from his undergraduate days, when he had a professor who was extremely keen on a hypothesis, and had vested fifteen years of his life into it. A scientist from America had visited, and disproved Dawkin's professor's hypothesis, and he walked up to him, beaming, shook his hand, and said, "thank you for proving me wrong!" He was ecstatic about being proven wrong, because the truth was more important than his own ego.

 

So I had that story fresh in my mind when I watched this doco, and the way the ID scientists and propenents argue so hard to be right, made me feel suspicious, like they weren't being honest in their pursuit of the truth.

[blackpudd1n]

I'll have to watch this, I love stuff on evolution. You should consider picking up a book on evolution. I liked Why Evolution is True, and I'm all for other recommendations if people have them.

 

I'll keep an eye out for it, thanks for the suggestion I'd love to hear your thoughts on the doco, too. I just found it absolutely fascinating.

[LivingLife]

I have just started a thread where I will collate all the debate points I have assembled over years talking of the fludd and YEC.

 

Why the Bible claims are BS - Creationism vs Evolution

[blackpudd1n]

Thanks for posting this documentary. I just watched it at the same time I was doing dishes/cleaning/watching Norfolk State take down Missouri in March Madness (if that means anything to you folks down under ). I haven't done much reading on ID in a few years (as I fully discarded it in college, at the time of this controversy).

 

My thoughts:

 

1a. ID is really an argument from naivete/lack of a capacity to understand evolution. Just because Michael Behe and these dim witted fundamentalist types at the Discovery Institute can't wrap their brains around evolution does not invalidate it. It is almost akin to saying, "quantum theory is really hard for me to grasp and I can't understand it, so it has some major flaws." Uh...no.

 

1b. Fundamentalists/laypeople have a poor understanding of the scientific meaning of "theory" and "fact". It annoys me that they view it as a victory when scientists admit that evolution is a theory and could be disproved (and then they ignore that the same could be said of gravity). On a related topic, they don't understand what it means to present a theory as "testable", and what a negative hypothesis is.

 

2. Philip Johnson and others of his ilk are grossly misinformed about evolution. I almost spit out my pizza when he said, "this whole Darwinian story it very much seems to me has been oversold. Everybody has been told that it is absolutely certainly true and because it's called science, it has been proved again and again by absolutely unquestionable procedures. But this is not true. It's an imaginative story that has been spun on the basis of very little evidence." He must really have his head up his ass if he truly believes this. The bolded statement could apply to ID, if you replace "very little" with "none". It blows my mind that he graduated from UChicago, Harvard and has held tenure at UC Berkeley for all this time and is still this dense/obstinate.

 

3. The creation science movement is very disingenuous. Lying about who bought the books (local Dover people, not the Discovery Institute), the "Wedge" strategy, replacing creation science with intelligent design in their panda book. It is all very dishonest. It was irony on a cosmic level when the lawyers discovered the "cdesign proponentsists", or the transitional fossil between creation science and intelligent design. It was a farce that they tried to convince the judge that they were not trying to do this to get religion in the classroom.

 

4. Some folks simply can't be reasoned with until they take off their blinders. Bill Buckingham called the judge a jackass and said he belongs in a circus...because he recognized your case for the sham it was and didn't appreciate their side committing perjury?

 

 

 

5. Education is truly the greatest and best hope for freethought in our world. Keep funding the schools, folks.

 

 

I was familiar with a lot of the arguments here about evolution/ID, but I never heard the details of this case. Great documentary, thanks again for posting. I hope you continue to read up on evolution, it really is the theory that ties all of biology together and has helped me make sense of a lot of different things in our world.

 

I'm glad you liked the doco, too. I found the section explaining how scientists treat a theory to be very interesting. I realised that it is a concept that is used very differently in the scientific community to the rest of the world.

 

The more I look into science, the more interesting I'm finding it- to the extent where I'm wondering if I should look into changing my degree, or at least do some science electives. Despite my lack of prior knowledge, I think in some ways that actually works in my favour if I consider studying science, as I come without assumptions and an awareness of how little I know. I can do a prep course that has a science focus so I could cope with the units.

[blackpudd1n]

I have just started a thread where I will collate all the debate points I have assembled over years talking of the fludd and YEC.

 

Why the Bible claims are BS - Creationism vs Evolution

 

Thanks for that, LL! I really appreciate it! Will definitely have a look

[Suzy]

 

 

So... Generally, if a scientist is making claims about a field outside of their expertise, and has no inclination to defer to scientists who specialise in the actual field that they are making claims about, disregard everything they say?

 

 

 

No. That's not the point. To me it's the other way around. I have no problem with anybody arguing for a certain position, regardless of his scientific credentials. If he argues logically and reasonably I will listen. The problem is that creationists are the ones so hungry for people with credentials that they will emphasize someone's scientific titles as if that would give more weight to their arguments, even though the said scientific titles and credentials have nothing to do with the subject matter. This guy I mentioned is always introduced as "Dr. Professor" in his lectures about ID/evolution, and on the cover of his books on ID/evolution he is referred to as such. It's not a lie in itself, of course, and he never claimed he is a professor of biology or anything like that. Still it's hard not to realize what is behind the emphasis of his titles on the creationist's side. On the other hand, I haven't seen Richard Dawkins referred to as Dr. Professor Richard Dawkins on the cover of his books, you know.

