|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
 Posted - 05/03/2006 : 11:45:15
|
quote:
The biologist in Randy Olson cringed at news reports of evangelical Christians challenging the teaching of evolution to schoolchildren in places such as Kansas on the grounds it was just a theory.
But the filmmaker in him feels just as strongly that scientists have done a lousy job explaining their side of the debate.
The result is "Flock of Dodos: The Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus," a humorous and entertaining documentary that premiered at New York's Tribeca Film Festival this week.
The film shines a spotlight on "intelligent design," a school of thought that says many of the seemingly miraculous and complex elements of nature must be the work of an intelligent designer -- namely God.
...
But Olson said scientists had squandered a winning hand through their inability or refusal to engage in the debate. He wants to show filmgoers there's little scientific challenge to evolution, yet he also wants to entertain them.
...
Olson gives the intelligent design advocates plenty of airtime but the film exposes what Olson sees as the fallacies of best-selling authors who provide the intellectual firepower of the intelligent design movement.
He balances his critique of academics -- too rigid and arrogant -- with a calm, orderly attack on the arguments backing intelligent design.
Link
|
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 05/03/2006 : 18:44:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally in the article
But Olson said scientists had squandered a winning hand through their inability or refusal to engage in the debate.
And that attitude, regardless of Olson's intent, plays right into the hands of the IDists. They want everyone to believe that scientists have been unable or unwilling to face Intelligent Design claims head-on. That is one of the primary political goals of the entire ID movement: to discredit science as a whole.
The fact of the matter is, though, that scientists (and logicians and philosophers and others) have been directly and thoroughly engaged in the debate for over 200 years. Hume dismantled Paley's "watchmaker" argument, even before Paley ever committed his ideas to paper. Darwin's more-vocal proponents went head-to-head with Church authorities. And every Federal court case about the subject for the last umpty-ump decades has been an evolutionary win.
ID has brought nothing new to the table since its birth in 1991 from the ashes of "scientific creationism." For one thing, there is no positive argument for ID, there are only poor arguments which end in "therefore, evolution couldn't have done this." For another, all such arguments made today are simply rehashed religious creationist arguments (which used to end, "therefore, God did it"), like the aforementioned watchmaker (and currently, Behe's Mount Rushmore argument).
So, the reason scientists don't appear to engage in the debate is that they know, from a simple reading of history, that the debate has already been engaged and won. Years ago.
Apparently, that's not good enough for Olson (nor is it good enough for most other people). He (and they) instead demands that the "science" side repeatedly re-fight every battle just because some childish ID proponent has screamed loudly for a do-over. How many mulligans does Olson want to give the creationists that they haven't already had? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2006 : 21:32:34 [Permalink]
|
I see where one gets frustrated by the seemingly unending onslaught of creationist propaganda and the fact that a majority of people in this country do not accept evolution as the scientific theory that best describes how life took its present-day form. One might draw a causal link from that.
Perhaps the debate was won years ago, but people, especially in this day of poor education, mass media saturation, and constant fear, may forget or be easily misled by strong "leaders".
I think that the creationists argument is easier to grasp by the average person. I think that evolution is more complicated and requires the ability to see a very big picture that takes a very long time to paint. Evolution also requires some knowledge in science, while creationism requires no knowledge of science.
I don't think we should let the creationists have all the spotlight while we sit back confident in our knowledge. As we know from history, those that are right do not necessarily win the fight.
I would, no matter what, like to see this film. I predict a 0% chance of it showing in a Mobile, AL theater, so I must wait for DVD.
edit for grammar |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 05/03/2006 21:37:12 |
|
|
|
Bibleland
Skeptic Friend
USA
51 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2006 : 16:01:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
And that attitude, regardless of Olson's intent, plays right into the hands of the IDists. They want everyone to believe that scientists have been unable or unwilling to face Intelligent Design claims head-on. That is one of the primary political goals of the entire ID movement: to discredit science as a whole.
Dave I respectfully dissagree that IDists want to discredit science. They want to see science in certain fields be filtered through the bible as the ultimate authority. If you were to do this I cannot think one one technology developed over the past 100 years that would have not been invented with a creationists view. Again "certain" sciences not all. There is a distinction do you agree? |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2006 : 16:10:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bibleland
They want to see science in certain fields be filtered through the bible as the ultimate authority. If you were to do this I cannot think one one technology developed over the past 100 years that would have not been invented with a creationists view.
If we continued to allow knowledge of the natural world to be "filtered through the bible" then we never would have left the Dark Ages.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 05/04/2006 17:16:01 |
|
|
|
Paulos23
Skeptic Friend
USA
446 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2006 : 16:26:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bibleland
quote:
And that attitude, regardless of Olson's intent, plays right into the hands of the IDists. They want everyone to believe that scientists have been unable or unwilling to face Intelligent Design claims head-on. That is one of the primary political goals of the entire ID movement: to discredit science as a whole.
Dave I respectfully dissagree that IDists want to discredit science. They want to see science in certain fields be filtered through the bible as the ultimate authority. If you were to do this I cannot think one one technology developed over the past 100 years that would have not been invented with a creationists view. Again "certain" sciences not all. There is a distinction do you agree?
What model of the solar system do you think we would be using now if the church (the ones that normally interprete the bible in the middle ages) had the final say? For that matter what physics would be around, let alone bioligy?
The idea that "God did it", which is the center of the ID's arguement, would have stopped all scitific devolpment because we can't prodict anything from that.
How does gravity work? "God did it"
What makes it rain? "God did it"
Can I prodict the weather? "No, God does it"
Can I fly? "No, God only willed birds to fly"
Heck, you can argue that the computer shouldn't exist because it is to close to God's prefect creation, Man.
Sorry I am all over the map here, but think about it. Where would it stop? |
You can go wrong by being too skeptical as readily as by being too trusting. -- Robert A. Heinlein
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2006 : 17:03:12 [Permalink]
|
| Lying and distortion helps out a lot too when you need to do some filtering, doesn't it? |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2006 : 19:15:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
I don't think we should let the creationists have all the spotlight while we sit back confident in our knowledge. As we know from history, those that are right do not necessarily win the fight.
No, pleco, that certainly wasn't what I was calling for, either. Scientists really are engaged in the debate every damn day, but they shouldn't have to be. It's a waste of everybody's time and money. But guys like Olson don't seem to bother looking around long enough to find out just how entrenched the scientists are in this battle. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2006 : 19:29:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bibleland
Dave I respectfully dissagree that IDists want to discredit science. They want to see science in certain fields be filtered through the bible as the ultimate authority. If you were to do this I cannot think one one technology developed over the past 100 years that would have not been invented with a creationists view. Again "certain" sciences not all. There is a distinction do you agree?
Not at all. "The Wedge" clearly stated that "materialistic science" should be eliminated in favor of something more in line with Jesus (what, it didn't specify). That document showed that biology, and evolution in particular, was just the single discipline into which "the Wedge" would first be driven. The IDists thought it would be the easiest.
Anyway, the point is that all science is "materialistic." It all shares that nasty, evil "naturalism" which IDists decry so much. And because no part of any science specifically glorifies Jesus, it all - in the black-and-white world of the ID creationist - denies Christ, and must therefore be wiped out.
Besides which, the idea that something can act beyond the realm of the natural, but that science can detect such action (a central thesis of ID), is plainly absurd. Unless you're willing to say what Behe said on the witness stand in Dover, and claim that science should be redefined in such a way that astrology would become a science.
How would you like it, John, if tea-leaf reading and other forms of prophecy clearly prohibited by the Bible were to take a place next to Flood Geology in public-school classrooms? Because that's the only way that ID is going to get there: if the very idea of science itself is simply thrown out.
And hey, when are you going to come back and answer our questions about Cy? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2006 : 00:59:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
....
So, the reason scientists don't appear to engage in the debate is that they know, from a simple reading of history, that the debate has already been engaged and won. Years ago....
,he said as the IDers gained even more ground.
I saw a local debate on one of our local politics channels. (I lost track of what station I was watching, it could have been CSPAN, the channel grouping is all together.) Anyway, it was a guy from the Discovery Institute and a UW geology professor, Peter Ward. I think Dr Ward has some interest in astrobiology, I'm not sure, but I digress.
Anyway, Dr Ward complimented the DI for their superior and very well done marketing campaign re ID. To which the DI guy declined the compliment with a tad of offense but we all know it's true.
The DI guy was typical. He was a very slick talker, he interrupted more often and always got away with it, the audience was stacked with loud DI cheering and booing team I'm sure came just to be loud. Science lost on form, won on fact but only to those of us who know what the facts are. If you were uninformed on either side, the DI talks a slick argument.
So yes, there is no question ID is nonsense, it isn't science, and eventually these flat Earth hanger on-ers will fade away. But we could lose a few years as science leaders of the world if we don't forget about ID not being science, if we give purest intellectual rebuttals that the average lay person can't understand, and if we let the IDers control the debate making it about open minded science instead of about the false premise ID is predicated on.
I wanted to scream at the TV. Let me argue this debate. That DI guy won't talk circles around me. I will debate him on the science. ID lacks a supportable underlying premise and genetic science has ruled out Behe's stupid hypotheses. Science classes are open, they always have been. The reason ID isn't in those classes is it fails the evidence tests.
Who cares if science doesn't look for designers or there is not test for one? By sticking to that true but 'vague to a lay person' discussion, the debates are lost. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 05/05/2006 01:03:39 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2006 : 22:32:48 [Permalink]
|
IMO, the best question to shut an IDer up is "What is the theory of Intelligent Design and how can it be tested using the scientific method?" (regards to Rev. Dr. Lenny Flank)
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 05/05/2006 22:33:25 |
|
|
|
Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular
Canada
510 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2006 : 22:59:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bibleland
[Dave I respectfully dissagree that IDists want to discredit science. They want to see science in certain fields be filtered through the bible as the ultimate authority. If you were to do this I cannot think one one technology developed over the past 100 years that would have not been invented with a creationists view. Again "certain" sciences not all. There is a distinction do you agree?
