NoGodBlog.com

It might be tough for her to recover much money. This poor excuse for a movie is getting creamed at the box office.

by Yoko Ono, in what may be the best thing she ever did.

I hope you meant to add "aside from inspiring Don't Let Me Down" but were typing too quickly.

It's very funny that they would use a song that's very critical of religion in order to promote a religious viewpoint. I know it's a cliché to say this, but "No Intelligence Allowed" is certainly a fitting subtitle.

For a bit of silly fun, go to this site and screw with the poll. They're asking if ID should be taught in the educational system. This morning it was 3:1 in favor of yes. Now it's WAY overloaded on the NO side, thanks to PZ Myers bringing it to the attention of his Pharyngulites. Thought maybe some folks here might wanna play.

http://www.myspace.com/expelledthemovement

Ah yes, it’s always so uplifting to be once again reassured that “free thought” is, as usual, anything but free in the minds of atheists…

I’m curious, have any atheists here actually seen the movie?

Pardon the shameless self promotion, but I've added news for atheists to my web site; updated daily.

I think Ono's lawsuit will inadvertently help promote the movie by drawing attention to it.

jcc

Long time, no hear from.

I was about to say my local theaters weren't offering it, but I just checked, and sadly, they are. However, I am not going to spend money on it. I will wait until I can see it for free on cable.

It seems our less-than-honest friends at Expelled not only lied to viewers about the intellectual viability of an invisible man in the sky...

Please provide a link to the confirmed evidence that proves intelligent design is not true, that it is not at least possible. I understand that you believe it isn't true (let's not go into the definitions of "believing" here), but it has never been rigorously disproved, therefore it is still viable. I contend that it is viable, because it has the answer for everything in the known universe and has NOT been disproved. Again, if it has, please provide the evidence. And I'm not talking about unproven theories, i.e. neo-Darwinism or the myriad of theories attempting to explain how the Universe(s) started.

I'm not trying to prove ID is true here. I'm just challenging the validity of the statement I quoted you with here

JCC

Ah yes, it’s always so uplifting to be once again reassured that “free thought” is, as usual, anything but free in the minds of atheists…

Free thought does not equal noncritical thought. Please make sense.

jcc,
If you can provide me with one peer reviewed scientific study which supports the hypothesis of ID then not only will I go see "expelled the movie" but I will also go to church this Sunday and provide documentation that I did both. Just one study is all that I'm asking for. Just. one.

Gee, a theist demanding we prove there is no god.

That's new.

uoflcard,

I understand that you believe it isn't true (let's not go into the definitions of "believing" here), but it has never been rigorously disproved, therefore it is still viable.

When ID is promoted as a science, it is emphatically not viable.

Viable (answer.com):
"Capable of success or continuing effectiveness; practicable."

As a science, ID cannot succeed because it is not testable. It can't even get out of the starting gate. As long as it is promoted as science, it is not viable.

If ID were presented solely as a religious belief, then it could be called "intellectually viable," but only partly since that depends on the definition of "intellect."

There are two different definitions of 'intellect' that can apply here:
1. The ability to learn and reason; the capacity for knowledge and understanding.
2. The ability to think abstractly or profoundly.

Definition #1 is the only one that fits in with science, but definition #2 is the only one that fits in with ID. #1 does not fit because (as you've said yourself, many times) deities of such power are not understandable.

I contend that it is viable, because it has the answer for everything in the known universe and has NOT been disproved.

Religion and/or ID does not have the "answer for everything in the known universe."

In order for something to be an answer (in the sense you're using it), the answer has to be true. If the question is "does a deity exist?" Then (by your statement) religion and/or ID must be able to prove that the existence of God is true. Good luck.

Furthermore, since God is not fully comprehensible, it would not even possible for God to provide answers to every question.

And finally, just because something hasn't been proven false does not mean that it's viable. If I were to say that I have a scientific viewpoint that the Sun created everything, you could not prove me wrong. But since I called my idea "science" it is not viable because it doesn't fit the scientific criteria.

However, if we go by your much weaker criteria, I would have just as much right to demand that my view is taught in science classes as the ID community. That is why the ID community is so incredibly irritating. The promoters of ID don't even understand what it means to be a science and yet they want to bludgeon their way inside by sheer force of blind will.

So, if you want ID to be viable, remove all the references to science. As long as they are there, it's not viable. But once you remove the references to science, all you're left with is religion.

No such thing as a peer-reviewed article on ID. The best they can come up with is Hank Hanegraaf's tripe:

The FACE That Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution (Nashville: Word, 1998).

If you've never debated this fundie on the radio, it is A LOT of fun. It's sort of like sticking your finger in the baboon's cage.

Xian Trolls: Don't even bother, I won't feed you, go gnaw a...., etc., etc., etc.

alexatheist:

If you can provide me with one peer reviewed scientific study which supports the hypothesis of ID then not only will I go see "expelled the movie" but I will also go to church this Sunday and provide documentation that I did both. Just one study is all that I'm asking for. Just. one.

Ok, check this out:

http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

(and just in case you don’t because the words “discovery” appears in the link, let me cite just a little here):

Critics of intelligent design often claim that design advocates don’t publish their work in appropriate scientific literature. For example, Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University, was quoted in USA Today (March 25, 2005) that design theorists “aren’t published because they don’t have scientific data.”

Other critics have made the more specific claim that design advocates do not publish their works in peer-reviewed scientific journals—as if such journals represented the only avenue of legitimate scientific publication. In fact, scientists routinely publish their work in peer-reviewed scientific journals, in peer-reviewed scientific books, in scientific anthologies and conference proceedings (edited by their scientific peers), and in trade presses. Some of the most important and groundbreaking work in the history of science was first published not in scientific journal articles but in scientific books—including Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus, Newton’s Principia, and Darwin’s Origin of Species (the latter of which was published in a prominent British trade press and was not peer-reviewed in the modern sense of the term). In any case, the scientists who advocate the theory of intelligent design have published their work in a variety of appropriate technical venues, including peer-reviewed scientific journals, peer-reviewed scientific books (some in mainstream university presses), trade presses, peer-edited scientific anthologies, peer-edited scientific conference proceedings and peer-reviewed philosophy of science journals and books.

And for those “free thinking” enough to actually go to that site, they’ll actually see a bibliography of said peer-reviewed publications.

I’m really looking forward to seeing the evidence you’ll provide of you seeing the movie and going to church!!

Alex,

Don't move the goal-posts closer. That's just foolish.

Don't move the goal-posts closer. That's just foolish.

Yes, because we all know that it certainly wouldn't be the product of “free thought.”

