In article <05dd0ce5-aa3f-4c8b-ba28-67fe78472b17
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, mcelhaney@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> On Apr 20, 7:52=A0pm, Weirdwolf <h...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > Ken McElhaney <mcelha...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
innews:54de6f1e-3e04-4e29-a=
70a-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
admi=
t
> > >> > 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
y=
ou
> > >> > 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
visabl=
e
> > >> > 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 documentary 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
th=
at
> > wants to examine all the evidence. However I have been reading about
th=
e
> > rise of the I.D. variation on creationism for many years now and are
> > familiar with their methods and arguements.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
As part of their teach the controversy strategy.
It's a way that ID proponents have tried to (falsely) show that there=20
are huge problems with evolution which is going to cause it to come=20
crashing down. The idea being that in the confusion they cause they can=20
get ID taught.
> >
> >
> > >> =A0They actually put out several stories in a special email,
includi=
ng
> > >> one
> > > =A0on
> > >> the main misrepresentations in the film.this might be a good place
t=
o
> > >> 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.
>=20
> No, it's not.
>=20
> > You could make a better arguement that
> > the holocaust was influenced by the long scale religious persecution
of
> > jews by the Christian church.
>=20
> 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?
The protocols of the elders of zion were an influence and unfortunately=20
still are to nutjobs across the globe.
Hitler's reasoning to do anything is more the purview of abnormal=20
psychology. However eugenics and Hitlers view of it are nothing like=20
evolutionary theory it is nothing more than a perverse reading in name=20
only.
However just because some wacko reads a book and thinks What ho chaps=20
I'll start offing people because of it doesn't mean that the source is=20
without merit. In fact Hitlers actions have nothing to do with
evolution=20
and are only included to try to make people think that it is nothing
but=20
"nature red in tooth and claw".
> > 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
understa=
nd
> > that homo sapians are not divided into sub-species but exhibit
variatio=
n.
> > In words you may appreciate,we are all equal under god. =A0
>=20
> Pays to see the film as no one questions evolution AFTER the first
> living cell.
But ID proponents do and this is what scientists get so annoyed at,=20
they constantly misrepresent both their beliefs and the data to try to=20
get ID taught in schools. Some of the people interviewed have said that=20
they hold this view beforehand.
> > > 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/h=
eard
> > state that this is not how it was put forward.
>=20
> 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.
So why include it other than to make it appear that he was lecturing
to=20
a rapt crowd who gave him a spontaneous round of applause. Good=20
propaganda.
=20
> > > > 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
thi=
s
> > > 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
oth=
er
> > 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> > > 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
exactl=
y
> > > 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
a=
nd
> > without an appointment which is why they were thrown out. Why should
th=
e
> > Smithsonian comment on a story about a member of their staff, it would
> > hardly be professional of them.
>=20
> 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.
He had his research collaborator status renewed for a further 3 years=20
in 2006. Hardly ridden out of town on a rail.=20
> > > 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 report 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.
>=20
> So were two out of three others who were cited in the film, the
> official explainaition for one was "procedural matters".
It is never a good idea for anybody to publicly comment on why a
person=20
leaves a position. Especially not in these litigious times.
=20
> > What he did do however is subvert the peer review process by
publishing
> > an article in a magazine reviewed only by himself, a definite no no in
> > scientific circles.
>=20
> 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=3D3Fs 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
> Report, e-mail from Roy McDiarmid, =3D3FRe: Request for
information,=3D3F
> January 28, 2005, 2:25 PM to Hans Sues, emphasis added.)
>=20
> So it was "peer-reviewed".
Not according to the Council of the Biological Society of Washington,
=3D3FContrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published=20
without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire=20
review process" the publication in question.
> > =A0As you may have noticed I like to talk, I love to debate,explore
ide=
as
> > 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=3D3Ft 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.
>=20
> 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.
This was published just before the film was released in an interview.
So I would suppose after the interview process. A crazy idea I'm sure=20
but maybe just maybe he has tried to appear open minded on the issue in=20
an attempt to hoodwink the general public.
> > > 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.
>=20
> 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.
I directly quoted the associate producer,this was an attempt to make it=20
appear that "Darwinian scientists" are atheists, something that still=20
meets with disdain in a lot of the U.S. By doing this they have=20
artificially created a belief that you are either for Evolution or for=20
God, a common technique used by the ID people.
Oh and by the way, no credible scientist is "Darwinian" the term is=20
derogatory one used because it implies that the works of Darwin are
seen=20
as sacrosanct and are the same views on evolution that we have today.
> > 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.
>=20
> 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...:)
Never sen the Al Gore movie and it doesn't relate to this.
=20
> > >> =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
littl=
e
> > >> 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
evolutiona=
ry
> > biology or any branch of biology?
>=20
> 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;
Oh come on that wasn't a joke it was a pure ad hominem attack on my=20
expertise. I noticed after I have given my experience in the science=20
involved you have avoided answering my questions as to yours.
