Expelled.... Thoughts?
- Thread starter THEU
- Start date
bobtheking
100+ Posts
Let me start this thread off by saying I believe in God.
That movie looks awful. Why would I want to sit through that. I learned everything I would want in that preview, and THAT was even boring
That movie looks awful. Why would I want to sit through that. I learned everything I would want in that preview, and THAT was even boring
MizzouSnives
500+ Posts
i'll go see it. you all act like the atmosphere on hornfans is all that tolerant sometimes.
Waller Creek
100+ Posts
[self importance run amok] "Some of you will lose your friends for watching this film. Some of you will even lose your jobs." [/self importance run amok]
Hornfan#10
25+ Posts
Two reasons movies like this are basically pointless, those who want to believe it already do, and those who don't refuse to go see the movie. Reason number 2 they rarely present both sides of the arguement.
The premise that people, or even "scientists", who talk about ID do not have free speech is pretty flawed. I love how they flash to a picture of MLK speaking, wondering why speech is protected in all other areas.
It kind of reminds me of the "They hate our freedom" arguments, but dumber.
It kind of reminds me of the "They hate our freedom" arguments, but dumber.
Brisketexan
1,000+ Posts
I have a hypothesis that 2+2 = Gwilpat (a number I just made up, using my base Twaldot system). Yet no school will let me teach it in math class. I am oppressed!
ID is an interesting idea. It has elements that are certainly worthy of discussion . . . in religion, theology, or philosophy classes. But it utterly fails as science.
The scientific method does NOT rule out a number of explanations for something and then default to "therefore, the explanation is a supernatural being" (especially in light of the fact that said supernatural being has not been scientifically proven to exist). Indeed, the circular logic is amazing, as many folks use the ID idea as proof of God's existence. So, science should choose the explanation that an unproven supernatural being created life, and the fact that science chooses that explanation is proof that said supernatural being exists. Spectacular.
The whole evolution (and labelling of scientists as "Darwinists" is such semantic ******** that it embarrasses me) vs Creationism/ID debate is a fight picked SOLEY by the Creationists, and it is a fight that is utterly pointless and need not happen.
Science has not posited any testable hypothesis on the who or why of creation. It remains a mystery. Science only works backwards to come up with an understanding of "how." Why that is so offensive to so many is baffling to me.
I don't know about y'all, but MY God isn't afraid of science. Hell, he created the very laws of nature which science discerns and observes. Methinks God and scientists would be big buddies, should they ever have a chance to sit down and shoot the **** over a beer or two.
This movie looks like pointless, and inaccurate, claptrap. We do not allow folks to teach an untestable hypothesis as a scientific theory. Just like we don't allow folks to teach that 2 and 2 is 5, or Gwilpat, or whatever. That's not oppression, it's not suppression of free speech. It's exercising a basic standard in setting up a curriculum. We don't let the 2 and 2 is 5 crowd come in and "teach the controversy." Just because they argue loudly and vehemently doesn't mean there is a controversy. That's just an argument. A controversy is when the evidence does not clearly favor one of two or more hypotheses. That's not the case here. It's just not, and no amount of petulant foot-stomping will make it so.
ID is an interesting idea. It has elements that are certainly worthy of discussion . . . in religion, theology, or philosophy classes. But it utterly fails as science.
The scientific method does NOT rule out a number of explanations for something and then default to "therefore, the explanation is a supernatural being" (especially in light of the fact that said supernatural being has not been scientifically proven to exist). Indeed, the circular logic is amazing, as many folks use the ID idea as proof of God's existence. So, science should choose the explanation that an unproven supernatural being created life, and the fact that science chooses that explanation is proof that said supernatural being exists. Spectacular.
The whole evolution (and labelling of scientists as "Darwinists" is such semantic ******** that it embarrasses me) vs Creationism/ID debate is a fight picked SOLEY by the Creationists, and it is a fight that is utterly pointless and need not happen.
Science has not posited any testable hypothesis on the who or why of creation. It remains a mystery. Science only works backwards to come up with an understanding of "how." Why that is so offensive to so many is baffling to me.
I don't know about y'all, but MY God isn't afraid of science. Hell, he created the very laws of nature which science discerns and observes. Methinks God and scientists would be big buddies, should they ever have a chance to sit down and shoot the **** over a beer or two.
This movie looks like pointless, and inaccurate, claptrap. We do not allow folks to teach an untestable hypothesis as a scientific theory. Just like we don't allow folks to teach that 2 and 2 is 5, or Gwilpat, or whatever. That's not oppression, it's not suppression of free speech. It's exercising a basic standard in setting up a curriculum. We don't let the 2 and 2 is 5 crowd come in and "teach the controversy." Just because they argue loudly and vehemently doesn't mean there is a controversy. That's just an argument. A controversy is when the evidence does not clearly favor one of two or more hypotheses. That's not the case here. It's just not, and no amount of petulant foot-stomping will make it so.
