"Expelled"

[ehtheist]

Ask the Scientists to answer two simple questions:

How did matter spring from nothing?
How did life spring from non-life?

They can’t answer these questions although the answers have been evident to most of us from an early age.

Ask the believer: Who created god?
The answer is evident to all non-believers: man.

Those two questions create too many more questions. What did god make everything out of? Who created god? Why did god do such a terrible job? How can someone so smart do so many things so dumb?

As for an earlier post that scientists are deists or theists is so far from the truth. The Discovery Institute would have you believe that 600 scientists disbelieving in evolution is a substantial number. Project Steve makes a mockery of such list.

And. contrary to the statement made, the “harder” the science, the greater number of disbelievers.

 

[reggieM]

With respect to what?

With respect to the question you asked me.

 

[drpmjhess]

With respect to the question you asked me.

Which was was what? Can you please remind me?

 

[drpmjhess]

Those two questions create too many more questions. What did god make everything out of? Who created god? Why did god do such a terrible job? How can someone so smart do so many things so dumb? .

(1) Interesting question. Cosmologists are working on that.

(2) God is uncreated, eternal, the ground of being, the foundational principle of existence.

(3) What do you mean by “such a terrible job”?

(4) What do you mean by doing “so many things so dumb”?

Petrus

 

[tonyl]

I’m not up on YE creationism, but ID is not pushing “evolution OR God.” It’s pushing both.

That may be true for a handful of ID supporters, but the vast majority of them, including all of the members of the Discovery Institute constantly attack the science of evolution. Their “textbook” Of Pandas and People is clearly anti-evolution, and a large portion of the posts on their www.evolutionnews.org site are clearly anti-evolution.

Materialistic based evolution on the other hand pushes “evolution or God.”

Again, this may be true for a handful of athiest evolution supporters, but the vast majority of scientists who study and accept the science of evolution don’t make this argument.

 

[ricmat]

That may be true for a handful of ID supporters, but the vast majority of them, including all of the members of the Discovery Institute constantly attack the science of evolution. Their “textbook” Of Pandas and People is clearly anti-evolution, and a large portion of the posts on their www.evolutionnews.org site are clearly anti-evolution.

Again, this may be true for a handful of athiest evolution supporters, but the vast majority of scientists who study and accept the science of evolution don’t make this argument.

Their mission is pretty well laid out at this site:

intelligentdesign.org/faq.php

and also in this rebuttal to the “Wedge Document”.

discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=349

They are not anti-evolution. They are anti scientific materialism. Perhaps there aren’t many scientists who believe in materialism…but are the vocal ones.

 

[ricmat]

Ask the believer: Who created god?
The answer is evident to all non-believers: man.

Well, if God did exist, we’d invent atheism anyway. And we did.

If I were to invent God, I’d make one more congenial to my whims.

[above quotes - from Reasons to Believe, Scott Hahn, page 46.]

 

[reggieM]

The vocal ones are quite prominent also – with best-selling books and lots of press coverage. I do not think that materialists are in the minority within the scientific community, but I would like to see the statistics and numbers either way.

A quick review of the most prominet pro-Darwin websites will show strident materialists and atheists in the majority.

 

[ricmat]

The vocal ones are quite prominent also – with best-selling books and lots of press coverage. I do not think that materialists are in the minority within the scientific community, but I would like to see the statistics and numbers either way.

A quick review of the most prominet pro-Darwin websites will show strident materialists and atheists in the majority.

Lookee here – who has the highest proportion of atheists and agnostics? Surprise, surprise.

from this article:
209.85.173.104/search?q=cache…ient=firefox-a

Looking at the top 20 BA granting fields, we find that atheists and agnostics are more common in some disciplines than others. Psychology and biology have the highest proportion of atheists and agnostics, at about 61 percent. Not far behind is mechanical engineering, 50 percent of whose professors are atheists or agnostics. Behind that is economics, political science, and computer science, with about 40 percent of professors falling into this category each. At the other end of the spectrum, 63 percent of accounting professors,
56.8 percent of elementary education professors, 48.6 percent of professors of finance, 46.5 percent of marketing professors, 46.2 percent of art professors and professors of criminal justice, and 44.4 percent of professors of nursing say they have no doubt that God exists.

 

[reggieM]

at about 61 percent

Which is about 10 times higher than that of the general public.

 

[rossum]

I’m not up on YE creationism, but ID is not pushing “evolution OR God.” It’s pushing both. Materialistic based evolution on the other hand pushes “evolution or God.”

In the context of this thread, about the movie “Expelled”, then the movie certainly proposes that ID and evolution are incompatible. Hence PatThePoet’s worries in the OP.

I have already quoted Ken Miller in this thread, and in this context it is worth quoting him again:

Ken Miller has got a piece about Expelled in the Boston Globe, Trouble ahead for science:the editors of Scientific American asked Mark Mathis, the film’s co-producer, why he and Stein didn’t interview such people, like Francis Collins (head of the Human Genome Project), Francisco Ayala, or myself. Mathis cited me by name, saying “Ken Miller would have confused the film unnecessarily.” In other words, showing a scientist who accepts both God and evolution would have confused their story line.