> "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?...:)
>=20
> > when was the last time that you took
> > classes on genetics and comparative anatomy for example? In fact when
w=
as
> > the last time you cracked a text book on the subject?
> > =A0The chap being interviewed was an associate producer. He stated on
m=
ore
> > 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
th=
e
> > 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
bot=
h.
> > =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
m=
ore
> > than happy to try to explain them to you.
>=20
> 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.
On the film maybe, as I said I do want to see it but haven't had the=20
chance yet. But as to the science behind it which is the crucial=20
question you are obviously sadly lacking. This film is about science,=20
how can you accurately judge whether the reason that ID is viewed as=20
unscientific if you haven't got a clue as to why it has been found=20
lacking by scientists? I as you would say in the US majored in=20
biochemistry, I know the science, this isn't a political decision to=20
keep down a valid theory it's purely that ID has been shown to be=20
lacking in any kind of scientific rigor.
> 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...:)
Cool, so whats your take on the west lothian question? Any thoughts on=20
the BNP's role on the first of May?
I'm afraid that I am only an amateur in the realms of politics despite=20
voting in every election since I was 18,listening to the "today in=20
parliament" and "week in parliament" BBC coverage and Cspan and CNN. as=20
well as reading the Washington Post,NY Times and Independent.
> > >> =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.
No conclusion jumping required, have you read the judges statement at=20
the Dover trial?
=20
> > =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
viewpoin=
t.
>=20
> 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..:)
The whole idea that the proponents of ID aren't interested in making a=20
judeo-christian god the focus of the power behind it was blown away in=20
the Dover trial. They might not admit it publicly but the wedge
document=20
has removed any doubt about it.
> > =A0This is true of ALL science not just biology, as soon as you say
tha=
t
> > 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
the=
y
> > didn't make that clear I do have to wonder just how techincial they
got=
..
>=20
> > =A0Various testable hypothesis have been suggested by ID proponents
but
> > without fail they fail the simplest of basic tests, the very bedrock
of
> > science.
>=20
> Jeepers, again you MISS THE POINT...or perhaps your are making the
> point really.
>=20
What is the point? You cannot deny that ID is a view that deity did
it.=20
Every time an ID proponent has set forth a paper it has been found=20
wanting by actual scientific testing. There is no conspiracy, if I
wrote=20
a paper on the role of T-rex on the pollination of orchids and stated=20
that a male t-rex was the primary source of gamete transfer, people=20
would giggle and then show exactly why this was not true and terrible=20
science. This is what has happened here, the cries of "Infamy infamy=20
they've all got it infamy" are a smoke screen to avoid answering the=20
difficult questions like why has nothing ever worked.
> >
> > >> 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
wer=
e
> > > presented.
> >
> > =A0One voice amongst how many? Given how much time to explain.
>=20
> More than enough to present their point of view so as to show the
> contrast.
Really? care to give me figures and a brief overview as to your=20
understanding of why she/he thought this.
> > > 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
fi=
lm,
> > > not that Intelligent Design is the answer or even that strong a
> > > possibility, but the intentional quashing of any debate that can
> > > include it. =A0When the odds of how the right elements could've
combi=
ned
> > > by accident to form the first living cell are calculated, the
> > > effective answer is
>=20
> > 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.
>=20
> > And that is what scientists are doing, there are a few theories and
the=
y
> > are being worked on.
>=20
> 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.
Oh the basic building block of life amino acids have been made in the=20
lab under what was believed to be "primitive" conditions, that was done=20
50 years ago.
YAY for high school biology and the Miller-Urey experiment.
The problem isn't that it is so difficult to do but there are so many=20
good options that produce interesting chemical reactions.
The work on paring down gene sequences to se what minimum is required
is=20
interesting as well.
> > Would you say that all physics is rubbish because
> > there is no as yet agreed upon cause for the big bang?
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> > Of course not,
> > however this is what the ID proponents suggest we do for biology.
>=20
> Ah, let them have an inch and they'll take a mile...
No "letting them" at all, it is simply a statement of fact. This is
what=20
they believe. =20
> >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.
>=20
> Again, the FILM in which we are discussing makes no such claim.
But the ID which the film is supporting does.=20
> > 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
looki=
ng
> > at the evidence from both sides.To do so would be doing just what
these
> > people accuse scientists to do.
>=20
> Alright, I would like to know:
>=20
> 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
Bad tie? farted mightily during the interview? This is a PDF published=20
by an ID blog. IF it was true it would be a bad thing but I note that=20
the paper is about an astronomy teacher not a biologist.
You may find this counter view of some use.
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
Ken I have more than a dozen books on my bookshelf that have sections=20
on creationism and ID. That doesn't sound like a stifling of the debate=20
to me.
--=20
"I like the way you express yourself too, y'know, it's pithy yet=20
degenerate"
Woody Allen, Manhattan
|
