Richard Dawkins sitting in movie theater watching 'Expelled' right now.

[Carcharodon]

Apologies for not sticking to topic. With regards to the movie itself; ID, while certainly capable of becoming a scientific idea (selective breeding of greyhounds and horses, as well as GM crops are viable examples), it is, in itself, insufficient on basis of evidence to explain the origins of man. Evolution is required somehere along the line. I don't need to, nor want to see this doco, especially if it is a polemic full of half-truths and highly distorted facts.

It is hardly becoming of a mature debater to employ such tactics, and the ID lobby should learn this...

Then again, since when were reasonable voices ever heard?

The bolded portion caught my eye. Do tell.

 

[wellsy]

The bolded portion caught my eye. Do tell.

Well, in essence it's very simple: selective breeding is an extremely primitive form of intelligent design, since you are attempting to produce certain features in the offspring that are desirable. Genetically modified plants are a more advanced version of this essential attempt at influence.

While perhaps not conforming to the idea of irreducible complexity, I do feel that the spirit of intelligent design is compatable with these processes, especially genetically modified crops (given that their development is in no way dependant on evolution and natural selection).

It requires something of an adaptation of the idea, but I believe that the principle is valid, though I wouldn't quote me on that, what with me studying physics and all (they might already have a word for this, for all I know).

 

[Carcharodon]

Well, in essence it's very simple: selective breeding is an extremely primitive form of intelligent design, since you are attempting to produce certain features in the offspring that are desirable. Genetically modified plants are a more advanced version of this essential attempt at influence.

While perhaps not conforming to the idea of irreducible complexity, I do feel that the spirit of intelligent design is compatable with these processes, especially genetically modified crops (given that their development is in no way dependant on evolution and natural selection).

It requires something of an adaptation of the idea, but I believe that the principle is valid, though I wouldn't quote me on that, what with me studying physics and all (they might already have a word for this, for all I know).

It's actually called artificial selection. The difference between it and I.D. is that you're not creating something from thin air: you're taking existing genes/traits and manipulating them.

It's a bit of a stretch to compare the two...and that's putting it mildly, IMO.

 

[wellsy]

Well, like I said, I'm a student of physics, not biology. I wasn't aware that they had a name for it, although I can't say I'm surprised.

 

[Hulk of Steel]

Will this thread become the official thread for the movie Expelled? I do hope so.

 

[Hulk of Steel]

I think what this film will demonstrate is that the public is aware of what is going on in the science community. The very fact that honest scientists cannot agree on the origins of the universe is evidence that the theory of evolution is not the answer. Science isn't about the general consensus, as some have assumed it to be. Science is about proving theories with facts so that they are no longer theories. Such an end leaves no room for consensus. It is true that some things just cannot be proven. When that is the case, then science is inadequate to the task.

 

[Watson]

That's a popular myth, but in actuality there are actually passage in the bible that refer to it as being round.

Isaiah 40:22

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

The Catholic church's insistance that the world was flat came mostly from leftover pagan traditions from the Roman empire, not the actual scriptures. Further evidence that people in bible times were aware of the Earth's roundness can be found in the book of Luke:

34I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. 35Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.

Odd that Luke chose to describe the Rapture as happening to people who are both sleeping at night and laboring in the day, don't you think?

But in what version of the Bible is that claimed? I ask only because the Bible has changed a in its various incarnations. As the times changed and as different people became responsible for transcribing, and later printing them, various things would have been changed and updated. Besides, the theory that the world was flat was disaproved much earlier then Galileo and Colombus's time.

 

[Bill]

I think what this film will demonstrate is that the public is aware of what is going on in the science community. The very fact that honest scientists cannot agree on the origins of the universe is evidence that the theory of evolution is not the answer. Science isn't about the general consensus, as some have assumed it to be. Science is about proving theories with facts so that they are no longer theories. Such an end leaves no room for consensus. It is true that some things just cannot be proven. When that is the case, then science is inadequate to the task.

I'm sorry but this shows a poor understanding of science and Evolution. And the "origins of the Universe" only impacts Evolution with regard to a starting point, not the actual process. The scientific community is no way, shape or form, at some large degree of disagreement or turmoil regarding Evolution as a whole. That is a myth perpetrated by some very desperate, or foolish, creationists.

Here is a quote from Stephen Gould that may help explain the difference between facts and theories and how evolution relates to both.

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

 

[Bubonic]

I don't understand how some of you can equate the propaganda tactics deployed by this mockery to be on par with the rigorously thorough attempts by Dawkins to enlighten people to the follies of the religion myth.

People bring up that evolution is a theory, henceforth it is just as probable or improbable as religious takes on life, yet fail to understand the enormous amount of research which gives credence to the theory versus the interpretation of dated fables.

Dawkins might be virulent in his campaign against the widespread misinformation propagated by religion, but he simply doesn't lie or distort reality in order to push forward sense into the minds of those indoctrinated since birth into a system of senselessness.

 

[sithgoblin]

I think what this film will demonstrate is that the public is aware of what is going on in the science community. The very fact that honest scientists cannot agree on the origins of the universe is evidence that the theory of evolution is not the answer. Science isn't about the general consensus, as some have assumed it to be. Science is about proving theories with facts so that they are no longer theories. Such an end leaves no room for consensus. It is true that some things just cannot be proven. When that is the case, then science is inadequate to the task.

Man, you don't even know what you're talking about! Evolution is not supposed to explain the origins of the universe. And scientists in the field of biology universally accept it.

 

[wellsy]

I think what this film will demonstrate is that the public is aware of what is going on in the science community. The very fact that honest scientists cannot agree on the origins of the universe is evidence that the theory of evolution is not the answer. Science isn't about the general consensus, as some have assumed it to be. Science is about proving theories with facts so that they are no longer theories. Such an end leaves no room for consensus. It is true that some things just cannot be proven. When that is the case, then science is inadequate to the task.

First of all, science is provisional. You go with what you've got, until you've got something better.

Bill and sithgoblin's posts have very important points, and I suggest you have a good look at them.

With regards to the age of the universe; you should probably talk to astronomers and astrophysicists (or 3rd year uni students looking at a future in those fields... like me ). And so I shall correct you.

Einstein, in 1905, assumed that the speed of light in a vacuum was constant (it was; speed ~186,000 miles per second, or ~300,000 kilometers per second). Thus, one can take a lightyear as a unit of measurement (the distance light travels in a year), of the order of 10^12 meters.

Since the speed of light is constant, and because of the Doppler effect (I won't bother explaining it here), we can determine the distance of the farthest stars that we can see. Working backwards from this result, we can then determine how long the light has been travelling, and if you crunch all the numbers, I believe you end up being able to see about 14 billion years into the past.

Yes, you heard me right - into the past. When you look at a star in the night sky, it isn't there. It is actually, right now, in a different position. What we see is the light that was emitted some time ago (nearest star is 4.2 lightyears away, so we see that star as and when it was 4.2 years ago). And that is how we calculate the age of the universe.

And physics is generally a lot more exacting as a science (except with quantum mechanics... but lets not go there).

Do hope you'll pardon the numbers though.

 

[C.F. Kane]

It seems that Ben Stein's problem with evolution is that it doesn't explain how life began. Which is a bit like complaining about the Theory of Gravity because it doesn't tell us why the sky is blue.

But really, I'd go on about how so many non-scientists misconstrue the basic tenets of science to disprove Darwinism, how ID really should be considered more of a philosophy than a scientific theory, but at this point I'm sick, almost to the point of vomiting, of arguing the same tired arguments until the threads close. But in the end it won't matter. The cold logicians and the zealous firebrands will keep bashing each other's heads in with slogan after slogan.

 

[Superhobo]

Well I, for one, CF, am certainly glad you pulled up this thread from the dead to say that you're tired of - what?


:wink:

 

[Venomfan]

First of all, science is provisional. You go with what you've got, until you've got something better.

Bill and sithgoblin's posts have very important points, and I suggest you have a good look at them.

With regards to the age of the universe; you should probably talk to astronomers and astrophysicists (or 3rd year uni students looking at a future in those fields... like me ). And so I shall correct you.

Einstein, in 1905, assumed that the speed of light in a vacuum was constant (it was; speed ~186,000 miles per second, or ~300,000 kilometers per second). Thus, one can take a lightyear as a unit of measurement (the distance light travels in a year), of the order of 10^12 meters.

Since the speed of light is constant, and because of the Doppler effect (I won't bother explaining it here), we can determine the distance of the farthest stars that we can see. Working backwards from this result, we can then determine how long the light has been travelling, and if you crunch all the numbers, I believe you end up being able to see about 14 billion years into the past.

Yes, you heard me right - into the past. When you look at a star in the night sky, it isn't there. It is actually, right now, in a different position. What we see is the light that was emitted some time ago (nearest star is 4.2 lightyears away, so we see that star as and when it was 4.2 years ago). And that is how we calculate the age of the universe.

And physics is generally a lot more exacting as a science (except with quantum mechanics... but lets not go there).

Do hope you'll pardon the numbers though.

keep in mind i know nothing about the subject, its just something i thought of, but if not even light can escape a black hole, doesn't that mean the speed of light can change?

 

[wellsy]

No. A black hole is, at heart, much like a planet or a star, only much more massive and dense. It is, in fact, so massive and dense that the velocity required to get away from it (otherwise known as escape velocity) is greater than the speed of light.

Light itself doesn't slow down around gravitational objects. Rather, it bends. This means that light (once past the event horizen of a black hole, ie the point of no return) spirals inwards towards the centre.

Light only slows down when in a medium (like air, for example). However, the factor of slowing is so small that it is almost negligable in most calculations.

So, in short, the speed of light doesn't change in the vicinity of a black hole. Rather, its velocity/trajectory is altered by gravity. This is one of the results of General Relativity (that gravity is simply the curvature of space, and orbits are straight paths over curved space-time).

Sorry for the Treknobabble.

 

[Bubonic]

So are the evangelical circles thrilled about this venture in stupidity... probably having atheist interventions in their communities so they can show what that apotheosis of knowledge Ben Stein has helped put together on his quest to propagate ignorance.

 

[C.F. Kane]

Well I, for one, CF, am certainly glad you pulled up this thread from the dead to say that you're tired of - what?


:wink:

Merciful heavens...

You're right! I've defeated myself!



But really, I just saw the trailer for the movie online and I had to vent about it somewhere.

 

[Tojo]

Just to be clear to everyone though, I am no fan of Richard Dawkins.

Nor am i really. I dislike his presentation as it's very arrogant, dictatorial and to be honest he canbe just as vitriolic as the people he tries to 'debate' with and of course in the end both parties just look like silly little children. I loved his confrontation with Ted Haggard though on his documentary, made all the more sweet now we know how Haggard likes his college boys and crystal meth lol.

 

[Bubonic]

Nor am i really. I dislike his presentation as it's very arrogant, dictatorial and to be honest he canbe just as vitriolic as the people he tries to 'debate' with and of course in the end both parties just look like silly little children. I loved his confrontation with Ted Haggard though on his documentary, made all the more sweet now we know how Haggard likes his college boys and crystal meth lol.

Sure he's abrasive, but I don't see why debate is put in quotation marks here, unless of course you considering that it isn't much of a debate considering one side has nothing to go on but faith.

I don't see how he can be interpreted as a silly child, he goes to great lengths to try to make the scientific info digestible for the bible thumpers, yet usually they are the ones acting like children, surprise none of them have put their fingers in their ears and held their breath till they passed out!

