The movie.......Expelled

[StAnastasia]

You evaded the question.
1) ID has been put forth as a theory with substantial evidence from many sources (of course if mentioning it is banned, then such evidence gets hidden).
2) People are reporting that they are being fired for mentioning ID even when not teaching it or promoting it. That is grounds for investigation and laws suits.

No, it’s not. For the truth behind “Expelled,” see expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth. You can read a detailed analysis about each of the major claims of the film, and of the case of each of the “martyrs.”

The Truth behind the Fiction

"Expelled makes some outrageous claims. But what really happened to the people they claim were persecuted for their views? And what is the real story about evolution and Intelligent Design?’

The Scientific Claims

Evolution
Intelligent Design
Challenging Science
Science & Religion
Hitler & Eugenics

The “Expelled”

Richard Sternberg
Guillermo Gonzalez
Caroline Crocker
Robert Marks
Pamela Winnick
Michael Egnor

 

[James_S_Saint]

No, it’s not. For the truth behind “Expelled,” see expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth. You can read a detailed analysis about each of the major claims of the film, and of the case of each of the “martyrs.”

The Truth behind the Fiction

"Expelled makes some outrageous claims. But what really happened to the people they claim were persecuted for their views? And what is the real story about evolution and Intelligent Design?’

That video is merely UNWITNESSED accusations. It showed NO evidence of what it claimed to be a conspiracy of the Ben Stein film makers.

 

[StAnastasia]

That video is merely UNWITNESSED accusations. It showed NO evidence of what it claimed to be a conspiracy of the Ben Stein film makers.

I’m not saying academe and the tenure process doesn’t have glitches. But I await a good argument as to why ID should be taught in biology classes while alchemy or astrology should not be taught in astronomy and chemistry classes. I’m not convinced ID is “science” any more than are the latter two. Can you show me why it should be taught?

StAnastasia

 

[James_S_Saint]

I’m not saying academe and the tenure process doesn’t have glitches. But I await a good argument as to why ID should be taught in biology classes while alchemy or astrology should not be taught in astronomy and chemistry classes. I’m not convinced ID is “science” any more than are the latter two. Can you show me why it should be taught?

StAnastasia

Personally, I think the whole issue of ID on BOTH sides lacks intelligence. I do not engage in that issue.

I DO engage in issues of dishonesty in reporting to the public and issues of subtle deception of the public. Those are the roots of evil.

Ben Stein’s movie was about probable deception being used. It was not professing that ID should or should not be taught in the Science classes, but rather that the issue has brought up evidence that Science is being “led by the nose”. That is something I have been aware of since the early 70’s so I was glad to see someone actually announcing it. That video was a deception, not Stein’s movie.

I consider REAL Science to be a very worthy endeavor as long as it is kept honest.

The issue is strictly one of honesty, not any particular theory.

 

[StAnastasia]

The issue is strictly one of honesty, not any particular theory.

Right – honest is crucial.

 

[reggieM]

Yet despite that high degree of bias that I have, I found the movie to be extraordinarily accurate of the real political issues that I have been watching since the 70’s. I was amazed that someone actually just out and out finally showed the truth of it.

But then I watched that YouTube presentation and there the all too familiar accuser, liar, and trickster appears again who demonstrated that he didn’t even know what the Scientific Method actually is yet repeatedly called Stein a “fool” for being so ignorant. Same ole same ole, the guilt accusing itself.

That was an excellent review - thanks. I share your opinion on the movie also – it was courageous and bold.

Scientism is an undeclared, unapproved, and unadmitted religion with roots throughout the West and directly supporting our new age Nazism with intimidation tactics and belief controls. They have merely learned to hide. Those we meet online are just the unwitting hairs [of the beast].

Agreed.

 

[StAnastasia]

That was an excellent review - thanks. I share your opinion on the movie also – it was courageous and bold.

And based on lies, distortion, and falsehoods.

 

[reggieM]

And based on lies, distortion, and falsehoods.

I disagree.

 

[James_S_Saint]

And based on lies, distortion, and falsehoods.

And upon what do you base such accusations?

 

[Oreoracle]

I disagree.

sigh…That’s the problem with free speech, isn’t it? People can have and express any opinion they wish, but there’s no way to moderate the quality of those opinions. People can mindlessly regurgitate whatever dogma they’ve been taught while providing no supporting evidence and no one can lay a finger on them. And coupled with democracy, this sort of prevailing idiocy can affect the masses.

“I disagree” has never been a reason, and it never will be a reason. It’s a conclusion with unstated premises, and the fact that these premises are unstated says loads about them, namely that they’re BOGUS. Your opinion means squat without evidence.

 

[reggieM]

Your opinion means squat without evidence.

As does yours – but you didn’t hesitate to express it.

 

[James_S_Saint]

sigh…That’s the problem with free speech, isn’t it? People can have and express any opinion they wish, but there’s no way to moderate the quality of those opinions. People can mindlessly regurgitate whatever dogma they’ve been taught while providing no supporting evidence and no one can lay a finger on them. And coupled with democracy, this sort of prevailing idiocy can affect the masses.

“I disagree” has never been a reason, and it never will be a reason. It’s a conclusion with unstated premises, and the fact that these premises are unstated says loads about them, namely that they’re BOGUS. Your opinion means squat without evidence.

