| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Asta Kask
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Sweden
263 Posts |
 Posted - 04/18/2008 : 02:32:14 AM
|
This movie certainly looks like Jabootu fodder. The movie is about Intelligent Design - only it isn't, it's about how the poor ID people are being abused by Big Science. From what I've read, it's a very, very dishonest movie (see [url]http://www.expelledexposed.com/[/url] for more info) - and happily it also seems to be a very, very bad movie. Imagine a movie made by a right-wing Michael Moore-wannabe...
It seems that the movie was designed by Jabootu. Any chance of a review? Or perhaps Liz at And You Call Yourself A Scientist could make a guest appearance, since she actually is a scientist, not an ex-game show host.
- Who is John Galt? - |
|
|
Ericb
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
648 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2008 : 06:27:04 AM
|
Here's a site with all the dirt:
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
"I reserve the right to look as well as be boring." - Robert Fripp |
 |
|
|
nshumate
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
464 Posts |
|
|
Ericb
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
648 Posts |
|
|
Ericb
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
648 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2008 : 06:32:18 AM
|
oops, you beat me to the punch
"I reserve the right to look as well as be boring." - Robert Fripp |
|
|
|
Ericb
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
648 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2008 : 06:33:52 AM
|
From the reviews it appears that this film may be too dull to have been touched by Jabootu.
"I reserve the right to look as well as be boring." - Robert Fripp |
|
|
|
Neville
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Spain
1590 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2008 : 07:04:03 AM
|
| I need to ask: how many Americans really believe in Intelligent Design instead of Evolution? |
|
|
|
Ericb
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
648 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2008 : 07:39:25 AM
|
Neville, it's hard to say. From wording in the polls that I've seen there doesn't seem to be a distinction made between Intelligent Design Creationism and theistic evolution.
"I reserve the right to look as well as be boring." - Robert Fripp |
|
|
|
Ericb
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
648 Posts |
|
|
Ericb
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
648 Posts |
|
|
Terrahawk
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
644 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2008 : 08:14:23 AM
|
Okay, I'll swing at the hornets nest. Regardless of the merits of the film, I will say that I believe Intelligent Design (ID) makes more sense than Darwinism. A brief definition of Darwinism, micro-evolution, and macro-evolution is necessary because part of the problem with these debates tends to be that people use the same terms differently even in the same debate.
Micro-evolution - changes with a species due to mutation and natural selection
Macro-evolution - changes that result in vastly different species
Darwinism - Accepts both macro and micro evolution and accepts materialism (i.e. matter is all there is)
Now, I and virtually everyone in ID accepts that micro-evolution happens. Its observable and hence provable. Some ID people accept Macro-evolution but with the caveat that mutation and random selection are not enough to explain getting from a single sell to a person. Some of these people are even Darwinists in that they view the universe as only material yet recognize that we do not have mechanisms to explain macro-evolution.
The problem with Darwinism and macro-evolution are that they really don't make sense with the discovery of DNA. DNA is really information and information does not occur at random. Each cell in your body is an incredibly complex machine. Besides performing its function, a cell is able to duplicate itself. To do that it performs a series of steps designed to verify and validate that the copy of DNA it is creating is accurate. Even now we have barely scratched the surface of how DNA operates. The old "Most of our DNA is leftover junk" paradigm is collapsing. Darwinists used to trot out the junk DNA concept to show how IDers and Creationists were wrong. Today, scientists have realized that sections of DNA they thought were useless actually operate in unexpected ways. Finally, because this could go on for a long time, studies of DNA that were supposed to map out a nice stead progression of single cell to complex creatures have shown a completely chaotic picture. Simple organisms have complex genomes while some more advanced creatures have simpler ones. Supposed family trees are now chaotic bushes with no rhyme or reason.
Neville, surveys usually show that sizeable sections, if not majorities, of people in Western countries don't believe the full line about evolution.
- Si desea pulse 2 para español, encontrar un país diferente. - |
|
|
|
Ericb
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
648 Posts |
|
|
Ericb
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
648 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2008 : 08:49:25 AM
|
The truth is that modern evolutionary biology (like every other field of science) still has many unaswered questions. That is the heart and bread and butter of science. There's still a lot of research to do and we will probably never have all the answers. What the ID movement offers as an alternative is to stop asking questions and simply say somthing designed it and that's that. They have no way, and have not even tried, to explaing how this unnamed designer does anything or how we can see it happen. They have done almost no research and have published little other than popular books intended to persuade the general public with misrepresentations of modern biology. All of their points have been analysed and refuted by scientists just like the people who pushed Cold Fusion (the physics not the website) on the world. They met their Waterloo in the Dover decision (decided by a conservative, Bush appointed judge). This documentary is more like a last gasp of the movement. Interestingly they are no scientific arguments in the film, it's all about "persecution" and equating "Dawinism" with the Holocaust.