None of the articles you provided are peer reviewed outside of creationism circles. Thanks for playing though.

jcc...come now. We both know Alex is not a man of his word...

After all...he believes in little green men, (even though there are no peer reviewed studies to support his belief) but always weasels his way out of any evidence provided towards ID..

I love the reasoning so many give...no peer reviewed studies...

Science class? Don't you dare spend time in science class trying to validate ID...

Even Dawkins admits that there is a possibility ID just might be true...

But don't hold your breath for anyone on this board to be honest enough to believe the same as Dawkins...

alatham, thank you for the exhaustive proof of your ignorance of what intelligent design actually is. It also appears that you don't know what science is truly about, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt since you were operating with a false knowledge what you did not consider scientifically testable.

First of all, ID *does not* necessarily mean belief in God or other deities. ID is not about proving that God exists.

As a science, ID cannot succeed because it is not testable.

Wrong. This was where it became blatantly obvious that you did not know what ID actually is. It specifically IS testable! I could post quotes all day long, but I urge you to read this article by William Dembski. It is not an article that says "ID is right", "praise God", or anything like that. It would at least educate you on what ID really is

http://www.designinference.com/documents
/2004.01.Ten_Questions_ID.pdf

Everything you said is basically an expounded version of Dave's statement, which I originally quoted. It is also *completely* your opinion. It is your opinion that ID is not scientifically testable. And there is no way for that not to be an opinionated question, because it is in FACT a testable theory. Not to say it is true, just that it's testable. I would still recommend you to read that entire article (it's not very long, just a few pages), but here is a quote from it that is very fitting for this situation:

William Dembski-

As Richard Dawkins puts it, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Yes, biological systems appear to be designed. But in fact they are not designed, and to look for signs of actual intelligence will only lead biologists astray. Better to look not for signs of intelligence. This is the received wisdom in the biological community. This received wisdom is at best a mistake and at worst a prejudice. It is entirely an open question whether all appearance of design in biology is only an appearance."

Another point of yours I found untrue, or otherwise perplexing (I won't address them all)

Furthermore, since God is not fully comprehensible, it would not even possible for God to provide answers to every question.

This statement makes zero sense. First of all, what does our inability to comprehend the ways of God have to do with any "intellectual" inability of His? Secondly, if you can imagine God *did* create the entire Universe, how can you say it is impossible for Him to answer every question about it?

Rusty,

Gee, a theist demanding we prove there is no god.

That's new.

That's not what I was demanding. This is not about disproving the existence (spare me the barrage on that word) of God, but the theory of intelligent design, which does not necessarily mean a diety.

alex...

If you can provide me with one peer reviewed scientific study which supports the hypothesis of ID then not only will I go see "expelled the movie" but I will also go to church this Sunday and provide documentation that I did both. Just one study is all that I'm asking for. Just. one.

jcc...

No such thing as a peer-reviewed article on ID.

This is the entire point of "Expelled"! To allow the scientific pursuit of this theory to begin! There are thousands of scientists who believe ID is possible, and testable. But those that have tried to write articles have had their careers suffer as a result of prejudice by the scientific elite believing that anything that could potentially suggest supernatural forces is nothing but rubbish. So it is currently in the best interests of scientists to NOT suggest ID. No other theory has been met with such prejudice and predetermined notions in the history of modern science

Comment from: Rusty Shackleford

It might be tough for her to recover much money. This poor excuse for a movie is getting creamed at the box office.

Opening in only 1000 studios, Expelled ranked 9th. Hardly being creamed...

"Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," a rare documentary opening in wide release, debuted at No. 9 with $3.1 million. Released by Rocky Mountain Pictures, the film features Ben Stein as he challenges Darwinian theories that prevail in academic circles and suggests that life could have emerged through intelligent design.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120871342942029199.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

uoflcard...

Excellent post. Factual. Concise. You've taken every argument and provided an accurate answer...

Just watch the twisting that follows in an attempt to discredit your research...

"(...)as if such journals represented the only avenue of legitimate scientific publication (...)" Not the only way: "I quote you. You quote me. We are Creationist scholars now."

No such thing as peer-reviewed ID.

Note to Mr. Dembski:

http://philosophy.wisc.edu/sober/dembski.pdf


LOL!!!!!

uoflcard said:

"To allow the scientific pursuit of this theory to begin! ......No other theory has been met with such prejudice and predetermined notions in the history of modern science."

you put your finger on the problem yourself without realizing it. SCIENCE is the key woed. if you want to redefine the definition and stanadards of science then ID can be let in. Supernatural creation of everything is NOT science period. when are you fundies going to understasnd this simple concept.

if we want to define science to include, the occult, witchcraft and every other form of superstitious claim and beliefs, then set up a program in a xtian school as a pilot program and se what happens. leave the public schools alone. just wreak havoc with your own kind for starters.

as for the movie "expelled". wow 3 million bucks revenue. at 8 bucks a head that's a whopping 375,000 people attending which is a whopping 1% of the xtian population.

yea it's really kicking ass.

hahahaha!

Aye caramba, I still cannot believe there are people out there who argue in favor of ID.
"Intelligent design" has produced nada in the way of scientific contribution. For those of you who want to play word-games, that means zip, zilch, nothing, zero.
To suggest that there's some vast conspiracy out to squash 'free thought', we don't allow teaching astrology, phrenology, or alchemy in the schools. It's also pathetic pouting as well.
So, to the 'ID' trinity in this, any of you, I ask this question:
Should we teach Dumbski's version, or Islam's? Or Vedic?
Fact is, the supernatural fails in the labs everytime.
The Discovery Institute, I might add, has released, again, nada in the way of research.
This 'movement' (a clear violation of the SOCAS, I might add) is about the only 1 that rolls on the floor, pounding it w/metaphorical fists & heels, demanding equal time in the classroom.
It ain't science unless it's falsifiable, or has some meat on its bones.
ID is a joke in (true)scientific circles, & rightfully so.

alexatheist:

None of the articles you provided are peer reviewed outside of creationism circles. Thanks for playing though.

Just as I suspected…talk about “moving the goal posts.” Yes phreedm, I actually thought for a moment that alex would be a man of his word and take into consideration that “peer” is by definition, a subjective concept. Funny how no atheist here ever seems to take the time to qualify that phrase by also stating their ridiculous notion that to truly be “peer reviewed,” a publication must be exhaustively reviewed by the entire scientific community… Yep, just like liberals, they think they have license to change the rules as they play the game.

Krys:

I still cannot believe there are people out there who argue in favor of ID.

What, you think that just because our arguments don’t meet your personal, subjective, standard of proof that we should automatically abandoned our standard? Well, for the record, I still cannot believe that you continue to cling to such a provincial mindset.

you put your finger on the problem yourself without realizing it. SCIENCE is the key woed. if you want to redefine the definition and stanadards of science then ID can be let in. Supernatural creation of everything is NOT science period. when are you fundies going to understasnd this simple concept.

Yet again, ID does not necessarily suggest supernatural origins.

But anyway, we're going in circles, here. I've already realized this fact. And this is the point of "Expelled"! TO CHANGE THE CULTURE OF SCIENCE.

Science has fundamentally ruled out supernatural possibilities. Why? Absolutely no evidence, just pride in the human mind being able to explain everything by his own understanding and perception. If you can imagine that there is a God, then science in its present form is fundamentally flawed. Because while it is intended as the pursuit of knowledge, truth, and understanding of everything we can percieve, it would be ignoring THE most important bit of information!

This is one reason why I find it impossible to be pursuaded by science that there is not a god...science never even considers it as a possibility! It never disproves, or even attempts to disprove, supernatural phenomena. Science just ignores it.

This philosophical debate is going a little too far for my taste right now, especially considering it's 10:07 pm on a Friday night. Today was the last day of the semester for me, it started at ~4:30 am (after the previous day ended at ~2:30 am) with continued study for finals, then finals, then 6 or so hours making up homework. The reason I tell you this is that I cannot bring myself to proof-read anything in this post. If there are any discontinuities (spelling? ...so tired...) here, cut me a little slack. At least until tomorrow lol

aye caramba. i'm with you KA.
what we forget to realize is how hard these myths/fables are to kill off. i wonder how many centuries it took for the majority to drop belief that the "earth is flat" or "is the center of the universe".

the fundies that post here are the same animal just a different time period.

JCC and UFO

This is the entire point of "Expelled"! To allow the scientific pursuit of this theory to begin!

Are you guys intentionally dense. There is nothing to test. So what does this assertion have to do with science? Tell us what is asserted by ID - tell us the hypothesis. And then give us one prediction made by ID that is testable?

When an assertion is tested and found to be wrong at least something is learned. The ID assertion predicts nothing. So it can not be tested. Therefore your ID assertion is of less value than an assertion found to be wrong. NOT EVEN WRONG.

Put up or shut up.

uoflcard said:
"It [science] never disproves, or even attempts to disprove, supernatural phenomena. Science just ignores it."

you are correct once again except for the wrong reason again. science ignores things for which there are no proof. god is one of those things. so again if xtians want to change the scientific method, just teach ID to your own flock in your own schools and leave public institutions out of it. or go live in florida. they are moving backward into the dark ages slowly but surely and are proud of it!

and you are also right that we are going in circles. so get a good night's sleep and don't forget to say your prayers.

From Wikipedia quoting Roy Speckhard:

"If one needs to believe in a god to be moral, why are we seeing yet another case of dishonesty [by makers of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed] the devout? Why were leading scientists deceived as to the intentions of a religious group of filmmakers?"

What:

Are you guys intentionally dense.

Uh, no. We’re not the ones rejecting a premise simply because we personally refuse to acknowledge its plausibility.

There is nothing to test. So what does this assertion have to do with science?

It has everything to do with science. Your making such an asserting is tantamount to saying that the solutions to all mysteries must fall within the realm of what is currently known. It is precisely the science that was used to understand what we do know that reveals the nature of the design we acknowledge.

Tell us what is asserted by ID - tell us the hypothesis.

Now who’s being dense? You know what ID asserts.

give us one prediction made by ID that is testable?

Ok. To date, what experiments have shown with any degree of certainty that the protein synthesis information stored in DNA was done so strictly by blind chance? The very fact that information—and not just simple, repeated peptides, but complex, specific instructions that are encoded in it screams of design. It takes far more faith in the atheism behind the acceptance of the premise that it had to occur naturally by virtually no known natural processes than it does to lend credence to what it so obviously appears to be—designed.

The ID assertion predicts nothing. So it can not be tested. Therefore your ID assertion is of less value than an assertion found to be wrong. NOT EVEN WRONG.

Wow. What fettered thinking. What stymied, “free-thinking” that rejects out of hand a possibility that you find personally unsatisfying. You automatically reject ID just because it has yet to provide the “how.” As I’ve pointed out before here, how blatantly hypocritical of those atheists who accept the premise of “String” theory which suffers from literally no physical evidence for its existence whatsoever and yet reject the notion of ID despite the obvious appearance of things like DNA that show clear evidence of design.

uoflcard,

Thank you for the ad hominem attacks. They are much appreciated. I will admit that I made a grave error in my last post (more on this later).

I will also admit that ID is not a topic I have looked into for about 3 years now. There may be new information out there that I'm not familiar with. If there is, please present it. In that sense, I could be called ignorant of it, but you have not proven it yet.

First of all, ID *does not* necessarily mean belief in God or other deities. ID is not about proving that God exists.

From the Discovery Institute:
"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
This is the definition of ID that you claim I am ignorant of. At least, the definition I'm familiar with. You might have a different one.

Such an 'intelligent cause' appears to require some supernatural power. If that is the case, then ID does require a god, though not a specific one.

"God" from answers.com:
"A being of supernatural powers or attributes."

The Kitzmiller V. Dover trial backs me up here:

"ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. [Judge Jones] traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer". "This argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley" (the teleological argument) "The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID's 'official position' does not acknowledge that the designer is God".

If the expert witnesses for ID can't back up an assertion that ID requires no god, then I need go no further in refuting your statement quoted above.

On the other hand, if you can reason that this "intelligent cause" might have come about through natural means, then please do. I'd be very interested.

It specifically IS testable! I could post quotes all day long, but I urge you to read this article by William Dembski.

This is where I made my grave error. I said that "ID is not testable" when I should have said that ID is not testable by experiment (which is the scientific requirement).

If you can provide an experiment used to test for the presence of intelligent design, then I will gladly concede this point. Dembski provides the idea of "Specified Complexity," but does not provide a way to positively test for it, he only states that it is refutable (which could, of course, be called a test).

Dembski states:

To refute intelligent design, it is enough to display specific, fully articulated Darwinian pathways for the complex
systems that, according to intelligent design, lie beyond the reach of the Darwinian mechanism.

Basically he's saying that he's declared himself right until science can prove him wrong. But the burden of proof is on the shoulders of the ID community. In order to do that, the ID community would need to prove that it is impossible for their examples to have been derived through purely natural means. If they can't do that, then all of their arguments boil down to an Argument from Ignorance (in this case, the ignorance of science).