Here is one that is based on natural selection
U of M scientists discover genes that prevent mosquitoes from transmitting malaria
or listen to MP3
The theory of evolution was the basis of this discovery and using natural selection of the basis of the application. |
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King
History is made by stupid people - The Arrogant Worms
"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism." - William Osler
"Religion is the natural home of the psychopath" - Pat Condell
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
|
Bibleland
Skeptic Friend
USA
51 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2006 : 06:08:10 [Permalink]
|
Again I maintain that I do not see a conflict with the Bible and Science. I do not see the Bible as a stumbling block for the advancement of knowledge. I see it just the opposite.
Again I'd like to see possible what possible impact a creationists world view would have on the development of technologies over the last 150 years.
If I understand the history of science the early science fathers of the 1500's - 1800's many were creationists who gave us many laws and inventions which are time tested. It appears that the "science" we are all really arguing about here is evolutionary (macro) and the dating of objects, not all science.
I believe that the life on earth is 6000 years old with tremendous variation within the kind, species. More variation than is given than is reported in creationists books. I see a beatle brow could be caused by great age, inbreeding or perhaps degeneration for a number of causes known or not known. Or even perhaps just a genetic because. It does not prove man came from an apre like ancestor but that the skulls morophological capability was stimulated by some sort of mutation or environmental pressures. But he is still a human.
I do not believe life on earth is millions of years old and that life somehow evolved from rained on rocks.
The main areas of "science" that is in conflict between evolutionists and creationists are restricted to the areas of microbiology, anthropology, archeology and cosmology. I do not see any debates raging on between evolutionists and creationists over electricity. Which I might add was harnessed, observed and understood by creationists. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2006 : 06:17:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I do not believe life on earth is millions of years old and that life somehow evolved from rained on rocks.
Yes, that sums it up right there.
And still waiting on the answers to the questions about Cy....
|
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2006 : 09:23:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bibleland
Again I maintain that I do not see a conflict with the Bible and Science.
Yet you reject science whenever there is a contradiction. How discordant.
quote:
I do not see the Bible as a stumbling block for the advancement of knowledge. I see it just the opposite.
Then why do you insist on stumbling whenever we come to such things as the age of rocks? Or even, the age of trees, when compared to the age of the earth.
quote:
If I understand the history of science the early science fathers of the 1500's - 1800's many were creationists who gave us many laws and inventions which are time tested.
It happened because they didn't let their beliefs get in the way of what they saw with their own eyes.
quote:
I do not believe life on earth is millions of years old and that life somehow evolved from rained on rocks.
Yet, "creationists" founded geology that tells us that the earth is much older than 6000 years.
quote:
The main areas of "science" that is in conflict between evolutionists and creationists are restricted to the areas of microbiology, anthropology, archeology and cosmology. I do not see any debates raging on between evolutionists and creationists over electricity. Which I might add was harnessed, observed and understood by creationists.
Electricity and everything else would have been discovered regardless of religion. Science and knowledge has no anti-religious bias, it just is. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2006 : 11:35:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Bibleland:
I do not see any debates raging on between evolutionists and creationists over electricity.
Only because electricity does not conflict with the creationist take on the Bible. Have you ever seen an electron? By the standards that creationists have used to show how evolution is not science because it can't be observed, electrons should be regarded as wild speculation. Creationists use a double standard where it comes to inference and science.
quote:
Bibleland:
They want to see science in certain fields be filtered through the bible as the ultimate authority.
Why on earth would that be a good idea? You do realize that your ultimate authority is not everyone's ultimate authority? Why not filter science through the Hindu creation story or the Hopi creation story or any religion that has a creation story? All that makes your particular supernatural explanation of creation different from theirs is that it's the one you choose to put your faith in. The moment you allow for science to be filtered through one groups big T, you open the door for all who have a big T, and have as legitimate a claim on the “truth” as you have to ask for science to work from the bible story outward.
Science says nothing about that which is in the realm of the supernatural. Science is about the natural world. Believe what you want to believe, but for science to work, it simply can't be dragged into the job of confirming metaphysical beliefs no matter how strongly those beliefs are held.
If you want to prove that Genesis is correct, go out and prove it. Use the scientific method to prove that the earth is only 6000 years old. That would be a good place to start. Submit your evidence for peer review and, if successfully reviewed and your evidence holds up, we will have to change our view on the age of the earth. That is your only road to success. Yelling foul because the existing view does not agree with what you believe will not get you there.
As my father used to say in the crudest but most effective term; “shit or get off the pot…”
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
