Snarf
Dystopia
Login to Send PM
I watched an interesting documentary on Intelligent Design the other day called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", with Ben Stein.
I'd be interested in hearing others thoughts on the subject.
Is it "junk science"? Is it anymore junk science than Darwinism?
Is it all a ploy to get "religion" in schools? Etc.
Brant
Gahanna
Login to Send PM
I enjoyed reading Roger Ebert's open letter to Ben Stein (with over 2600 comments). I found myself agreeing with much of it. An excerpt:
That is simply one revealing fragment. This film is cheerfully ignorant, manipulative, slanted, cherry-picks quotations, draws unwarranted conclusions, makes outrageous juxtapositions (Soviet marching troops representing opponents of ID), pussy-foots around religion (not a single identified believer among the ID people), segues between quotes that are not about the same thing, tells bald-faced lies, and makes a completely baseless association between freedom of speech and freedom to teach religion in a university class that is not about religion.
groundrules
Login to Send PM
Ben Stein can suck it.
ID is theory, philosophy, theology and could be taught as such. but it is far, far from science.
berdawn
near that stretch of N. High Street in the Short North
Login to Send PM
Wow. I saw a documentary this weekend, too. Religulous with Bill Maher. He went to different places on the planet to learn about their religions and traditions. He didn't interview anyone who followed "Darwinism" though. I think most people call it evolution.
howatzer
Login to Send PM
Snarf wrote >>
I watched an interesting documentary on Intelligent Design the other day called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", with Ben Stein.
I'd be interested in hearing others thoughts on the subject.
Is it "junk science"? Is it anymore junk science than Darwinism?
Is it all a ploy to get "religion" in schools? Etc.
Sorry - not going to shell out the $30 to watch this.
It's hard to improve upon the official statement by the US National Academy of Sciences (as quoted on that wiki page) that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science." Case closed.
As for whether or not it should be taught in school, which I assume is the case addressed in the video: if you want to teach creationism/intelligent design in a religious studies or philosophy class, clearly branded as such, fine. But it is not science and therefore fills no purpose in a science curriculum, other than maybe as an example, ie. in comparison to the theory of natural selection, to teach what is and is not the scientific method.
Manatee
The eternal present
Login to Send PM
I guess I'd have a lot to say on this topic, but it's not the sort of thing I'd get into over the internet, and without lots of beers :)
Ben Stein and Bill Maher have to be two of the most repellent people in show biz though, in my estimation, whether I agree with them or not.
groundrules
Login to Send PM
Snarf wrote >>
Isn't Darwinism deep in fault as well? Is it reasonable to think we all simply evolved from a single cell?
let's not confuse darwin's early theory with more general and scientifically based study of evolution. Also, to summarize either as 'we all evolved from a single cell' is misrepresenting both.
Core_Models
Columbus
Login to Send PM
Didn't watch the Stein movie, did watch the Bill Maher one and hated it.
Don't know what the textbook definition of "Intelligent Design" would be, but if it is a belief that evolution occurred, exactly as every bit of science suggests, only instead of 100% randomly it happened with some level of supernatural guidance...
I don't have a problem with that at all.
groundrules
Login to Send PM
Core_Models wrote >>
Didn't watch the Stein movie, did watch the Bill Maher one and hated it.
Don't know what the textbook definition of "Intelligent Design" would be, but if it is a belief that evolution occurred, exactly as every bit of science suggests, only instead of 100% randomly it happened with some level of supernatural guidance...
I don't have a problem with that at all.
right. it's a reasonable belief, and one i have no problem with people subscribing to. It's a pretty great philosophy for combining a spiritual sentiment with elements of modern science. It's a good compromise for people that helps them explain a difficult question. BUT: it's not science. And trying to pass it off as such is problematic.
EDIT: that line about 'i have no problem with...' sounds condescending, like you need my approval for your belief system. That's not what I meant. I don't care if people believe in ID or the strictest version of Creation from any religion. I DO have a problem when those religious explanations are passed off as science, and especially so when they are forced into the school system as such.
adrock
Grandview Heights
Login to Send PM
you have faith in something one way or another. you have faith in a religious book or you have faith in a textbook/darwin/scientist. it's the same thing with global warming. none of us know if anything they're telling us is true, it just depends on who you choose to believe in.
groundrules
Login to Send PM
adrock wrote >>
you have faith in something one way or another. you have faith in a religious book or you have faith in a textbook/darwin/scientist. it's the same thing with global warming. none of us know if anything they're telling us is true, it just depends on who you choose to believe in.
This attitude represents a real misunderstanding of what science and the scientific process is, and consequently why ID is often confused with science. Science has little to do with faith or belief (in the blind acceptance form of the word) and everything to do with analysis of sound, repeatable data.
berdawn
near that stretch of N. High Street in the Short North
Login to Send PM
Core_Models wrote >>
Didn't watch the Stein movie, did watch the Bill Maher one and hated it.
Hated it? Did you not SEE that dinosaur topiary at the Creation Museum? knowing that someone, somewhere did what I'd thought was a special effect in a Tim Burton movie was a moment of, well, grace.
turbo ninja
Crumb Bus, Oh.
Login to Send PM
Snarf wrote >>
Isn't Darwinism deep in fault as well? Is it reasonable to think we all simply evolved from a single cell?
As reasonable as anything else, considering the sheer size of the universe, the relatively short span of time that life has existed on earth relative to all the time that ever has been and ever shall be, and the likelihood that there is at least one more planet somewhere out there where chemicals and physics combined just so at precisely the right moment to result in life.
Evolution is more about survival of the fittest than development of all life from one single cell long ago, however, and "Darwinism" seems to be a term coined by people who want to imply that those who support evolution are believers in a human being rather than believers in a supernatural creator.
Remember also that evolution is a scientific theory and, as such, is still being tested, observed and modified. This doesn't mean evolution is "deep in fault," like scientists are flip-flopping on the issue: It means scientists aren't expected to step right up and give an It's Correct Because We Say So answer like religious folk are able to, because the religious frame of reference isn't allowed to change.
Core_Models
Columbus
Login to Send PM
berdawn wrote >>
Core_Models wrote >>
Didn't watch the Stein movie, did watch the Bill Maher one and hated it.Hated it? Did you not SEE that dinosaur topiary at the Creation Museum? knowing that someone, somewhere did what I'd thought was a special effect in a Tim Burton movie was a moment of, well, grace.
Watching Bill Maher masturbatory-like reaffirmation of how smart he is when standing next to fringe religious groups while apparently working out some serious parent issues wasn't fun for me.
I came away from that movie wanting to punch him in the eye (more).
Analogue Kid
5th by West-Northwest
Login to Send PM
One of the biggest problems with subjects like this is the fact that scientists and laypeople don't speak the same language. If a scientist says something is a "theory", many laypeople interpret that as an idea that is just a guess instead of something with considerable support behind it that can make testable predictions.
So is evolution theory or fact? Both, as it turns out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
You must log in to post.
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus. Click here to visit TheMetropreneur.com.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
