On Apr 20, 7:52=A0pm, Weirdwolf <h...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Ken McElhaney <mcelha...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
innews:54de6f1e-3e04-4e29-a70a=
-475de7bc7f26@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 4:06=A0pm, Weirdwolf <h...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> Ken McElhaney <mcelha...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
> >> news:f944cba5-6920-41c9-
> >> 8260-a8624d1ad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >> > Just saw it this morning, pretty decent stuff though it's more
> >> > serious than "funny" as the ads for it suggest. The most
> >> > interesting aspect was watching hardcore Darwinian scientists admit
> >> > that they know absolutely nothing about how life (i.e. the first
> >> > single cell organism) was formed on Earth and yet in the same
> >> > breath rule out "Intelligent Design". =A0Gee guys...if you admit
you
> >> > don't know...And yet the theories they propose (such as the
> >> > combination of the necessary elements forming on the back of a
> >> > crystal...I'm not making this up) make "Intelligent Design" look
> >> > pretty darn sane.
>
> >> > The ending of the film is even more astounding as one simple
> >> > question gets the most unlikely answer from one of the most visable
> >> > Darwinian proponent/athiests/whatever in today's media.
>
> >> > Good job, Ben Stein...anyone?
>
> >> =A0Before you praise this movie Ken you may wish to see the special
> >> that Scientific American put together, basically this is about as
> >> much a do***entary on evolution as "Bowling for Colombine" is on gun
> >> control.
>
> > At least you admit that you haven't seen the movie.
>
> =A0No but I intend to, it's that nasty little science training in me
that
> wants to examine all the evidence. However I have been reading about the
> rise of the I.D. variation on creationism for many years now and are
> familiar with their methods and arguements.
Then you'll be in for a disappointment as the film does NOT proclaim
I.D. as "more" valid, it only questions why Darwinian scientists are
so opposed to even mentioning the theory that careers have been ruined
over it.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> =A0They actually put out several stories in a special email,
including
> >> one
> > =A0on
> >> the main misrepresentations in the film.this might be a good place to
> >> star
> > t
> >> as a basic
> >> rebuttal.http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=3Dsciam-reviews-ex
> > pelled
>
> > Let's take it one at a time;
>
> > 1) ) Expelled quotes Charles Darwin selectively to connect his ideas
> > to eugenics and the Holocaust.
>
> > Uhm, no. What the film does do is connect how the "science" of
> > eugenics was warped and modified by Hitler in order to justify his
> > treatment of "lesser" peoples.
>
> Eugenics is not natural selection.
No, it's not.
> You could make a better arguement that
> the holocaust was influenced by the long scale religious persecution of
> jews by the Christian church.
Is that what Hitler wrote in "My Struggle"? Did he cite long term
religious persecution of the Jews as his basis for their treatment or
was his "reasoning" based on something else?
> Evolution is not "red in tooth and claw" it
> selects for advantage, alturism is one method of gaining an advantage.
In
> fact it is through the knowledge of evolutionry theory that we
understand
> that homo sapians are not divided into sub-species but exhibit
variation.
> In words you may appreciate,we are all equal under god. =A0
Pays to see the film as no one questions evolution AFTER the first
living cell.
> > 2) Ben Stein's speech to a crowded auditorium in the film was a setup.
>
> > Yes, that was pretty obvious although the amount of time on the
> > "speech" in the film was less than a minute. I suppose the rant was
> > against the standing ovation he got which also looked staged, but big
> > whoop as the most powerful moments of the film were already
> > presented.
>
> =A0I haven't seen the film but the view of several people I have
read/hear=
d
> state that this is not how it was put forward.
The "speech" brackets the film, we only hear a few snippets at the
beginning and at the end citing ideas that were expressed over and
over again. Had the "speech" been left out, it wouldn't have made any
difference.
> > > 3) Scientists in the film thought they were being interviewed for a
> > different movie.
>
> > Of that I have no doubt, otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to be
> > interviewed. After all, the main thrust of the film was how some
> > scientists have been either expelled or punished for mearly bringing
> > up the subject of Intelligent Design even if they took no position on
> > it. So knowing that, why would any scientist get within a mile of this
> > film?
>
> I'm currently reading one of Steven Jay Goulds books on natural history,
> he quite willing went head to head in debates on the matter as have
other
> big name scientists. You do have to wonder about the motivations of the
> films staff when they lie outright to several people at the onset.
Apart from the Smithsonian "employee" there were three other
professors who either lost their jobs or were kept from tenure because
they either included "I.D." in their works or mentioned it during
class. A rep from Iowa State admitted on camera that it was the
reason the university denied tenure to one professor.
