97
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 08:45 am
we leave this page with another attempt by spendi to sound like he knows anything about humor
Quote:
Finnigan's Law: Meaning varies inversely with electromagnetic frequency
. ACtually Finnegans LAw is also known as Finnegans Finegeling FActor , and is defined as that quantity which, when added to, multiplied by, or divided into your results, produce the value that you should have gotten in the first place.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 08:48 am
Quote:
A late night quick one
(by PZ Myers, ScienceBlogs.com, March 21, 2008)

People are asking me to tell them more about the movie, Expelled. I can't! I was thrown out!

Let me clarify a few things. This was a private screening with no admission charge, and you had to reserve seats ahead of time; you also had to sign a promise that you wouldn't record the movie while you were there, and they were checking ID. Everyone in my family reserved seats under our own names, myself included. There was no attempt to "sneak in", although apparently the producer, Mark Mathis, accused me of doing so in the Q&A afterwards (Mathis, of course, is a contemptible liar). We followed the procedures they set up, every step of the way, and were completely above board in all our dealings.

Mark Mathis was there at the screening, and apparently spotted me and gave instructions to the guard to throw me out. I asked the guard why I was being evicted, and he explained directly that the producer had given him that instruction.

They were well within their rights to exclude anyone. When I was told I would not be allowed in and threatened with arrest, I told the security guard that I would not cause any trouble. I stopped to talk with my family when they came over with a theater manager to evict me; again, I left peacefully. Apparently, the guards were talking about carrying out further measures when they saw me standing outside the theater, and speculated that I was going to harass other attendees. This was not true; I'd just had to leave my friends and family behind, and all I really wanted to do was tell them where I'd be. The last thing I wanted to do was spend two hours hanging around a movie theater.

This account is a complete fabrication. I was not disturbing anyone, was not trying to make a scene, and was only standing quietly in line. When I was taken aside by the guard, it was a complete surprise.

I was the only person evicted. The people I was with, which included my wife, my daughter Skatje, her boyfriend Collin, Richard Dawkins, and the entire staff of the Richard Dawkins Foundation, were overlooked. I was the lucky one.

Afterwards, we went out to eat and have a beer or two, which is why I didn't give you all a more complete summary right away. We laughed over the movie, which I hear is not only boring and poorly made, but is ludicrous in its dishonesty. Apparently, a standard tactic is to do lots of fast cuts between biologists like me or Dawkins or Eugenie Scott and shots of Nazi atrocities. It's all very ham-handed. The audience apparently ate it up, though. Figures. Christians have a growing reputation for their appreciation of dishonesty.

There are plans afoot for rebuttals. It's hard to come up with much motivation to do so after discovering how bad this movie is, but yeah, both NCSE and the RDF will be doing something. Dawkins is going to mention it at least briefly in his talk tomorrow. He may write up a review, too, although I don't think he considers it a high priority (did I mention what a piece of dreck this movie is?).

The RDF crew are a fine bunch of people and we had a good time after the crappy movie. Which I have not seen. Apparently, I've been given a fair amount of time in the movie, too.

This outcome so far has been absolutely perfect, as far as I'm concerned. The hypocrisy of the Expelled makers has been exposed by their expulsion of one of the people they filmed (final lovely irony: I'm also thanked for my contributions in the credits), they've revealed their incompetence by throwing me out when Richard Dawkins was right next to me, and I didn't have to waste two hours on a bad movie.

I've also got a story to tell: when the creationists saw me and Dawkins in a lineup, I am the one that had them so frightened that they had to call for the guards. I feel mighty.


(sorry about double posting)
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 09:07 am
I cant wait to see this movie. Are they going to check Id's (no pun) at the door so only the totally ignorant can enter?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 09:34 am
Quote:
March 20, 2008 11:42PM
Dawkins Crashes 'Expelled' Party
Noted Darwinist shows up at screening of Intelligent Design documentary.


Mark Moring
Expelled, a new documentary that argues the case for Intelligent Design from a Judeo-Christian perspective, has been in the headlines lately, prior to its April 18 theatrical release.

The film, hosted and narrated by Ben Stein, has been screened to invitation-only audiences at churches and for various Christian groups. But several critics have worked their way in to some of the screenings, most notably Roger Moore of The Orlando Sentinel, who recently trashed the movie in his blog.

A critic of another kind "crashed" a screening in Minnesota on Thursday night--Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion and arguably the most outspoken critic of Intelligent Design and Creationism. Dawkins himself appears in the documentary--but claims he was duped into believing it was going to be an objective account of Darwinism vs. ID.

Jeffrey Overstreet, a film critic for CT Movies, broke the news on his own blog Thursday night after receiving an e-mail from a college student who was at the screening.

Stuart Blessman, the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities student, told Overstreet in the e-mail that Dawkins' appearance "was quite a surprise" to both the audience and associate producer Mark Mathis, who fielded questions afterward.