So far, many of these claims have been refuted (the eye and blood clotting to name two). I'm sure there are some floating around out there that have yet to be answered. Only time will tell if they can be.

Everything you said is basically an expounded version of Dave's statement, which I originally quoted. It is also *completely* your opinion. It is your opinion that ID is not scientifically testable.

This is not entirely true. The scientific community also backs up my opinion, as does the US court system.

And there is no way for that not to be an opinionated question, because it is in FACT a testable theory. Not to say it is true, just that it's testable.

I hope you can see where I made my original error and that now I've corrected it. Just because something is refutable does not mean that it's scientifically testable (again, by experiment).

Alatham:

Furthermore, since God is not fully comprehensible, it would not even [be] possible for God to provide answers to every question.

This statement makes zero sense.

First, I shouldn't have been talking about a specific god because we were talking about ID and the non-specific god that ID requires. For that, I apologize.

To reply to your criticism: My statement makes sense. The problem is that we've defined 'answers' differently so it makes no sense to you. We both take the blame for not specifying our definitions.

The definition of 'answer' I was using is "a solution, as to a problem" (as defined at answers.com, the second definition). You've defined it as merely a reply to a question. In my original statement, God could easily say "I'm not telling you" and fulfill your requirement.

I was unaware that you were using this definition of 'answer' when I replied to your original quote that ID "has the answer for everything in the known universe." I could not have been aware of your strict definition and I should have been more careful.

To expound upon my original answer; clearly ID does not have the solution for every problem in the known universe. But it can be said to have a reply for every question. Any question that I could ask that science can't currently solve could be replied to by the ID community with "the intelligent cause did it." But I could easily say that science can also reply to any question with an "I don't know."

You also brought up Dembski's famous 10 questions (which I first read several years ago). I freely admit that I couldn't have answered all of them, but I'm no expert. Perhaps you'd be interested in a particular expert's answers:
http://www2.antievolution.org/cs/node/90

You also said this to Alex:

No other theory has been met with such prejudice and predetermined notions in the history of modern science.

And if ID were in fact scientifically sound, you would have a point. The case has not been made though you're acting as if it has.

karen,

The page you provided reminds me of a porn site, lots of flash and glitz and nothing interesting.

However, as my eyes glassed over I was unable to find anything related to the poll you suggested. Could you hold my hand and help me navigate the scary christian site please? I want to vote for science and against christian god-ideas.

"Mommy, if ID is real why didn't christians get any?"

The problem with ID and creationism is they begin with the conclusion, then determine to prove it.

It reminds me of Hitler's theory of an ancient white race. He commissioned extensive research to prove his theory.

It reminds me of the Mormon theory of ancient American civilizations. Mormon archaeologists have found an abundance of "evidence."

A few years ago I was driving down the interstate highway with a friend who believes in conspiracy theories. As we drove, he noted the blue information signs along the road were coded blue to direct UN troops when they take over the country. The grates over drain sewers were placed to prevent opposition from hiding when the UN takes over.

You find what you're looking for.

Looking for creationism? You'll find evidence everywhere you look.

Looking for the great white race? You'll find it.

Looking for Lamanites? You'll find them.

Looking for conspiracies? You'll find them.

Looking for truth? You'll find it.

gawd, made it through about half of these comments on this post.

Is this site under attack by the ignorant and insane?

Why is anyone even giving them the credit of an argument.

They are plain ignorant and not worthy of your time.

Going elsewhere where there is some inteligent life forms.

By the way, can't stand Yoko, but stand behind her.

uoflcard,

You responded while I was typing.

Yet again, ID does not necessarily suggest supernatural origins.

Then what is the natural "intelligent cause," and how can we test for it?

Absolutely no evidence, just pride in the human mind being able to explain everything by his own understanding and perception.

Care to back that statement up? I believe I've already refuted it in previous replies to your posts.

If you can imagine that there is a God, then science in its present form is fundamentally flawed.

Only specific Gods. There's always the "God of the ever shrinking gaps" argument.

Because while it is intended as the pursuit of knowledge, truth, and understanding of everything we can percieve, it would be ignoring THE most important bit of information!

This is yet another Argument from Ignorance.

This is one reason why I find it impossible to be pursuaded by science that there is not a god.

Coincidentally, science isn't trying to prove that no god exists. The scientific community isn't stupid enough to attempt to prove such a vague negative.

UFO and JCC

You automatically reject ID just because it has yet to provide the “how.”

No I dont reject what can not be tested. Give me the test or shut up.

As I’ve pointed out before here, how blatantly hypocritical of those atheists who accept the premise of “String” theory

I'm a physicist I I don't "accept" String theory for the same reason. NO TEST so far. Give me the ID test or shut up.

By not providing a single test of ID or clearly stating what the ID hypothesis/hypotheses are you have admitted that ID has nothing to do with science. You are truly dense.

jcc:

What, you think that just because our arguments don’t meet your personal, subjective, standard of proof that we should automatically abandoned our standard?

What standard is that? No proof? No evidence? You don't have a standard then, except empty noise, & whimpering about how 'our opinion is just as good as anyone else's.'
All opinions are NOT equal.
This ain't about me, BTW. It's about truth, it's about evidence, it's about reality.
Attack the argument, not the man.

Well, for the record, I still cannot believe that you continue to cling to such a provincial mindset.

Gotta good laugh outta that 1. What, definition #3?
Lessee:

To date, what experiments have shown with any degree of certainty that the protein synthesis information stored in DNA was done so strictly by blind chance?

Wasn't 'blind chance'. Just wasn't supernatural.

The very fact that information—and not just simple, repeated peptides, but complex, specific instructions that are encoded in it screams of design.

Yeah, like the break in DNA that both primates & humans have, that forces them to find foods w/Vitamin C in them.

It takes far more faith in the atheism behind the acceptance of the premise that it had to occur naturally by virtually no known natural processes than it does to lend credence to what it so obviously appears to be—designed.

Again, not supernaturally designed.
Again, compounded simplicity over billions of years.
Again, we agree about the bigger picture. It's the details we wrestle about.
All your rhetoric can't refute the reality: the supernatural is unprovable metaphysical hogwash.

I just noticed that the mentally challenged JCC wrote

"String" theory

He put string in quotes rather than theory. Too funny. Way telling.

I was delighted to read that Yoko Ono is suing that movie Expelled for its use of my favorite song of all songs "Imagine". 2 things I hated about the movie: I believe that ID is theology,not science and I really hated the way the movie declares that anybody who believes in Darwin's theory is a sympathyzer with Eugenics and Nazism inevitably leading to the Holocaust and the American mass-sterilizations.

What:

I'm a physicist I I don't "accept" String theory for the same reason. NO TEST so far. Give me the ID test or shut up.

Hear, hear.
JCC's got in his skull ALL atheists accept string theory.
I believe I told him otherwise, some months ago. No test? No go.
I'm surprised he didn't check his obsessive dossiers on that 1.

karen,

Ok, I should have done this earlier as per your instructions.

I went to the Pharyngula site, which guided me through the offensive christian nonsense. However, on my browser the word "POLL" (in big bold bloody red christian) shows but, nothing more in the box. I have no god-idea what the problem could be. Perhaps the christians are taking a timeout to inflate their little God-idea.

Oh wait, I probably just need to bray...Hold on.

Our faulter you aren't in Heaven, mumbley be thy name. Could ye fix it uppers so's I be vote the christian pearly IDea poll. Thanks, and sorry bout the problems yer favored christians, The Mormons, are having following yer commands right now. We be know'n yer needing to impregnate some more little girls soon.

Aman

Ok, so I am sure this will work as the christian has the true god-IDea...Reload...Nope. No God.

For the record, I find String Theory less than compelling as well.

What:

No I dont reject what can not be tested.

Not sure how to interpret that statement. On the surface it would indicate that you do not reject the idea of ID because it (according to you) cannot be tested. Surely that’s not the case (after all, that would be inconsistent with your past posts where you managed to convey, with some accuracy, your position which contradicts that statement). Hmmm, so being the dullard that you’ve labeled me, could you please clarify that statement further for me? …or could it possibly be that you simply failed to thoroughly proof read your screed before hitting Send Comment? –Wow, like no one here as ever done that before… some would even say, “Too funny. Way telling.”

Give me the test or shut up.

How ‘bout this:

Human DNA contains more organized information that the Encyclopedia Britannica. If the full text of the encyclopedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the workings of random force.—George Sim Johnson

The “test” is, as always, going to have a subjective basis to it: so far as we know, ONLY an intelligent agent can devise a physical means to store information. DNA irrefutably contains stored information, ergo DNA was designed. That’s the test, and to my satisfaction, it passes with flying colors.

I'm a physicist

And an arrogant and extremely rude one at that. Tell me, do you have many close friends?

jcc,

You suggested that the fact that we can't fully explain the origins of DNA is some sort of "test" of ID.

This is ludicrous.

The “test” is, as always, going to have a subjective basis to it

And if ID wants to promote itself as as science, then it cannot use subjective tests.

If you keep using a non-scientific definition of 'test' to promote something as science, then you will only continue to put your foot in your mouth as you have here.

so far as we know, ONLY an intelligent agent can devise a physical means to store information.

This is simply not true. In order to say this, you would need to prove beyond a doubt that no natural means could have brought DNA about. This is yet another Argument from Ignorance.

DNA irrefutably contains stored information, ergo DNA was designed.

Can you prove that 'information' (in this case, a collection of data) requires a designer?

Kryst:

What standard is that? No proof? No evidence?

I’ve cited evidence out the wazoo… again, it’s your arrogance that prevents you from acknowledging it.

This ain't about me, BTW. It's about truth, it's about evidence, it's about reality.
Attack the argument, not the man.

Now where have I heard that before???... it seems you’re back to “taking the high road” again and giving the ads hominem a break?

Gotta good laugh outta that 1.

Good! I’m glad you appreciate my sarcasm… now if you could only open your mind a little further…

Wasn't 'blind chance'. Just wasn't supernatural.

Ok, so exactly what was it then? Please do enlighten me.

Yeah, like the break in DNA that both primates & humans have, that forces them to find foods w/Vitamin C in them.

Non sequitur, not relevant.

Again, compounded simplicity over billions of years.

BY WHAT MEANS???? What an intellectually vapid answer.

Again, we agree about the bigger picture.

We do? And what picture is that? Your consistent inconsistency continues to baffle me; the last time we wrestled wits you were adamant that we don’t agree on anything…

Who is the Designer of the Designed Data? Teach the controversy, folks. I am a Sunday School flunkee:

A. Yahweh?
B. Thor?
C. Huitzilopochtli?
D. Adonai?
E. Yahweh Sabbaoth?
F. Jesucristo?
G. Zeus?
H. Gaia?
I. Quetzalcoatl?
J. Atihualpa?
K. Ninepone?
L. Allah?
M. Ganesh?

Will the Real Designer just PLEASE take credit for your F-grade project and quit hiding???

Until then, don't feed the trolls...

"The terms used in design theory are not defined. "Design", in design theory, has nothing to do with "design" as it is normally understood. Design is defined in terms of an agent purposely arranging something, but such a concept appears nowhere in the process of distinguishing design in the sense of "intelligent design." Dembski defined design in terms of what it is not (known regularity and chance), making intelligent design an argument from incredulity; he never said what design is."

LOL!!!

The Peer-Review Process at Answers in Genesis:

"I quote you. You quote me. We quote each other. We are serious Creationist scholars."

JCC - wow, again you disappoint. Or rather you behave in character.
You've spent a long time here demanding respect (which you really haven't earned), trying to get bloggers here to play by a standard that you seem to forget @ a moment's notice.
I try to play nice, you attack my character. Sweet. Truly, there is no double-standard than that of the religious fanatic.
If you check, you will note that I pretty much repeated something I said months ago, "Again, we agree about the bigger picture."
I am not inconsistent @ all.
The vitamin C statement is not a non sequitor - it's a point you're evading.
Here's a nice little juxtaposition to your constant crapola about "info in the DNA":
"David Evans, Professor of Computer Science at the University of Virginia has made some interesting comparisons between DNA and today's computer software as part of his Computer Science 201: Engineering Software course. Let's begin with his observation that complexity of computer software has grown at an amazing rate in the last 40 years (about since Watson's book on the gene was published). The Apollo mission guidance programs had about 36,000 instructions, but today's Windows XP made by Bill Gates' Microsoft has about fifty million instructions! Professor Evans then compares this to what we now know about genes. For example, the smallest known set of genes of an organism belong to a bacterial parasite called Nanoarchaeum equitans which has 522 genes representing about 40,000 bytes of information. In other terms, it is slightly larger than the Apollo guidance system. The human genome, or as Evans called it "The Make-Human Program," has a total of about 3 billion base pairs, which entail about 35 thousand genes. The total information content counting all of the bases is 750 megabytes, or just larger than the 650 megabytes that fit on your CDs at home. But, we have learned that massive amounts of human DNA are genetic "left overs," non-coding segments and duplications. In short, Human DNA has fewer working instructions than Windows software, and even its total 3 billion bases are tiny compared to Wal-Mart's 280 terabyte database (the equivalent of 1,120,000 billion DNA bases)."
http://tinyurl.com/663hxg
Somehow, that's sounds sub-optimal to me.