Here's the Dover decision for anyone who is curious. I include scientific arguments agains ID.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html
"I reserve the right to look as well as be boring." - Robert Fripp |
|
|
|
Paul LoJ
Supreme Potentate
USA
420 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2008 : 10:15:28 AM
|
Saying something was designed needn't be the end of inquiry about it. I'll grant that the "God created the world and all the species at once in seven 24-hour days about 6,000 years ago" view doesn't lend itself very well to further scientific pursuit, but I'm not advocating that view. If we discover an ingenious virus or bacteria bearing signs of been an engineered bioweapon, would that be the end of scientific inquiry about the organism?
Finding such a lifeform, I would like to know what the starting materials were, what the blueprint was, how much was put together & how much was evolved from there, whether & how the design was front-loaded into a "seed" organism, and especially, whether the design-injection or front-loading technique can be reverse-engineered and appropriated elsewhere. Can something be designed to evolve? Could we ever harness enough computational power to design organisms ourselves, by creating conditions ripe for specific mutations and then applying directed selection? How fast could we do it? (I would personally like to see talking sharks that can pull grenade pins, but I'm sure there are much more useful and noble purposes for such pursuits.) Frankly, there can be a *ton* of scientific inquiry about biological origins under a design hypothesis. How do you get from comb jelly to man in 600 million years? If design is involved, was it all loaded at the get-go, or are there design "events" along the way?
The problem with this debate is that it's usually way too passionate and political.
I think Mike Gene (links below) is one ID luminary who takes a much more productive approach to the issue. He doesn't so much ask other people to buy into design, and he *certainly* doesn't push for any legal or educational status for ID. Instead, he just asks for the freedom to see what interesting research a design hypothesis might lead to, and to do that research without being ostracized by his peers for it. Science geeks might find some of his research interesting, regardless of their persuasion on the ID matter.
http://telicthoughts.com/
http://www.amazon.com/Design-Matrix-Consilience-Clues/dp/0978631404/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203134195&sr=8-1
"...What are you people doing in my corpse hatch?" |
|
|
|
Flangepart
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
2329 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2008 : 10:23:10 AM
|
This is being reviewed purely from one of two points of view.
God/No God.
It can't be reviewed any other way,for the belief system of the reviewer will make its self known.
The scientific community refuses to conciter any other answer for Life, The Univers, and Everything.
Scientists are people, and people screw up. The pride factor is as previlant in this as any other thing men do.
Stein tries to show how close minded the science establishment is, and they prove his point with no awareness of doing so.
Richard Corless reviewed the film, and proceded to defend his belief in evolution. He made the comment that Stein, not being a scientest, had a questionable starting point. Corless is a film critic...and he failed to realise he just included himself in that comment.
I'll be up front. Evolution has no answers for human kind. We excuse our bad behavior, because we are hard headed children who don't like being told what to do.
And we fog any issue that presets us with a less then flattering view of the self.
I see Darwinisim as just another attempt my men to worship themselves. They just go wholesale, insted of retail.
I.E, Why create an image of 'god' that looks like you, when you can cut out the middleman.
I won't argue the point. Its obviously not possable to do so. Neither side will conciter the other as reasonable, unless they agree with who ever is speaking.
The comments about the film show that point right here.
We chose what we like, and define ourselves by a point of view we feel comfortable with. That is the subjective nature of people. We know what we want...how it relates to what the true objective nature of reality is...well, thats what makes it interesting, eh?
Lets just please not let it get negitive. I won't if you won't. But from experiance, I do know thats a possability.
Just my thoughts on the flick.
For whatever they're worth.
Marvin the Paranoid Android to Buzz Lightyear "Too infinity and beyond-i've been there, its rubbish!"
"Hoody Hoo, i waste 'em with my cross bow!" Bob Herzog- KODT
|
|
|
|
Ericb
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
648 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2008 : 10:31:56 AM
|
I don't have any problem with what that guy does. It an interesting conjecture and would make for a facinating thought experiment but it's a far cry from what the Discovery Institute advocates and does. Perspnally I don't seewhy some religois people are so negative about evolution some of the most famous names in paleontology are religios.
For instance:
Robert Bakker, father of the "dinosaur renaissance and pentacostal minister:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bakker
Simon Conway Morris, the guy who revolutionised the study of the Burgess Shale fossils and opponent of philosphical materialism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Conway_Morris#Evolution.2C_science_and_religion
Kenneth Miller,who's a Roman Catholic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller
The idea that all "darwinists" are part of some kind of conspiracy against God and religion is absurd as is the idea that "darwinism" has anything to say about theology at all.
"I reserve the right to look as well as be boring." - Robert Fripp |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked