War.mongeR1

Has anyone heard of this movie before? I just found out about it. It appears to be a documentary, but I'm not certain. It does raise a huge question, though. Why is it that scientists who bring up the idea of intelligent design become ostracized and basically shunned from the scientific community? Some people might view this movie as propaganda (and it would be to the opposition), but I believe it's exposing a big question a lot of Americans have been asking.

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playground.php

__________________
"Common sense is not so common." -Voltaire

Steeler

Because the "science" in question is poorly performed and easily contradicted by other research. Continuing to advocate the teaching of ID as a major element of biology depite the fact that it has no scientific merit is ground for ostracism, IMO.

__________________

War.mongeR1

Scientists also used to be ostracized for suggesting the earth was round. Isn't that the way that scientists break new ground and discover new things? They usually have to discern themselves from the establishment to make any real progress. It's these profound questions that advance science, not just accepting what most scientists believe to be true. Isn't evolution still a "theory?" It hasn't been made into a scientific law yet. Few things ever have. Until it becomes law, every possibility should be studied further and with open minds.

__________________
"Common sense is not so common." -Voltaire

El_Gringo_Grande

ID does have some valid questions. Unfortunately they take a few questions and, all at once, invalidates the vast understanding of the world and wrap it up in god.

Therefore the movement itself fails as science. Because it is a movement, not a science.

__________________
Sen. John McCain (AZ) For President '08
---
I’m not racists, I have republican friends.
---
"The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
---
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - emerson
----
"People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta

tHa_KhAn

This discussion has taken place several times in this forums, but the alternatives to ID have just as large holes in their "science" as ID. The difference is those holes are filled with pseudo science or more theory that cannot be confirmed nor denied.

__________________

Steeler

Really, anyone interested should just do a forum search for Intelligent Design. Nothing worth re-hashing again. You can choose to think of it as:

A. An oppressed and valid counterpoint to mainstream evolutionary theory.
B. A small but valuable contribution to the pantheon of science that deserves discussion.
C. A philosophical query that should be taught to students, but not in science classes.
D. "Creationism by other means" propogated by willfully ignorant zealots.

Make a poll and move on.

__________________

War.mongeR1

I wonder if this movie is going to be a real documentary or just a skewed Michael Moore type piece of ill-informaty. Hopefully, it will be the former. Guess we'll find out when it comes out.

__________________
"Common sense is not so common." -Voltaire

xTYBALTx

__________________
Current Tybalt theme song: Mason v. Princess - Perfect

tau_neutrino

Because there is no testable evidence for ID, nor are there any scientific studies that have withstood peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Evolution is both a theory and a fact. The problem is that most non-biologists don't know what evolution really is: change in allele frequency over time within a population.

What ID'ers are really concerned with is speciation which is an abstraction of evolutionary concepts.

__________________



TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Kerostasis

That's a good way to put it, Tau. ID usually does not reject the basic premise of evolution and allele drift. Rather, ID views these concepts as insufficient to account for the Speciation necessary to produce today's observed conditions. ID usually also takes issue with Abiogenesis, which although not technically covered under the definition of "Evolution" is still required for evolution to function as predicted.

__________________

TheFeniX

The differences are enormous between the two incidents. The people doing most of the ostracizing didn't even care about the validity of the theory, just that it went against whatever beliefs were held at the time.

Evolution is a theory based upon observation. ID is a theory based upon faith.

Saying the two are both valid scientific theories is the same as saying Angels push the planets around and hailstones are kept in storage for use during times of war are on the same scientific level as Newtonian laws of gravity or atmospheric theories.

There is no distinction between a "law" or "theory." There is no group of scientists that "upgrade" the status of a theory to "law." Laws tend to just center around the physical sciences. It has nothing to do with the legal definition of "law."

Even Newtonian laws don't hold true when dealing with extremely large or small objects. Does that mean they are useless? No. Are they downgraded to theories? No.

__________________

El_Gringo_Grande

Also, rain is Angels crying and thunder is God bowling. That is what my Grandma told me and there is no convincing me otherwise.

__________________
Sen. John McCain (AZ) For President '08
---
I’m not racists, I have republican friends.
---
"The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
---
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - emerson
----
"People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta

Kerostasis

I don't think I've ever seen a discussion about Evolution that didn't quickly bring about this pair of arguments:

Person 1: "The theory of Evolution is only a 'theory', so that must mean its not proven!"
Person 2: "No, the theory of Evolution is a 'scientific theory', which means it IS proven! (Or at least proven as much as you ought to care about it.)"

In point of fact neither is right, and the labeling of Evolution as "theory" does not in and of itself provide any argument either for or against its validity. Can we get back to the real arguments?

__________________

Switch

Evolution is a theory like gravity is a theory.

The problem with ID is that it is a philisophical idea, not a scientific one.

Now, ID would be a scientific idea if someone was trying to suggest that aliens came here and genetically engineered us, then flew away. That would put ID in the realm of science. Thats not what people usually mean when they say ID. For the standard ID assertion people are saying that their 'god' (a faith based unverifiable entity) created people... they have trouble understanding that faith based assertions don't belong in a science class. I'm all for teaching ID in a philosophy class... the only problem there is that it would be like teaching flat earth in a philosophy class.

__________________
|TG|Switch

Better known as:
That noob who crashed the chopper.
That noob who ran over the mine.
That noob who TK'd me with a sniper rifle.
That noob who hit that APC at 300m with light AT! Our APC...

TheFeniX

In point of fact both are right.

In the first case: nothing is ever 100% concrete when it comes to science. People thought Newtonian laws of gravity were the be-it-all of gravity, then we realized it didn't answer 100% of the questions when it comes to large interstellar objects. This is where Einstein takes over.

In the second case: it was proven in that it explained all the observations made at the time.

The fact is: you can't 100% prove an observation because there will either be exceptions or new observations to be processed and that's fine. But for all intents and purposes Newtonian laws get the job done. In the observations that were made at the time, they work and they work well.

Evolution has the same thing going for it: based upon the observations made over the past century (and more), the theory has been both solidified and revised making it stronger and more complete. That said: nothing has even come close to "destroying" the hypothesis, just like Quantum psychics and relativity have not destroyed Newtonian laws of gravity. We just have a more complete knowledge of how gravitation works on different levels.

That's really the disconnect: people think that these ideas arose out of nothing. Even Newton has his "Apple on the head" story that started the idea and lead to more testing and observation. Most of science is about testing and observation. ID has nothing to do with observation other than "Take everything Darwin researched and say something else besides nature did it."

You can't even explain how that's a scientific theory much less come up with anything worthwile to observe about it. Seriously, think of a way to teach an ID class. I couldn't come up with anything other than "All that cool stuff you see today? Maybe it was aliens that did it."

__________________