Peanut Butter

Hard to find one without a laugh track nowadays.

newberry wrote:

My point is if James Watson wants to go on a lecture tour with his "evidence" for the intellectual inferiority of the people living on the African continent he should be able to, how ever ridiculous his findings (and the research behind them) are.

Whom is stating otherwise? Is anyone here, or Dawkins or other atheists saying that people don't have the right to free speech? Again, this is one of the straw men of "Expelled," that there is a movement to stifle discussion of ID.

ETA: I'm sure Christians wouldn't appreciate it if I went into churches and started preaching Islam or atheism or something. That's because it wouldn't be an appropriate venue for that speech. Like the science classroom isn't the proper venue for ID. But no one is saying that ID proponents shouldn't have the right to speak their mind, are they?

You're missing my point; I'm not arguing that ID or creationism are appropriate ideas to be brought into a scientific discussion, and they certainly don't belong in school along side accepted theories such as evolution, but if someone from the religious faction wants his ideas on Darwin's faults considered by the scientific community they should be, provided he has evidence for them to test and most likely disprove.

that kent hovind clip...i guess i don't have a sense of humor because i don't find it funny. if it wasn't real maybe i would, but those people are out there, involved in the real world.

...but if someone from the religious faction wants his ideas on Darwin's faults considered by the scientific community they should be, provided he has evidence for them to test and most likely disprove.

Agreed. But when, if ever, has that happened? Proper science doesn't stubbornly cling to prior findings, but evolves when new information is available. Can you name an instance when the "scientific community" rejected intelligent criticisms of Darwin? Sorry if I'm still missing your point, but I still feel like this is a bit of a straw man argument.


ETA: Let's flip this around. What if someone from the scientific community wants their ideas on atheism considered by the religious community. Will they seriously consider it?

It's OK if people of all viewpoints express themselves. It's OK if people disagree. If someone has scientific evidence that challenges Evolution or some other scientific theory, great, bring it on--but tell us what it is. If anyone knows of any credible argument that challenges current scientific knowledge that isn't being looked at by the scientific community, please name it.

newberry wrote:Proper science doesn't stubbornly cling to prior findings, but evolves when new information is available.

'proper science' doesn't but there is a scientific community made up of people as fallible as anyone else.

I've just begun reading Gleik's 'Chaos' and, though nothing to do with ID, it does give an example of how certain sections of the scientific community actively tried to suppress research into Chaos theory. Certain journals would not allow submissions of research work related to the subject and students were warned that they could jeopardise their careers if they specialised in the area.

It has since become accepted because, as you suggest, 'proper science' will out.

But skepticism of scientists is a healthy component in making sure that happens - I reckon.

(I believe there was an example of Von Neuman 'proving' mathematically that the hidden variable wasn't possible (or similar?). A lot of mainstream physicists accepted this and cited the proof until Bell came along and showed he'd made a mistake in his calculations. In fact some carried on citing Von Neuman after that apparently.)

newberry wrote:

...but if someone from the religious faction wants his ideas on Darwin's faults considered by the scientific community they should be, provided he has evidence for them to test and most likely disprove.

Agreed. But when, if ever, has that happened? Proper science doesn't stubbornly cling to prior findings, but evolves when new information is available. Can you name an instance when the "scientific community" rejected intelligent criticisms of Darwin? Sorry if I'm still missing your point, but I still feel like this is a bit of a straw man argument.


ETA: Let's flip this around. What if someone from the scientific community wants their ideas on atheism considered by the religious community. Will they seriously consider it?

It's OK if people of all viewpoints express themselves. It's OK if people disagree. If someone has scientific evidence that challenges Evolution or some other scientific theory, great, bring it on--but tell us what it is. If anyone knows of any credible argument that challenges current scientific knowledge that isn't being looked at by the scientific community, please name it.

My stance on the issue raised by this movie is this: if these Christian "scientists" have published findings with research and testable data their ideas, no matter how ludicrous I or anyone else in the majority of the scientifically literate community find them, should be examined. I realize that this movie is "scientific" Christian propaganda, but if these Christian scientists featured in this movie are honestly having a hard time getting their findings considered by the rest of their colleagues I think they may have a valid complaint.

'proper science' doesn't but there is a scientific community made up of people as fallible as anyone else.

Agreed.

But skepticism of scientists is a healthy component in making sure that happens - I reckon.

I agree--and good science encourages, or even demands skepticism. I don't think anyone should be left off the hook; it's good to use critical thinking across the board. Peer review and independent verification are key components of the scientific method. And of course there are corrupt or inept scientists, just as in all walks of life.

My stance on the issue raised by this movie is this: if these Christian "scientists" have published findings with research and testable data their ideas, no matter how ludicrous I or anyone else in the majority of the scientifically literate community find them, should be examined.

Of course. I don't know who would argue with that (as long as they have testable data and have real research that they can show).

...if these Christian scientists featured in this movie are honestly having a hard time getting their findings considered by the rest of their colleagues I think they may have a valid complaint.

I haven't seen the movie, but isn't it basically about ID? If so, ID has been looked at seriously by scientists, and found to be lacking. Do you believe that ID is indeed scientifically sound?

From the Wikipedia article on the movie:

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a controversial documentary film[1] which claims that educators and scientists are being persecuted for their belief that there is evidence of “design” in nature. It claims that “Big Science" allows no dissent from the scientific theory of evolution, and blames the theory for a range of alleged societal ills.[2][3]

IF anyone has evidence that the above is true, please post it.

Well, the concept of "social darwinism" as understood by rightwingers.

surprised no one has posted this yet...

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394, ... rd-Dawkins

newberry wrote:I haven't seen the movie, but isn't it basically about ID? If so, ID has been looked at seriously by scientists, and found to be lacking. Do you believe that ID is indeed scientifically sound?

I haven't seen it either, but if they've published these findings they're talking about without explicitly suggesting ID in their findings (regardless if their motive is to prove ID or not) while providing evidence of their theories I think whatever testable evidence they present should be considered.

I personally think that ID is a ridiculous attempt by Christians to give their religious beliefs weight in today's culture, but if the evidence provided by these scientists can be separated from their motives and aims I believe that it should be considered just like anyone else's data.