The film was trying to show that God (aka design) and evolution were not compatible. This is certainly the message the PatThePoet got from the film. The film deliberately did not interview scientists who see God and evolution as compatible because they would have “confused” the message of the film. Indeed.

You’ve probably been through Aquinas’ 5 proofs of God’s existence - since Nagarjuna seems to be attempting a counter-proof based on your statement above.

Nagarjuna predates Aquinas. His arguments are general and apply to any form of cause and effect, not just creator/created.

rossum

 

[The_Barbarian]

Their “textbook” Of Pandas and People is clearly anti-evolution, and a large portion of the posts on their www.evolutionnews.org site are clearly anti-evolution.

It should be pointed out that “Pandas and People” was originally published as a creationist tract, and was later edited by removing God and inserting “designer” to make it into a ID book.

That alone is a pretty good tip as to the nature of ID.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Hmmm more accounting professors are atheists than biology professors.

Do you think Reggie refuses to balance his bankbook? Is double-entry “atheistic?”

Is it possible someone is scraping around for an excuse?

Could be.

 

[tonyl]

Their mission is pretty well laid out at this site:

intelligentdesign.org/faq.php

I choose to judge them by their actions. Since they have yet to develop any ID theories, and usually spend their time attacking evolution, I find it hard to believe them when they say they are not anti-evolution.

When is Debski going to develop his explanatory well enough to apply to a real world example? Why won’t he even try to do this? Why does Jonathon Wells continue to libel Keterle with false claims of data forgery? Why do DI promoted books contain recycled young earth creationist arguments?

They are not anti-evolution. They are anti scientific materialism. Perhaps there aren’t many scientists who believe in materialism…but are the vocal ones.

The DI, love to equate the necessarily materialistic methodology used in science with some philosophy they call scientific materialism. I have found very few “scientific materialists” in science. There may be a handful of atheists who claim that this methodology should be applied to all knowledge and thinking, but that is not true of all atheists, nor is it true of all scientists who use a materialistic methodology.

 

[drpmjhess]

It should be pointed out that “Pandas and People” was originally published as a creationist tract, and was later edited by removing God and inserting “designer” to make it into a ID book.That alone is a pretty good tip as to the nature of ID.

Barbarian, before the Dover trial, my friend Nick Matzke discovered the smoking gun, the link from old-style (YE) creationists to new style (intelligent design) creationists: the Pandas editors had tried to replace “creationist” in the original version of Pandas with “design proponent” by doing a simple cut-and-paste. They got careless in one instance, leaving their fingerprints, so to speak: Nick ran across an incomplete cut-and-paste which read “cdesign proponentists”. What more need we say?

Petrus

 

[drpmjhess]

I choose to judge them by their actions. Since they have yet to develop any ID theories, and usually spend their time attacking evolution, I find it hard to believe them when they say they are not anti-evolution.

tonyl, there is the DI lab in Seattle where ID research is proceeding apace. We should soon witness the shift from merely attacking evolution to actually producing replicable results published in peer-reviewed journals.

Petrus

 

[buffalo]

COMPLETE LIST:

Peer-Reviewed Scientific Books Supportive of Intelligent Design Published by Trade Presses or University Presses

 

[PhilVaz]

petrus << They got careless in one instance, leaving their fingerprints, so to speak: Nick ran across an incomplete cut-and-paste which read “cdesign proponentists”. What more need we say? >>

We’ve found the transitional fossil:

bringyou.to/CDESIGN.jpg

That reminds me to post a link to my latest creation-evolution “project”:

Bad Arguments Against Evolution

A couple more trips to the USF library should do it, but I’ll be summarizing Don Prothero’s latest book so the work is done for me. And the Pope and Cardinal’s new books.

BTW, besides the Pope’s new book which came out this month, there is another one I’m waiting on from Amazon.com which is a new Dembski vs. Ruse “dialogue” book (previous one was Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA), includes essays by ID and anti-ID folks.

Intelligent Design: William A. Dembski and Michael Ruse in Dialogue (Fortress Press, 2007)

Phil P

 

[rossum]

tonyl, there is the DI lab in Seattle where ID research is proceeding apace. We should soon witness the shift from merely attacking evolution to actually producing replicable results published in peer-reviewed journals.

Don’t let us forget ID’s own peer-reviewed journal: Progress in Complexity Information and Design (iscid.org/pcid.php)). Published quarterly it is obviously straining to cope with the volume of work being output from the ID labs. The latest issue was published in November 2005.

rossum

 

[drpmjhess]

Don’t let us forget ID’s own peer-reviewed journal: Progress in Complexity Information and Design (iscid.org/pcid.php)). Published quarterly it is obviously straining to cope with the volume of work being output from the ID labs. The latest issue was published in November 2005.
rossum

Rossum, I’ve looked at some of these articles and the website materials. It makes me wonder whether all the smoke and mirrors of Intelligent Design is hiding ID’s love of God so well that we no longer see it. They bend over so far backward to say that ID is not religion, that it just looks like a weird, secular, pseudo-science.

By contrast, my priest-scientists friends joyfully start their days with Eucharist or community prayer, then joyfully work in their labs and teach in their classrooms, and then finish the day by glorifying God for what they have learned. I don’t see this in the ID movement. Perhaps it’s there.

Petrus