Drew Shirley
100+ Posts
Brisket, I don't disagree with anything you said, but evolution hasn't exactly been proven by the scientific method either.
Scientists accept it as the how--they "believe" in the "theory" of evolution--but it is not a testable hypothesis any more than intelligent design is.
Under your standards posted above, schools shouldn't be teaching ID or evolution.
Scientists accept it as the how--they "believe" in the "theory" of evolution--but it is not a testable hypothesis any more than intelligent design is.
Under your standards posted above, schools shouldn't be teaching ID or evolution.
Methinks Drew Shirley doesn't quite grasp the scientific method. Science doesn't work by 'proving' anything. Science works by accumulating evidence which either supports or contradicts theories.
Evolution isn't a hypothesis, evolution is a theory. A theory in science is a statement that is supported by all of the available evidence and contradicted by none. There is an overpowering mass of evidence that support descent with modification. Hundreds of journals are published containing reports of research that test hypotheses pertaining to evolution. That work has been going on for many years and nothing has been published that would cause us to say, "Oops, we're wrong about the whole theory of evolution, we better embrace the idea of magic."
The theory of evolution is scientific. The idea of intelligent design (read 'creationism') isn't. Creationism, in any guise, has no place in a science classroom.
Evolution isn't a hypothesis, evolution is a theory. A theory in science is a statement that is supported by all of the available evidence and contradicted by none. There is an overpowering mass of evidence that support descent with modification. Hundreds of journals are published containing reports of research that test hypotheses pertaining to evolution. That work has been going on for many years and nothing has been published that would cause us to say, "Oops, we're wrong about the whole theory of evolution, we better embrace the idea of magic."
The theory of evolution is scientific. The idea of intelligent design (read 'creationism') isn't. Creationism, in any guise, has no place in a science classroom.
I'm glad GT WT said it so I didn't have to.
Brisketexan
1,000+ Posts
Ditto GT WT and Sangre. GT said it better than I could (I freely admit that I am no scientist -- I just watched a shitload of "Nova" when I was a kid
).
As to most any scientific hypothesis, and even scientific theories, there remains the possiblity that some test will yield results that either refute that hypothesis/theory, or require significant modification thereof. Indeed, the hypotheses/theories regarding the paramaters and the mechanisms of evolution have been seen great change over the years.
Scientists "believe" in the theory of evolution in the same way that I "believe" in the theory of gravity. All tests have supported those theories -- thus far. Yet we both must concede that it is conceivable that some future test will yield a result that cause us to change or modify our beliefs. For example, it is possible that in some conditions which we are not yet capable of encountering (say, distant space travel, interdimensional travel, etc.), the accepted theory of gravity will not apply.
Evolution is a "belief" in the same way that gravity is a "belief." Are the answers re: ANY area of scientific endeavor an absolute 100% certainty? While as a practical matter, in many cases the answer may as well be yes, the complete answer is nope -- and science freely admits that. Which is yet another way that science is logically way ahead of creationism/ID.
Believe as you wish. But if it is not testable, it is not science. It really is that simple.
As to most any scientific hypothesis, and even scientific theories, there remains the possiblity that some test will yield results that either refute that hypothesis/theory, or require significant modification thereof. Indeed, the hypotheses/theories regarding the paramaters and the mechanisms of evolution have been seen great change over the years.
Scientists "believe" in the theory of evolution in the same way that I "believe" in the theory of gravity. All tests have supported those theories -- thus far. Yet we both must concede that it is conceivable that some future test will yield a result that cause us to change or modify our beliefs. For example, it is possible that in some conditions which we are not yet capable of encountering (say, distant space travel, interdimensional travel, etc.), the accepted theory of gravity will not apply.
Evolution is a "belief" in the same way that gravity is a "belief." Are the answers re: ANY area of scientific endeavor an absolute 100% certainty? While as a practical matter, in many cases the answer may as well be yes, the complete answer is nope -- and science freely admits that. Which is yet another way that science is logically way ahead of creationism/ID.
Believe as you wish. But if it is not testable, it is not science. It really is that simple.
THEU
2,500+ Posts
I am confused. All evidence points to the theory of evolution and no evidence contradicts it? They why are there scientists who claim they see flaws in the theory? Are books like "Darwin's Black Box" complete crap with no accurate scientific questioning in them?
I am no supporter of Creationism being taught in a science classroom, but the reality is theology is being taught in our science classrooms today. I just think the controversies in evolution should be taught as well. People ought to learn to think critically in all areas of their lives about what 'the authourities' teach them. This is true in the science classroom, the government, and the church.
I am no supporter of Creationism being taught in a science classroom, but the reality is theology is being taught in our science classrooms today. I just think the controversies in evolution should be taught as well. People ought to learn to think critically in all areas of their lives about what 'the authourities' teach them. This is true in the science classroom, the government, and the church.