> > 4) The ID-sympathetic researcher whom the film paints as having lost
> > his job at the Smithsonian Institution was never an employee there.
>
> > I'd say that's sorta right even if the film didn't quite state exactly
> > his "employed" status. It does state that reps from the Smithsonian
> > declined any interviews which if true didn't help their case.
>
> Did you listen to the podcast of the interview one of the associate
> producers stated that they went to the Smithsonian with a camera crew
and
> without an appointment which is why they were thrown out. Why should the
> Smithsonian comment on a story about a member of their staff, it would
> hardly be professional of them.
Yea, "professionalism". So...poor public relations is to blame. I
would think that had a rep from the Smithsonian agreed to talk to them
outside the building...oh wait, that wouldn't be professional.
> > 5) Science does not reject religious or "design-based" explanations
> > because of dogmatic atheism.
>
> > No, it's just the ones who bring it up that get slapped down.
>
> =A0For which you have no evidence, the re****t about the chap at the
> Smithsonian was produced by a pro-ID advocate and not read into the
> congressional record. In fact in one of the appendices is a collection
of
> emails from his superiors at the Smithsonian which state that he is not
> to be given any form of "punishement" for his ID beliefs.
So were two out of three others who were cited in the film, the
official explainaition for one was "procedural matters".
> What he did do however is subvert the peer review process by publi****ng
> an article in a magazine reviewed only by himself, a definite no no in
> scientific circles.
http://www.discovery.org/a/4689
"Moreover, Shermer and the BSW ignore that in less-politicized
statements, Dr. Roy McDiarmid, the President of the BSW and a
scientist at the Smithsonian, admitted that there was no wrongdoing
regarding the peer-review process of Meyer=92s paper:
I have seen the review file and comments from 3 reviewers on the Meyer
paper. All three with some differences among the comments recommended
or suggested publication. I was surprised but concluded that there was
not inappropriate behavior vs a vis [sic] the review process. (See
Re****t, e-mail from Roy McDiarmid, =93Re: Request for information,=94
January 28, 2005, 2:25 PM to Hans Sues, emphasis added.)
So it was "peer-reviewed".
> =A0As you may have noticed I like to talk, I love to debate,explore
ideas
> learn new things.It's the scientist in me.
> Ben Stein however has a differing viewpoint,
> 'What would you like to say to Darwin?
>
> "You are a wealthy man, you married a wealthy woman, why don=92t you
just
> live quietly out in the countryside and not torture us with your half-
> baked suppositions, which have caused so much misery?"'
> =A0Truly a man who believes in intellectual debate it seems.
Hmm, Ben Stein certainly defies his own words in "Expelled". All one
has to do is listen to his questions. He does not berate or impose his
own ideals, he asks open-ended questions.
> > 6) Many evolutionary biologists are religious and many religious
> > people accept evolution.
>
> > It presents the personal viewpoints of some scientists who reject
> > religion and propose their "fantasy" future where it all goes the way
> > of the Greek myths. The film does not state that this is true of all
> > Darwinian scientists.
>
> The associate producer chap states in the interview that they did not
> include religious scientists because it would confuse the issue.
Again, you're taking something and making into something else. It let
the "fantasy" view of one scientist play out to give some explaination
as to why some Darwinians are so adament about not even mentioning
I.D. At no time is this "fantasy" presented as true of ALL Darwinian
scientists.
> ID is
> nothing more or less than an attempt to get creationism and Christian
> religion taught in school. To show that some scientists are religious
> would make this harder to do.
Sorta like showing someone in Al Gore's film stating evidence against
the theory of man-made global warming...I must've missed that
part...:)
> >> =A0I'm not sure if you know this but I studied biochemistry at
> >> university
> > and
> >> so this subject is of interest to me even though I admit that my
> >> knowledge
>
> >> now is limited to reading the less technical papers and I am a little
> >> out of date.
>
> > So you haven't seen the film and you haven't kept up with
> > biochemistry...and this makes you qualified to judge the film on what
> > basis?
>
> So tell me Ken exactly what is your specialised knowledge of
evolutionary
> biology or any branch of biology?
Ah, I see that such study requires that any joke made requires a
smiley face at the end of the sentence. I suppose I expected a little
too much so let me restate;
"So you haven't seen the film and you haven't kept up with
biochemistry (insert JOKE here)...and this makes you qualified to
judge the film on what
basis?...:)
> when was the last time that you took
> cl***** on genetics and comparative anatomy for example? In fact when
was
> the last time you cracked a text book on the subject?
> =A0The chap being interviewed was an associate producer. He stated on
more=
> than one occasion that he "was not a scientist" he claimed he had no
> knowledge of the "wedge strategy" or on the findings of the judge in the
> Dover case. It appears that I am more informed than him about the very
> basics of the film.