I'm betting Dawkins is as arrogant as he is because its so annoying to have to repeat himself so often, and it not making any difference.

It be like if you were turning blue in the face trying to convince me that the grass was blue, when clearly it's ****ing green, yet you keep going on and on about me not looking at it from the right angle...
Yet I clearly know that grass colouration doesn't function like that of a butterfly....

 

[wellsy]

Dawkins comes across as childish because he is confrontational, generally goes after the bad/rotten eggs and inflates them out of proportion (the media does a good job at this as well, but we all know what a circus that is), making sweeping, generalised statements of questionable validity (to say the least! He declared "Catholic" education to be a form of child abuse ), not to mention has little credibility on the matter due to his doctorate being in science, and not having studied theology (kind of like arguing literary theory with an illiterate... ).

Oh, and Bubonic, your example reminded me of the joyful Parrot Sketch

 

[sithgoblin]

Dawkins comes across as childish because he is confrontational, generally goes after the bad/rotten eggs and inflates them out of proportion (the media does a good job at this as well, but we all know what a circus that is), making sweeping, generalised statements of questionable validity (to say the least! He declared "Catholic" education to be a form of child abuse ), not to mention has little credibility on the matter due to his doctorate being in science, and not having studied theology (kind of like arguing literary theory with an illiterate... ).

Oh, and Bubonic, your example reminded me of the joyful Parrot Sketch

Do I have to read up on the finer points of Unicorn-ism to disbelieve in Unicorns?

 

[Joker]

Do I have to read up on the finer points of Unicorn-ism to disbelieve in Unicorns?

I believe in unicorns, stop bashing my beliefs

 

[Bubonic]

Dawkins comes across as childish because he is confrontational, generally goes after the bad/rotten eggs and inflates them out of proportion (the media does a good job at this as well, but we all know what a circus that is), making sweeping, generalised statements of questionable validity (to say the least! He declared "Catholic" education to be a form of child abuse ), not to mention has little credibility on the matter due to his doctorate being in science, and not having studied theology (kind of like arguing literary theory with an illiterate... ).

Oh, and Bubonic, your example reminded me of the joyful Parrot Sketch

Haha, Monty Python is truly great.
I think the Catholic education as child abuse claim goes along with his notion that indoctrinating children into a religion before their minds are form is abuse.
He gets on parents cases for saying "this is a Christian child, this is a Muslim child, etc."
If that is the case, I'd have to agree, and in that sense the sweeping statement has validity imo.

Although he surely doesn't have a doctorate in theology, due to his field of contention I'm pretty sure he knowns more about creation myths then the average scientist as the stuff is always brought up.

But to say that a biologist has to have such a knowledge of theology in order to debate a theologian is sort of like saying that an astronomer or astrophysicist would need to have a deep knowledge of astrology.

Do I have to read up on the finer points of Unicorn-ism to disbelieve in Unicorns?

Truly.

 

[C.F. Kane]

But to say that a biologist has to have such a knowledge of theology in order to debate a theologian is sort of like saying that an astronomer or astrophysicist would need to have a deep knowledge of astrology.

Unfortunately, in an increasingly devout nation, scientists may be forced to beat pseudo-scientists on their own terms.

 

[wellsy]

Do I have to read up on the finer points of Unicorn-ism to disbelieve in Unicorns?

Unless you merely wish to preach to the converted, yes, you do. That he refuses (and uses such a poor example) leaves him wide open to attack that he does not understand what he is arguing against. Understanding aids in any form of combat, whether you fight with weapons or words.

Also, Dawkins doesn't seem to be that good with his scholarship, since his assertion that Christ, as a historical figure, almost certainly did not exist is based on the assertion of someone who is not a historian. Even wikipedia suggests it to be true:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus .

The idea of Christ as a myth is rejected by Bible scholars and historians: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_hypothesis#Scholarly_response

Hmmm... I wonder who to listen too...