The “test” is, as always, going to have a subjective basis to it: so far as we know, ONLY an intelligent agent can devise a physical means to store information. DNA irrefutably contains stored information, ergo DNA was designed. That’s the test, and to my satisfaction, it passes with flying colors.

JCc, your statement, which I have quoted above, contains an absolute lie. Now of course, you will excuse yourself by stating that you didn't know or don't believe you lied. Assuming that you actually do believe your bib le, you have indeed sucker slapped your god-idea. Here, I will explain it to you below.

"Thou shall not lie." We know, the first time it was written, that statement was written by a human. Lets assume, it may not have been but, lets assume the intent of that statement was honorable. We should legitimately be able to pose the question; why would you be commanded to not lie? Would the reason be to protect the liar or would the intent be as to protect others from the liar? If your answer is to protect the liar, you have a devilish notion of "good". If your answer is to protect others, you are twisting the intent, if good, of the author of "Thou shall not lie"; unless your position is that your ten commandments are intended to be conditional, which kind of negates the word "commandment" doesn't it.

Of course, as you have suggested before, your god-idea will act at your pleasure as your real-estate agent. So, we would be remiss in assuming that its integrity is above reproach, wouldn't we.

rna2dna

LOL! Sorry the site scared you!And that I wasn't around least night to help you out. I was babysitting for a friend and her computer had no internet connectivity. (i was going to get on after I got the 3 year old to bed.)
I just checked on it; thought maybe they had closed the poll when you said nothing showed in the box but the red-lettered word POLL. But it's still working. As of a minute ago the votes were 290,423 NO--815 YES.

JCC

Not sure how to interpret that statement. On the surface it would indicate that you do not reject the idea of ID because it (according to you) cannot be tested.

As I have said clearly, that which can not be tested is less than wrong. At least when a hypothesis is tested and found to be wrong you have learned something. But when are assertion is unfalsifiable there is nothing to test and nothing to be learned. So ID is NOT EVEN WRONG. Why any of what I wrote would appear internally inconsistent to someone is baffling. Could it be that it is internally consistent but that you are incapable of dragging into it extraneous and non-existent constraints - your gawd obsession.

That’s the test, and to my satisfaction, it passes with flying colors.

It is clear that, in regards to this question of falsifiability, you don't know what a test is. Show me the test that would, given some outcome to the test, indicate that your ID assertion is false. That is what falsifiability is about. Give me the test or shut up.

And an arrogant and extremely rude one at that.

It appears that those possessing knowledge, especially the hard-earned kind, are seen as a grave threat by you.

Tell me, do you have many close friends?

Many. And they are close friends - closer than you will ever be able to have given the reality filter that deadens your relationship with the universe and everything in it.

I am one of those people that everyone comes to for answers. It is a bit of a curse. Want to guess why?

Could it be that it is internally consistent but that you are incapable of dragging into it extraneous and non-existent constraints - your gawd obsession.

Should have read

Could it be that it is internally consistent but that you drag into it extraneous and non-existent constraints - your gawd obsession.

I tried to read that 10 Questions doc. I honestly tried. But I just can't read and ROFLOL at the same time.

[QUOTE]In December 2003, the biology journal BioEssays published a special issue on “molecular machines.” In the introductory essay to that issue, Adam Wilkins, the editor of BioEssays, remarked, “The articles included in this issue demonstrate some striking parallels between artifactual and biological/molecular machines. In the first place, molecular machines, like man-made machines, perform highly specific functions. Second, the macromolecular machine complexes feature multiple parts that interact in distinct and precise ways, with defined inputs and outputs. Third, many of these machines have parts that can be used in other molecular machines (at least, with slight modification), comparable to the interchangeable parts of artificial machines. Finally, and not least, they have the cardinal attribute of machines: they all convert energy into some form of ‘work’.”[/QUOTE]

NotSoFast,

How blind can you be?!

Clearly the universe was created by General Motors.

NotSoFast,

How blind can you be?!

Clearly the universe was created by General Motors.

What,

I am one of those people that everyone comes to for answers. It is a bit of a curse. Want to guess why?

Because you end up answering the same questions over and over and over as we do on this blog?

Freeze Tag:

Jesus's Dad, CFO-Of-All-That-Is, created the universe...
....and Six Flags Over Jesus and Jesus in Hugo Boss motorcycle boots. Just like mine! Jesus is my personal shopper.

Mr. Dembski is a pathetic liar and a tongue-twister and he KNOWS it. He should be EXPELLED along with Ben Stein's girlie wig.

Now, back to the show! :-)

Alatham

Because you end up answering the same questions over and over and over as we do on this blog?

It's phreek'n groundhog day around here!

Let's pretend for a moment that there was a great conspiracy against christians in science:

Imaginary secular persecution of ID:
Not published in journals or taught in schools.

Actual religous actions:
Murder, suppression, book burning, torture, etc.

Remind me which group is the one against scientific dialogue? Even if the IDers deserved equal time for their argument (they don't), those mean ol' atheists really have a little bit better image of allowing legitimate science than the super-pious do.

4-F...

The movie came in ninth...

That's definitely "getting creamed"...

Guess ID/creationism is failing in the marketplace, just as it fails in the scientific arena...

I saw “Expelled” last night. It was like déjà vu all over again blogging here…

Some take-aways:

* Stein did a remarkable job of presenting both sides of the debate

* Darwinists have become the thought & speech Gestapo of academia

* Darwinists are afraid of even engaging in the debate

* When confronted with problems in the theory of evolution, instead of responding scientifically, Darwinists go on a personal attack

* Those who speak heresy (ID) within academia are mercilessly persecuted

* Proponents of ID within academia are considered “intellectual terrorists” by thier atheist peers

* An Individual’s “world view” precedes one’s “scientific view”

* The insular wall of intolerance secular academia has built around itself cannot withstand the human desire for freedom

* Prominent atheists who are intolerant of ID were inarticulate in expressing their disdain for ID and its proponents

* Richard Dawkins did atheism no favor by his inarticulate and crackpot responses to Stein’s questions (he actually admitted that life on earth may well have been "designed" by other life in the universe!)

The audience I sat with applauded at the end.

Ben Stein deserves the Congressional Medal of Freedom!

jcc...

That's great... you were smart to go see it before it leaves the theaters... which will be soon...

Although it'll have a long life on video... being shown to the gullible in musty church basements...

But at least your money will help pay Yoko... since the producers were too inept to get the necessary licenses...