[LivingLife]

For the woos it is appeal to authority. You will find them misquoting Einstein and even Darwin as they have the credentials and the like. Einstein while brilliant was a theoretical physicist and not a biologist. His vies on the cosmos predated what we know today.

 

Likewise they will resurrect a long dead scientist who happened to be a believer and tack on some claim he made to their pathetic limited knowledge of evolution. The biology I learned 40 years ago at school has marched on somewhat since then. The YEC play in the scientific arena predating that.

[Suzy]

For the woos it is appeal to authority. You will find them misquoting Einstein and even Darwin as they have the credentials and the like. Einstein while brilliant was a theoretical physicist and not a biologist. His vies on the cosmos predated what we know today.

 

Likewise they will resurrect a long dead scientist who happened to be a believer and tack on some claim he made to their pathetic limited knowledge of evolution. The biology I learned 40 years ago at school has marched on somewhat since then. The YEC play in the scientific arena predating that.

 

Plus they like to take quotes out of context. Einstein's "god" is nothing like their god but they ignore that. In fact, Einstein stated several times that he does not believe in the Biblegod since the age of 13 and that he considers the Bible myth. He basically just called the Universe "god" and had a pantheistic view.

[blackpudd1n]

So... Generally, if a scientist is making claims about a field outside of their expertise, and has no inclination to defer to scientists who specialise in the actual field that they are making claims about, disregard everything they say?

 

 

 

No. That's not the point. To me it's the other way around. I have no problem with anybody arguing for a certain position, regardless of his scientific credentials. If he argues logically and reasonably I will listen. The problem is that creationists are the ones so hungry for people with credentials that they will emphasize someone's scientific titles as if that would give more weight to their arguments, even though the said scientific titles and credentials have nothing to do with the subject matter. This guy I mentioned is always introduced as "Dr. Professor" in his lectures about ID/evolution, and on the cover of his books on ID/evolution he is referred to as such. It's not a lie in itself, of course, and he never claimed he is a professor of biology or anything like that. Still it's hard not to realize what is behind the emphasis of his titles on the creationist's side. On the other hand, I haven't seen Richard Dawkins referred to as Dr. Professor Richard Dawkins on the cover of his books, you know.

 

Ah, okay. I had had the thought about Dawkins myself, that he never bandied about his credentials all that much, and I think most of the time he just calls himself a biologist.

[Thought2Much]

So... Generally, if a scientist is making claims about a field outside of their expertise, and has no inclination to defer to scientists who specialise in the actual field that they are making claims about, disregard everything they say?

 

 

 

No. That's not the point. To me it's the other way around. I have no problem with anybody arguing for a certain position, regardless of his scientific credentials. If he argues logically and reasonably I will listen. The problem is that creationists are the ones so hungry for people with credentials that they will emphasize someone's scientific titles as if that would give more weight to their arguments, even though the said scientific titles and credentials have nothing to do with the subject matter. This guy I mentioned is always introduced as "Dr. Professor" in his lectures about ID/evolution, and on the cover of his books on ID/evolution he is referred to as such. It's not a lie in itself, of course, and he never claimed he is a professor of biology or anything like that. Still it's hard not to realize what is behind the emphasis of his titles on the creationist's side. On the other hand, I haven't seen Richard Dawkins referred to as Dr. Professor Richard Dawkins on the cover of his books, you know.

 

I was going to say something like this. Thanks, Suzy.

 

For the woos it is appeal to authority. You will find them misquoting Einstein and even Darwin as they have the credentials and the like. Einstein while brilliant was a theoretical physicist and not a biologist. His vies on the cosmos predated what we know today.

 

Likewise they will resurrect a long dead scientist who happened to be a believer and tack on some claim he made to their pathetic limited knowledge of evolution. The biology I learned 40 years ago at school has marched on somewhat since then. The YEC play in the scientific arena predating that.

 

I've also found that YEC proponents often address science that's more than two decades old, and take forever to update their arguments. It's only recently that the more mainstream idiots stopped harping on how carbon dating can't be used to date dinosaur fossils (which were never dated using carbon dating anyway), although the idiots in the rank and file will still bring it up, only to have their asses handed to them with the truth.

[sdelsolray]

The Nova documentary is good, but a bit shallow in depth. This is primarily due to the time limit of the documentary.

 

Much fuller resources can be found on the following webpage which provides access to the actual Dover trial materials, including the court's written opinion, expert witness reports, etc.:

 

http://ncse.com/crea...zmiller-v-dover

[Denyoz]

I watched the documentary yesterday. Very interesting. I was surprised to see how passionate some people are about creationism and evolution. Funny that the question ended up in court. And after all was said and done, it all came down to the definition of the word "science", which everyone should have known in the first place:

 

"A particular discipline or branch of learning, especially one dealing with measurable or systematic principles rather than intuition or natural ability."

 

So basically, the conclusion is that Intelligent Design is a valid idea, but has no place in a science class. It's scarry to see how ignorant and uneducated the majority of the population is (including myself). I see now how important education is, but school is so boring. My father was very religious and never encouraged higher education. My uncle (dad's brother) was a science teacher. The documentary reminded me of the difference between these two brothers. My father is dead now and didn't have a very happy life. My uncle is still alive and kicking. In the end science wins, yay!