I would agree, but I’m still looking for your premises… :yukonjoe:

 

[AlbertBall]

But then I watched that YouTube presentation and there the all too familiar accuser, liar, and trickster appears again who demonstrated that** he didn’t even know what the Scientific Method actually is yet repeatedly called Stein a “fool” for being so ignorant.** Same ole same ole, the guilt accusing itself.

**Until Science can prove that ID is impossible **or even truly highly improbable with real logic, then Science should not be confined to your theories alone.

I don’t think it is thuderf00t the professional scientist that does not understand the method.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I don’t think it is thuderf00t the professional scientist that does not understand the method.

Yeah well, not thinking is all too common these days;
Wiki:

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

But go look at what his video says it is. He specifies that all Science must be based on prior accepted Science. In effect, all new thought must be fathered by old thought. But that is not what the Scientific Method really says. Using his standard, everyone must get approved by the Scientific Magisterium before they can publish. “If you’re one of us, then come on in.”

One of the points in Stein’s movie was that they do seem to in fact highly guard and restrict who gets to publish what. He hasn’t been the first to say that by a long shot either.

 

[AlbertBall]

Yeah well, not thinking is all too common these days;

But go look at what his video says it is. He specifies that all Science must be based on prior accepted Science. In effect, all new thought must be fathered by old thought. But that is not what the Scientific Method really says. Using his standard, everyone must get approved by the Scientific Magisterium before they can publish. “If you’re one of us, then come on in.”

One of the points in Stein’s movie was that they do seem to in fact highly guard and restrict who gets to publish what. He hasn’t been the first to say that by a long shot either.

AH well if wiki says so!

Thunderf00t is correct, one cannot just pluck research questions and hypothesis out the top of their head. They must be based on a review of all the current scientific data. If one does not know the the field then how on earth can one expect to investigate any problems within the field? I take you your are not familiar with the term literature review?

Also if you understood the method you would see the* “investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge”* does mean exactly what he said.

 

[James_S_Saint]

AH well if wiki says so!

Thunderf00t is correct, one cannot just pluck research questions and hypothesis out the top of their head. They must be based on a review of all the current scientific data. If one does not know the the field then how on earth can one expect to investigate any problems within the field? I take you your are not familiar with the term literature review?

Also if you understood the method you would see the* “investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge”* does mean exactly what he said.

Oh I have reason to suspect that I know both the real method and the currently "Sceince Dogma Method even better than you or ole thuderf00t.

You and he are insisting that Science be a religion (protectionism of belief). You and he are a part of the problem that ends all hope for Science.

 

[StAnastasia]

And upon what do you base such accusations?

Because they lied to my department when I was setting up an interview to have our chair filmed for it – they lied about the subject of the film, and we pulled the plug on the interview. They lied about the six supposed “martyrs” whose stories are not as they are laid out to be in the “documentary.” That’s seven sets of lies right there, calling into question the veracity of the whole enterprise.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Because they lied to my department when I was setting up an interview to have our chair filmed for it – they lied about the subject of the film, and we pulled the plug on the interview. They lied about the six supposed “martyrs” whose stories are not as they are laid out to be in the “documentary.” That’s seven sets of lies right there, calling into question the veracity of the whole enterprise.

You heard their lie personally?? That makes a big difference.

What did they say versus what they did (and who in particular)?

How do you personally know that the 6 stories about the “martyrs” were lies?

 

[AlbertBall]

Oh I have reason to suspect that I know both the real method and the currently "Science Dogma Method even better than you or ole thuderf00t.

You and he are insisting that Science be a religion (protectionism of belief). You and he are a part of the problem that ends all hope for Science.

Given the fact that you think it is the responsibility of science to disprove I.D… you clearly don’t.

 

[4elise]

I reject the arguments of the movie. There needs to be more than a lack of positive evidence for the forming of specified complexity under naturalism in order for divine causation to be argued; otherwise this would be a “God of the gaps”. So basically, unless the intelligent design folks can give solid, credible, positive evidence that specified complexity cannot form under naturalism, then there is no benefit in talking about ad hoc divine causation. Right now, as far as I know, there is positive evidence that specified complexity can form under naturalism.

So if this is the case, why are we talking about ad hoc causation? If you hold that a Supreme Being moves all entities from potency to act, then ad hoc causation is not necessary – it is all caused by God. What evolution has provided is the possibility of a “blind watchmaker” under an atheistic worldview – complexity is no longer irrefutable evidence for a designer. This does not imply that the “watchmaker” is blind by necessity, but it is not possible for him to blind. So the doctrine of the creation of life has rmoved into the theological and metaphysical domain.

I believe that this “evolution vs creation” phenomenon is mainly a protestant/fundamentalist conception that occurred because they took Sacred Scripture out of its authoritative preaching matrix. Heck, the Origin of Species was never even on the Index of Forbidden Books – it was never banned. Cardinal Newman wrote in the 19th century – if my memory serves me right it was 1893 – that evolution could be seen as a manifestation of Divine Providence. The Church officially declared it was not contrary to the faith (although not necessarily accepting it) in 1953, decades before the issues with the school systems in the United States. If the Catholic Church is ambiguous at all in its position, it is because it is keeping to a broad position to prevent us from being attacked by Protestantism that may gain converts from us by claiming to be more “biblical”.

Excellent post:thumbsup: