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 at 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.

Heliotropic wrote:http://youtube.com/watch?v=nfv-Qn1M58I

This is a good example of a well supported theory that they don't want you to know about.

Banana: The Athiests Nightmare.

newberry wrote:
They do explicitly suggest ID. And ID has been considered by many, including scientists:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15- ... reationist
http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/darwinanddesign.html
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml
http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller ... er_342.pdf


Of course it should be considered, and it has been considered. If they have a sound scientific argument with evidence, OF COURSE it should be considered by the scientific community. Again, WHO SAYS OTHERWISE?

ETA: Lots of people in the scientific community have examined ID, and written thoughtful, intelligent articles refuting it. It doesn't seem to hold up to scientific scrutiny.

Heliotropic wrote:
Like I said, ID in all forms has no place in scientific discussion; but if these scientists are trying to gather evidence against accepted theories, regardless of whether it's to affirm their belief about ID or not, the people in this movie have a case. If, like they say, they're merely "questioning Darwin" I honestly don't see an issue with what they're doing, no matter how much I disagree with them.

vincent hanna wrote:surprised no one has posted this yet...

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

newberry wrote:

Heliotropic wrote:
Like I said, ID in all forms has no place in scientific discussion; but if these scientists are trying to gather evidence against accepted theories, regardless of whether it's to affirm their belief about ID or not, the people in this movie have a case. If, like they say, they're merely "questioning Darwin" I honestly don't see an issue with what they're doing, no matter how much I disagree with them.

Of course. I've asked you this two or three times though--who is saying otherwise? Who is saying they don't have a right to question Darwin? Do you see the straw man you've propped up? No one is saying that credible scientific arguments should be ignored, or that evolution shouldn't be questioned or challenged. This is what bugs me about the Discovery Institute and about the movie Expelled, is they are making bogus arguments. The problem isn't that they have a good scientific argument that isn't being looked at, the "problem" is that they are presenting religious dogma as science, and the scientific community isn't buying it.

Cranius wrote:

vincent hanna wrote:surprised no one has posted this yet...

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

Thanks, thats about the only useful thing I've read on this thread.

But as a citizen and a human being, I want to construct a society which is about as un-Darwinian as we can make it. I approve of looking after the poor (very un-Darwinian). I approve of universal medical care (very un-Darwinian). It is one of the classic philosophical fallacies to derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. Stein (or whoever wrote his script for him) is implying that Hitler committed that fallacy with respect to Darwinism. If we look at more recent history, the closest representatives you'll find to Darwinian politics are uncompassionate conservatives like Margaret Thatcher, George W Bush, or Ben Stein's own hero, Richard Nixon. Maybe all these people, along with the Social Darwinists from Herbert Spencer to John D Rockefeller, committed the is/ought fallacy and justified their unpleasant social views by invoking garbled Darwinism. Anyone who thinks that has any bearing whatsoever on the truth or falsity of Darwin's theory of evolution is either an unreasoning fool or a cynical manipulator of unreasoning fools. I will not speculate as to which category includes Ben Stein and Mark Mathis.

Cranius wrote:

vincent hanna wrote:surprised no one has posted this yet...

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

Thanks, thats about the only useful thing I've read on this thread.