Theu, the controversies in evolution ARE being taught in classrooms. Punctuated equilibrium versus gradualism is debated by biologists and that controversy is taught in biology class. The role of selection and neutral forces in driving evolution is debated by biologists and that debate is taught in biological classrooms. The evidence FOR evolution is not controversial. Nearly all biologists accept evolution as fact, or at least as close to 'fact' as science can come.
As for the scientists who claim they see fatal flaws in evolutionary theory, I think they are analogous to historians who doubt the holocaust. There are a few out there (and I mean VERY out there) but they're not respected within their field.
As for the scientists who claim they see fatal flaws in evolutionary theory, I think they are analogous to historians who doubt the holocaust. There are a few out there (and I mean VERY out there) but they're not respected within their field.
Brisketexan
1,000+ Posts
GT keeps beating me to the punch.Imagine the broad theory of evolution as a football field. There are contests regarding certain elements of the theory -- punctuated equilibrium vs. gradualism, etc. But they all happen WITHIN THE BOUNDS of that football field. The debate is not whether there is a football field at all -- it's more akin to a debate over where exactly on the field the current line of scrimmage is.
The debates about various elements of the theory of evolution do not contradict the theory -- if anything, they further validate it.
If you call evolution theology, then you might as well call gravity, relativity, the atomic theory, etc., theology.
I found this explanation, discussing theories, and comparing them to what we call "scientific laws," like the law of gravity (which the article even notes can, in some circumstances, be more like a theory than a law) (I think it's much better than my football field analogy):
The debates about various elements of the theory of evolution do not contradict the theory -- if anything, they further validate it.
If you call evolution theology, then you might as well call gravity, relativity, the atomic theory, etc., theology.
I found this explanation, discussing theories, and comparing them to what we call "scientific laws," like the law of gravity (which the article even notes can, in some circumstances, be more like a theory than a law) (I think it's much better than my football field analogy):
Fatcat Alum
100+ Posts
After having read Ben Stein's column's in the New York Times for the past few years, I can confidently state that he is a complete ******* idiot. The fact he's involved with this movie only confirms what anyone could pick up from reading his writing. My recent favorites were his columns about how worries about the subprime crisis were greatly exaggerated and only a drop in the bucket for our financial system.
DeadHeadHorn
500+ Posts
Ben Stein has really lost the plot.
Whoever cut that trailer needs to go back to film school. Whoever greenlighted that film needs to be shot.
Whoever cut that trailer needs to go back to film school. Whoever greenlighted that film needs to be shot.
Drew Shirley
100+ Posts
Drew Shirley
100+ Posts
Your post proves my point.
The evolutionary process that created bats is not known. Therefore, it is a "leap of faith" to conclude that bats must have evolved. As Brisket says, "believe" if you wish. But don't claim it's scientific fact, like gravity, for the love of mike.
Listen, I agree that evolution is the most likely explanation for how we got here. But it is not testable -- and if, as Brisket said, not testable = not science, then ???
If you look at some of the dogmatic statements just in this thread, like there is no evidence contradicting evolution, and evolution is fact, been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.. That's crazy from the perspective of scientific proof. And why are we talking about "reasonable doubt" in a scientific discussion?!?
My only point is that if you're going to dismiss creationism as "untestable," then you shouldn't accept evolution as gospel either.
The evolutionary process that created bats is not known. Therefore, it is a "leap of faith" to conclude that bats must have evolved. As Brisket says, "believe" if you wish. But don't claim it's scientific fact, like gravity, for the love of mike.
Listen, I agree that evolution is the most likely explanation for how we got here. But it is not testable -- and if, as Brisket said, not testable = not science, then ???
If you look at some of the dogmatic statements just in this thread, like there is no evidence contradicting evolution, and evolution is fact, been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.. That's crazy from the perspective of scientific proof. And why are we talking about "reasonable doubt" in a scientific discussion?!?
My only point is that if you're going to dismiss creationism as "untestable," then you shouldn't accept evolution as gospel either.
Brisketexan
1,000+ Posts
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
Controversial opinions
- Started by Driver 8
- Replies: 675
- Quackenbush's
-
The Bible was created by man
- Started by Crockett
- Replies: 90
- Quackenbush's
-
Random ignorant comments
- Started by Chop
- Replies: 3
- Quackenbush's
-
Happy Mother’s Day
- Started by Dionysus
- Replies: 6
- Quackenbush's
-
Reflections on Reaching Age 80
- Started by HornHuskerDad
- Replies: 14
- Quackenbush's
-
Eclipse 2024
- Started by Dionysus
- Replies: 36
- Quackenbush's
-
PSA
- Started by SabreHorn
- Replies: 12
- Quackenbush's
Prediction Results Threads