Oh, and one other crucial point I left out above:

* The genie is out of the bottle; there are many scientists (particularly biologists) who privately concede the validity of ID (they spoke in anonymity on camera) but cannot say so publicly for fear of reprisals.

Only in an environment of genuine pursuit of scientific truth can an open debate take place. As it exists now, the Darwinist Gestapo who control academic purse strings have squelched freedom of thought and expression by blatantly oppressing one segment of the community they deem as inferior.

One of the more stark comments from the movie was, (paraphrased) “Darwinism isn’t always sufficient to give rise to regimes like Nazism, but it is necessary.”

Rusty Shackleford:

How disappointing. I was hoping I’d get reasonably intelligent responses to the points I listed that the film brought up instead of snide quips about its financial success or legal pitfalls.

Oh, well. The status quo is maintained.

jcc

I haven't seen the film, but if Richard Dawkins seemed inarticulate, perhaps it was because of editing to make him look that way. Based on the deceptive means used to get him to interview for the film in the first place, I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case.

As to the claim “Darwinism isn’t always sufficient to give rise to regimes like Nazism, but it is necessary.” Here is part of a letter written by Dawkins to a Jewish man, upset after viewing Expelled:

4. Now, to the matter of Darwin. The first thing to say is that natural selection is a scientific theory about the way evolution works in fact. It is either true or it is not, and whether or not we like it politically or morally is irrelevant. Scientific theories are not prescriptions for how we should behave. I have many times written (for example in the first chapter of A Devil's Chaplain) that I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to the science of how life has actually evolved, but a passionate ANTI-Darwinian when it comes to the politics of how humans ought to behave. I have several times said that a society based on Darwinian principles would be a very unpleasant society in which to live. I have several times said, starting at the beginning of my very first book, The Selfish Gene, that we should learn to understand natural selection, so that we can oppose any tendency to apply it to human politics. Darwin himself said the same thing, in various different ways. So did his great friend and champion Thomas Henry Huxley.

5. Darwinism gives NO support to racism of any kind. Quite the contrary. It is emphatically NOT about natural selection between races. It is about natural selection between individuals. It is true that the subtitle of The Origin of Species is "Or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life" but Darwin was using the word "race" in a very different sense from ours. It is totaly clear, if you read past the title to the book itself, that a "favoured race" meant something like 'that set of individuals who possess a certain favoured genetic mutation" (although Darwin would not have used that language because he did not have our modern concept of a genetic mutation).

6. There is no mention of Darwin in Mein Kampf. Not one single, solitary mention, not one mention in any of the 27 chapters of this long and tedious book. Don't you think that, if Hitler was truly influenced by Darwin, he would have given him at least one teeny weeny mention in his book? Was he, perhaps, INDIRECTLY influenced by some of Darwin's ideas, without knowing it? Only if you completely misunderstand Darwin's ideas, as some have definitely done: the so-called Social Darwinists such as Herbert Spencer and John D Rockefeller. Hitler could fairly be described as a Social Darwinist, but all modern evolutionists, almost literally without exception, have been vocal in their condemnation of Social Darwinism. This of course includes Michael Shermer and me and PZ Myers and all the other evolutionary scientists whom Ben Stein and his team tricked into taking part in his film by lying to us about their true intentions.

7. Hitler did attempt eugenic breeding of humans, and this is sometimes misrepresented as an attempt to apply Darwinian principles to humans. But this interpretation gets it historically backwards, as PZ Myers has pointed out. Darwin's great achievement was to look at the familiar practice of domestic livestock breeding by artificial selection, and realise that the same principle might apply in NATURE, thereby explaining the evolution of the whole of life: "natural selection", the "survival of the fittest". Hitler didn't apply NATURAL selection to humans. He was probably even more ignorant of natural selection than Ben Stein evidiently is. Hitler tried to apply ARTIFICIAL selection to humans, and there is nothing specifically Darwinian about artificial selection. It has been familiar to farmers, gardeners, horse trainers, dog breeders, pigeon fanciers and many others for centuries, even millennia. Everybody knew about artificial selection, and Hitler was no exception. What was unique about Darwin was his idea of NATURAL selection; and Hitler's eugenic policies had nothing to do with natural selection.

8. Mr J, you have been cruelly duped by Ben Stein and his unscrupulous colleagues. It is a wicked, evil thing they have done to you, and potentially to many others. I do not know whether they knowingly and wantonly perpetrated the falsehood that fooled you. Perhaps they genuinely and sincerely believed it, although other actions by them, which you can read about all over the Internet, persuade me that they are fully capable of deliberate and calculated deception. You are perhaps not to be blamed for swallowing the film's falsehoods, because you probably assumed that nobody would have the gall to make a whole film like that without checking their facts first. Perhaps even you will need a little more convincing that they were wrong, in which case I urge you to read it up and study the matter in detail -- something that Ben Stein and his crew manifestly and lamentably failed to do.

The rest of the letter can be read at
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2488,Open-Letter-to-a-victim
-of-Ben-Steins-lying-propaganda,Richard-Dawkins

For those who haven't seen the movie, but would like an overview, a blow-by-blow is given here:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2400,Expelled-Overview,
Josh-Timonen-RichardDawkinsnet

karen:

I haven't seen the film, but if Richard Dawkins seemed inarticulate, perhaps it was because of editing to make him look that way.

The interview between Stein and Dawkins in the film flows pretty consistently. Stein didn’t pull any sucker-punch questions, wasn’t antagonistic or engaged in any kind of sophistry. He asked simple, straight-forward questions, many of which Dawkins answered with a condescending tone. There was no clever editing to make Dawkins look the fool or stammeringly inarticulate—he accomplished that completely on his own—despite his teeth being distractingly discolored. But don’t take my word for it, see it for yourself. If you miss it in the theaters, I’d be more than happy to buy you a copy of the DVD and send it to you.

Based on the deceptive means used to get him to interview for the film in the first place, I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case.

I seriously doubt that was the case given the fact that they show the footage of Dawkins being prepped for the interview and congenially greeting Stein when he arrives. Besides, if he really was “duped” into doing the interview under false pretenses, don’t you think he (Dawkins) would’ve been way in front of Ono in the lawsuit line?

Karen, if there’s any genuine, intellectual curiosity left in you, you owe it to yourself to see this film (and like I said, I’d be more than happy to provide it to you so that you won’t have to say that you had to give Stein any of your money).