> =A0I am no longer a scientist,just as I am no longer a martial artist. I
> haven't trained in years, however I could still teach the basics of
both.
> =A0The knowledge is still in my head and I take an interest in both
> subjects, in fact the last thing I read before replying to you was a
> paper on the lung capacity of maniraptorans. I still read New scientist
> and scientific american as well as some of the more specialised
> publications, I'm just not that up to date on the aspects of plant
> biochemistry that interested me. =A0
> =A0If you have any questions of the mechanics of evolution I would be
more=
> than happy to try to explain them to you.
First, I've seen the film, so I more than you are qualified to review
the contents of it. Second, the focus of the film is NOT science, but
the politics of the scientific community in keeping I.D. out of any
debate. I have a minor in Political Science and I keep up with the
"required" publications to keep me informed of the ever fluid world of
political strategies used to either enhance or repress open and free
debate.
If you have any questions about how the mechanics of how politics
works, (insert JOKE here) I will be happy to try to explain them to
you...:)
> >> =A0I.D. gives us NO answers, it obscures the work done by scientists
> >> and pretends to be scientific but has none of the rigor.
>
> > Wow, you have certainly jumped to a conclusion that's not in the
> > film.
>
> =A0No, I haven't jumped to conclusions it is what ID is and my years of
> reading about the subject have helped form those views, there is no
> science involved and cannot be because it takes a metaphysical
viewpoint.
Uhm...not really if you've seen the film. You are making an assumption
that "I.D." must mean a Judeo-Christian "God" or other similar being
was behind it all. Not so according to...oh wait, I might be spoiling
the film..:)
> =A0This is true of ALL science not just biology, as soon as you say that
> god did it you remove the need for inqury, you have no cause and effect.
> =A0Anything could happen at anytime due to the action or inaction of a
> deity. That is a very very basic part of scientific methodology, if they
> didn't make that clear I do have to wonder just how techincial they got.
> =A0Various testable hypothesis have been suggested by ID proponents but
> without fail they fail the simplest of basic tests, the very bedrock of
> science.
Jeepers, again you MISS THE POINT...or perhaps your are making the
point really.
>
> >> It replaces a I don't
> >> know but I am going to explore,to ponder,to experiment,to sift
> >> through the
>
> >> data with, my choice of deity did it no matter the evidence may show.
> >> It i
> > s
> >> a dead-end, and intellectual cul-de-sac.
>
> > Which is stated by one scientist in the film. You see, both sides were
> > presented.
>
> =A0One voice amongst how many? Given how much time to explain.
More than enough to present their point of view so as to show the
contrast.
>
> > Yet the scientific community has no explaination of the origins of
> > life on Earth, that is certainly without dispute, only some theories
> > that as of yet cannot be proven. =A0Which gets to the heart of the
film,=
> > not that Intelligent Design is the answer or even that strong a
> > possibility, but the intentional qua****ng of any debate that can
> > include it. =A0When the odds of how the right elements could've
combined=
> > by accident to form the first living cell are calculated, the
> > effective answer is
> As the film also states, anything after the first cell was formed is
> certainly Darwin territory and no one claims otherwise. It's the
> origins of that first living cell that should be up for debate.
> And that is what scientists are doing, there are a few theories and they
> are being worked on.
I have seen other programs which delve into their experiments...the
continuing theme seems to be why something that should be so easy to
recreate in a lab is proving so difficult to do. After all, we have
all the basic building blocks of life right here, right now, and can
recreate the conditions of the "primative" Earth with ease. Yet for
some reason, the answer continues to elude them.
> Would you say that all physics is rubbish because
> there is no as yet agreed upon cause for the big bang?
No one is saying that ALL of evolution is rubbish because the
Darwinians cannot explain the origin of the first living cell. In
fact, ALL of the evolution theory AFTER that is not disputed at all.
> Of course not,
> however this is what the ID proponents suggest we do for biology.
Ah, let them have an inch and they'll take a mile...
>Intelligent design is not just about the "first cell" it is about the
>process of speciation of every living thing from the first cell to us.
Again, the FILM in which we are discussing makes no such claim.
> IF you have questions ask me, I will do my best to answer or research
> the answers. I am always willing to answer questions, it's a great way
to
> learn new things. Don't believe the dogma of these people without
looking
> at the evidence from both sides.To do so would be doing just what these
> people accuse scientists to do.
Alright, I would like to know:
If the Darwinian scientific community is indeed interested in open,
honest debate which could include the subject of I.D., then why was
this man denied tenure?
http://tiny.cc/0guNa
Ken
|