Blessman reported that Dawkins asked several questions, and complained that "any statement he made in the film was in fact under the assumption that he was being interviewed . . . for a film that was to take an even-handed look at the Intelligent Design/Evolution controversy."

It's not the first time Dawkins and other Darwinian experts say they were duped by the filmmakers. The Guardian reported last fall that Dawkins said, "At no time was I given the slightest clue that these people were a creationist front," he said. And The New York Times quotes Dawkins and other atheists who appeared in the film under a "deceptive invitation."

Blessman also wrote that "the Q&A then proceeded pretty uneventfully, with several of the questions addressed to Dawkins himself. Mathis and Dawkins also clearly had spoken on numerous occasions and appeared to continue an argument that they had started previously."

Blessman also reported that Dawkins complained that a colleague of his was turned away even though he (Dawkins) was admitted to the screening. That colleague, PZ Myers, a biologist and prof at the University of Minnesota-Morris, is actually featured in the film. Myers later blogged his own account of what happened here and here.

Myers wrote that he caught up with Dawkins and friends after the film, "which I hear is not only boring and poorly made, but is ludicrous in its dishonesty. Apparently, a standard tactic is to do lots of fast cuts between biologists like me or Dawkins or Eugenie Scott and shots of Nazi atrocities. It's all very ham-handed. The audience apparently ate it up, though. Figures. Christians have a growing reputation for their appreciation of dishonesty."

Read more about Expelled in earlier editions of Reel News at CT Movies.
Source
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 09:38 am
I guess Ben Stein needs the money. Everybody has won his.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 10:50 am
fm wrote-

Quote:
I had an uncle who used to talk in this manner. They put him away when he started hearing things in the walls.


Another apparition for an answer. None of my uncles experienced that.
Perhaps something odd runs in your lifestream. You carry a lot more of that guy's characteristics that I do.

Had I had an uncle like that I think I would keep quiet about it.
0 Replies
 
raprap
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 11:23 am
Somehow I bet Ben Stein is more influenced in the tenor of "Expelled" by another Moore, not Roger or the Orlando Sentinel, or Sir Thomas, of Catholic Martrydrom---but Michael, as in "Sicko."

Maybe Michael Moore will provide a good, flashy, and entertaining rebuttal to ID, Stein and the DI.

Rap
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 11:23 am
fm wrote-

Quote:
I cant wait to see this movie. Are they going to check Id's (no pun) at the door so only the totally ignorant can enter?


You're shitting on your own feet again fm.

The point of the piece, which he admits at the end, is to upstage Dawkins who is made to look like a watered down enfant terrible by comparison to the author.

I'm sure they'll let you in fm.

Make a big scene. Upstage the lot of them. Get yourself arrested. Take over the leadership. A man on his third wife, it doesn't say if Mrs 3 was present, is hardly a suitable leader.

Not knowing that marriage is an acquired taste, like eating periwinkles with a pin, is a poor recommendation by any stretch.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 12:04 pm
Wall St Closed for religious contemplation.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 12:19 pm
fm wrote-

Quote:
AS far as Bush enriching himself and his friends, We have but to see the mess wrought during and because of his administration. Maybe you should try to get your head out of whatever bum you now have it resting.


This is a fanciful hypothesis.

Fact 1. Mr Bush used the phrase "addicted to oil" in a State of the Union address.

Fact 2. Such speeches are fine honed.

Fact 3. The phrase didn't appear by accident.

Fact 4. Addiction is a bad thing despite what the addict thinks.

Fact 5. It's the President's job to do something about bad things.

Fact 6. Skinting the population will cure the addiction and enable Americans, in Dylan's words to "Strengthen the things that remain."

Fact 7. The wealth creation cannot be slowed.

Fact 8. The rich can only sleep in one bed at once. (That's a metaphor).

Fact 9. Solution to problem. Veblen's Leisure Class are harmless and great entertainment. And ME policy as a money sink.

Fact 10. fm screaming "mess" is just a junkie describing forced cold turkey.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 12:56 pm
rap--Id love to see M Moore take on the ID crowd. I dont think itd have a wide audience however.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 02:11 pm
Something a bit anecdotical in between.

By pure chance (that is: I read tomorrow's local paper just online) I've learnt that our town will clebrate this year a "Müller year" due to the 150th anniversary of the death of Prof. Dr. Hermann Müller.
Well, he intoduced 'Darwin's theory' here - actually, our local Grammar school was the first where such was taught in Germany (since the 1860's).
Churches were against this - the case was even handled in the Prussian Parliament. And settled, because it was science, and science should be taught at schools.

Darwin's prefarory notice to the English edition of Müller's most important book.

And Darwin's work on the routes of male humble bees couldn't have been published if not found in Müller's literary remains - in German! (Link)


Sorry for the interruption.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 02:55 pm
Berthold Brecht said that a type of alienation is necessary in order to conduct a dispassionate argument.