And since Rusty Shackleford didn’t have the nads to address the points I listed, I’m curious to hear your comments on them (if you have any)

jcc

Dawakins, PZ Myers and Eugenie Scott all went on the record early about being misled about the intent of the film. In addition, Michael Shermer had this to say about his interview:

For my part, the moment I sat down with Stein (with Mathis there) and he asked me that question about firing people for expressing dissenting views a dozen times, I realized that I was being manipulated to give certain answers they were looking for me to give. I asked them both, several times, if they had anything else to ask me about evolutionary theory or Intelligent Design. In frustration I finally said something like "Do you have any other questions to ask me or do you keep asking me this question in hopes that I'll give a different answer?"

That's when Stein finally changed the subject and asked about social Darwinism. We got into a lengthy discussion about Adam Smith, which he seemed surprised to learn that I seemed to know more about the great economist than he did! For example, he didn't seem to even realize that Smith's first book was "The Theory of Moral Sentiments", and that Smith didn't trust businessmen any more than he trusted government bureaucrats, and that we need a mix of enlightened self-interest and strictly enforced rules of trade. But as I noted in my review of the film for Scientific American, Stein was especially displeased with my linkage of Smith and Darwin, that Darwin read Smith as an undergraduate at Edinburgh, etc. I also pointed out to him that Darwin has been used and abused by ideologues of all stripes, and that in any case that is all separate from whether the science is good or not. That seemed to tax his thinking too much, because shortly after he announced that he had to take a rest break and he just got up and went out to his car for about 20 minutes! Seriously, he just went out to the street next to our office and sat in the rent car they had! I couldn't believe it. We had only been going for about 30 minutes and he was tired? And this was in the late morning. I joked with Mathis that, this being Hollywood and all, I wondered if Stein was out doing a line of cocaine.... Mathis assured me that Stein doesn't do drugs, but I found the whole thing to be quite odd. Then Stein came back in and that's when we walked around the office with the handheld camera to get some B-Roll footage, and they showed him asking me about my books, and that's where I told him I thought ID was much closer to pseudoscience than science. Then he asked me AGAIN if I thought people should be fired....

That's from the Josh Timonen link I gave above. That link also describes the make-up scene with Dawkins (whom the author has filmed for 3 years w/o using make up on him). The make up artists also mussed RD's hair to give him the "mad scientist" look.

I will see the film eventually, I just will not pay to see it in a theater. I'm sure it will be no time before it's on cable, dud that it is.

I already addressed the one issue you raised-about Darwinism being necessary for the rise of regimes like Nazism. I thought RD rather articulately addressed that and the other connected fallacies in his letter to the Jewish man.

As for the others, I will do a separate post, as this is getting long, and I have already lost it once and had to start over.

Ben Stein tells lies, lots of lies.

NCSE has put up a website, expelledexposed.com that reveals amongst other things, just how all his ID martyrs 'suffered' for their god. For example:

The Claim
Sternberg’s “life was nearly ruined when he strayed from the party line while serving as editor of a scientific journal affiliated with the prestigious Smithsonian Museum of Natural History.” (Expelled)

The Facts
As stated above, Sternberg did not lose his office or his access to collections, he did not lose his job, he was not “fired” from the (unpaid) editorship of the journal (he had resigned six months before the publication of the Meyer article), and from the e-mails in the appendix to the Souder report, it appears that his colleagues were civil in their communications with him. The Smithsonian renewed his Research Collaborator status for another three years in 2006. It seems, then, that the worst that happened to Sternberg is that people said some unkind things about him in private email to one another. Since the same can be said of almost every person, it’s hard to see how this could be construed as “life ruining”. There is no evidence of any material harm done to Sternberg as a result of the publication of the Meyer article. And any damage done to his reputation would seem to have been self-inflicted.

People on the ID side really don't seem to realize how ridiculous it is to portray scientists everywhere as banding together to keep out new scientific ideas. Unfortunately neither does the public, apparently.

Success for a scientist is finding something new, possibly upsetting an apple cart. Doesn't matter if it's the hypothesis or the evidence that comes first, just so long as others can duplicate the work.

That's how you advance professionally - through grants, promotions, respect, fame and Nobel Prizes. If ID had evidence and could be tested by others, it would have become the standard a long time ago. After all, there is no shortage of money available to IDers for use in research. Unfortunately all ID ever does is mount expensive PR campaigns trying to pick holes in evolution.

jcc...

The film, and your "points" (e.g., "Darwinist Gestapo" - great "point") have no substantive merit to address... they are just baseless opinions...

And the film is just a propaganda piece... preaching to the gullible choir...

All it merits is derision...

DD Dropout,

You are correct, of course. Truly revolutionary scientific theories - gravitation, relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution - have such incredible explanatory power that they are instantly seized upon and expanded. They give rise to vast new bodies of scientific literature and greatly increased understanding. The ideas are so powerful that nothing can stop them.

ID/creationism has given rise to nothing (other than fundraising appeals) because it has no explanatory power, and is in no way scientific. It is a barren desert. All the creationist whining in the world can't change that (not that is will stop them from trying, as we see).

jcc

You seem to be much impressed by the outcome of the 'debate' between ID and evolution in the film.

Debate is not how science is done. Evidence trumps language skills when science is the objective.

In a debate, it is possible to throw out so many false premises in a short time, that one's opponent would require detailed familiarity with multiple fields of expertise, in order to refute each of the lies. This debate strategy has become known as the Gish gallop.

It is why many scientists advise against participating in such debates. They also don't like the way it allows the wishful thinkers to claim their ideas are equal to those that are evidence based.

The film is not a debate. No rebuttal appears in it. If the interviews with biologists and atheists could not have been used to the advantage of the IDists, then certainly they would have hit the cutting room floor.

jcc
Your bullet list and my responses.

* Stein did a remarkable job of presenting both sides of the debate

Since I didn't see it, I can't comment much, but from what I've read, he propagandized and demonized "Big Science" while making the IDers seem helpless and persecuted.

* Darwinists have become the thought & speech Gestapo of academia

First of all, from what I've read at Pharygula, Darwinists, is a misnomer. The Theory of Evolution has come far from what Darwin first envisioned, and there are certainly no scientists in a circle-jerk in a lab anywhere praising old Chuck.

If, by this, you mean that real scientists insist that others actually use the scientific method to do their work and reflect it in their papers, yes they do. But those are hardly Gestapo tactics.

* Darwinists [sic} are afraid of even engaging in the debate

ROFL
Since when? Nevermind that they aren't "Darwinists", but the IDers just don't bring anything new or testable to examine or talk about. PZ has podcasts of his debates. Dawkins has videos and podcasts, if I'm not mistaken. And that's just two of them.

* When confronted with problems in the theory of evolution, instead of responding scientifically, Darwinists go on a personal attack

Again, the movi