As this is a science thread it is necessary to have dispassionate argument. To not have dispassionate argument takes us into the realm of belief systems and those are to be avoided like the plague if we are to remain scientific.

It is obvious that Brecht's statement is true and therefore posters need to be alienated which we might all agree is not very nice.

But by "type" of alienation I think Brecht meant a temporary alienation put on for the purpose of the argument and which can be discarded the rest of the time. It seems to me that it is only during such a phase of temporary alienation that genuine wit can arise. Brevity being simply a technique.

This is all very well in matters which are not too personal but the sexual selection aspects of Darwin's theories , the real nub of the issue, do involve peronal matters; the ironic erection, which Flaubert specialised in, being a minor case in point, and this nexus is the real problem for the theory in the classroom and in the school board, editorial suite and even court-room considerations of the subject,as we have seen. And it is where the psychsomatic problem is at its sharpest.

There are more than two sides here. There are two sides which both are aware of this approach, theologians, and there are two sides which are not and which bring emotional subjectivity arising from numerous possible sources to the table. The side which is aware of the dispassionate approach and opposes religion can only be motivated by a cynical motive and those who are aware who support religion can only be motivated by an appraisal of social consequences. These two sides might be accused of emotional involvement but then everything becomes so and the anarchists and nihilists are left to command the intellectual battlefield.

The sides which are not aware of these considerations might just as well be writing Christmas cards to each other or supporting two opposing football teams.

I would claim that I am the only poster on this thread who can achieve that type of alienation Brecht speaks of and which is necessary for serious work on a science thread. I can easily drop it too, in the pub or when my boiled eggs are too hard for example.

This, to me, is the explanation of why I am abused so much and treated with disdain by posters who are emotionally involved in these issues and who have no capacity for detachment from their own interest. It is also the explanation of why anything I post touching on these sensitive areas is ignored and recourse had to subjects which are emotionally neutral or second-hand reports of them. Tenth hand often as with wande's quotes.

However, Darwin in the classroom, unlike gravity in the classroom, or plant biology, or pollination of flowers by insects, cannot avoid this nexus between the science and personal sensitivity as it is central to the whole theory, reproduction being the powerhouse of evolution, and the reason there has been such a hot debate for 150 years about it. There is even food industry sensitivity to dietary science.

To pretend that the nexus doesn't exist, as even happened at Dover never mind in other places of smaller significance, is a total cop-out on the science, and those engaged in such a base betrayal are in no position to give lessons on the princples of science to those dispassionate observers of the passing scene who steel themselves to face the facts.
0 Replies
 
raprap
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 03:18 pm
Wish I'd have gone there Walter--at my high school in Tennessee, biology was taught be an elder at the local Church of Christ who made it apparent that Evolution wasn't credible, and the 'science' of biology was a study of taxonomy of creation and that fossils were planted to test faith---AKA the creator as joker ploy (a doctrine that I personally consider somewhat 'adolescent').

When my father (a microbiologist by education) found out about dogma as biology curriculum, he arranged for me to take chemistry that year in lieu of biology from that teacher. Caused quite a stir, and as a result I had to go to summer school at the local community college to get that science credit.

The experience taught me three things. One, if I wanted to enjoy my summer vacation I'd better get a job or I was going to find myself in school; Two, I didn't particularly like biology--too squishy, without the hard edges of chemistry, physics, and automotive shop; Three, science isn't dogma or metaphysics---science is what and how. Why is best left to theology.

Rap
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 04:20 pm
Were you in a mixed class rap?
0 Replies
 
raprap
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 04:42 pm
In high school I went to a military academy---all male, Summer school at the community college was mixed, although being 15 in a room full of college age coeds was pretty celibate.

My son was educated in biology at the Cincinnati Zoo Academy or Zoo School as it was called. Mixed classes, both sexes and species. One of his experiences was being wooed by a female bonobo. Proof, as he said, that it is the female of the species that guides evolutionary selection.

Rap
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 06:19 pm
I only graduated to Zoo School when I was old enough to go in pubs.

I was a late developer. I clung on to my innocence like grim death.

It was no use though.

Summer school at a mixed community college was never a trial I underwent.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Sat 22 Mar, 2008 07:03 am
Quote:
No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist Film
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 22 Mar, 2008 10:13 am
The real issue about ID is that many of us can laugh at their ignorance in trying to promote their religion in our schools, but those who believe are giving their heart and soul to this "project." Their money too!
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 22 Mar, 2008 10:51 am
It's an investment c.i. People don't give money away you nitwit.

The hoo-ha in wande's quote was a stunt.

Quote:
convention of atheists


convocation would be more appropriate I think. Garden equipment suppliers have conventions.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.16 seconds on 07/16/2025 at 07:56:25