Expelled

[Gnomad]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGCxbhGaVfE

Anyone heard about this movie? It looks really interesting, I'll have to check it out.

[Knifeboy]

Re: Expelled

I heard it wasn't even good for laughs

[BuddyGoodness]

Re: Expelled

silly

[TheRuleofThree]

Re: Expelled

This is the most one-sided, ignorant argument I've ever heard in regards to evolution and intelligent design.

The reason why intelligent design should NOT be taught in school is because it answers a potentially inexplicable premise - how did we get here? - with an inexplicable conclusion - because of God. We know evolution to be a sound theory, and natural selection explains the reasons why we can breathe and speak and walk. There are countless sides to this argument, but the bottom line is that teaching intelligent design in school predisposes students to viewing ignorance through faith as a true scientific position, which it is not.

It's too bad Ben Stein had to go and add more misinformation to the debate.

[And we'll just put a happy little bush over here.]

Re: Expelled

but even natural selection has major problems with it. for example, it does not explain differing sexualities (Joan Roughgarden evolution's rainbow)

auto-de-fe added 0 Minutes and 47 Seconds later...

that being said, i would like to hear the man out. i will more than likely end up disagreeing with him.

[TheRuleofThree]

Re: Expelled

Certainly there is a lot of progress to be made in evolution, but the mistake people make is defaulting back to intelligent design whenever a particular scientific theory doesn't fully explain things. Just because there may be a gap in the science doesn't mean that gap has to be a "creator." In fact, using gaps as proof of God is sort of like saying "See? We don't know.. which means it has to be God."

And I might add that the current God-driven hypotheses don't really account for differing sexualities either.

[And we'll just put a happy little bush over here.]

Re: Expelled

all i am saying is that both are terribly flawed. i am not willing to proclaim either as the better view. then again, i am not at all concerned with where we came from, god, apes, what's the difference? matters not.

auto-de-fe added 5 Minutes and 14 Seconds later...

when i read the genesis account, i do not read "creationism". rather, i read a protest story.

[TheRuleofThree]

Re: Expelled

Do you think it's fair to put creationism and evolution on the same level at all though? To say that both are flawed is misleading. Creationism's basic argument is that everything is too complicated to have an origin without a creator. It other words, the only proof of a higher power is our inability to explain things like "How did eyeballs evolve?" and "How did our universe come about?" That isn't proof... it's assuming the only answer is an even more unexplainable power. Evolution, while flawed in some regards, explains a lot of our questions about how we came about, why we have the tools to function on this planet, etc. The "gaps" and "flaws" in evolution are missing pieces of evidence from a full body of evidence.

I agree with you on Genesis as a protest story... and really, the whole Bible as a protest story. In this regard especially, I find it offensive that there are people who consider this "story" a science that should be taught on the same level as something like evolution. This isn't about which is better - the two aren't even in the same category. If people want to believe in a personal creator, that's fine, but it should not be taught as science.

[BuddyGoodness]

Re: Expelled

The theories do not have to be diametrically opposed. God could have created life and evolution is the mechanism by which his creation grows. Personally I don't believe in a God, at least not in the conventional religious sense, but I don't see why people have to constantly be pushing one or the other. Evolution has yet to explain how prebiotic coacervates made the leap to living creatures so there is still questions to be answered but evolution has been proven time and time again so the fact that it happens in pretty indisputable.

[Knifeboy]

Re: Expelled

all i am saying is that both are terribly flawed.

What's so "terribly flawed" about evolution?
There's no logical inconsistencies in the theory of evolution, so how can it be terribly flawed?

[And we'll just put a happy little bush over here.]

Re: Expelled

What's so "terribly flawed" about evolution?
There's no logical inconsistencies in the theory of evolution, so how can it be terribly flawed?

explain to me the use of differing sexualities, using darwinian logic. how does homosexuality fit within this rubric on natural selection.


i will get to the rest later. gotta catch my bus.

[Knifeboy]

Re: Expelled

Some scientists believe they've found evidence that the gene that they believe is linked to male homosexuality, improves fertility among women, and is thus beneficial in that way.

Even if that has no truth in it whatsoever, I don't see what's contradictory about differing sexualities and evolution.

[TheRuleofThree]

Re: Expelled

Two things.

Natural selection simply favors strong genes. It doesn't completely eliminate behavior or actions that may oppose reproduction or safety, especially in species that are otherwise safe like ours. Human behavior is partially what it is because our intelligence gives us enough of an upper hand in the food chain to allow for evolutionary development beyond what allows us to survive. In this sense, religion can be explained to. It doesn't serve any particular evolutionary purpose, but it has survived thousands of years. Lots of evolutionary psychologists relate this to a sort of "misfiring" of other strong evolutionary traits, like the fact that we teach our children to listen to their parents and follow their teachings. This is a strong part of our behavior that natural selection favors, but at the same time allows for the passing down of beliefs that may not be true or relevant.

I just want to clarify here that I'm not saying that evolution necessarily opposes the concept of a creator. For quite some time I believed in both. What I am saying, however, is that "creationism" is NOT science, and equating gaps in the science of evolution with gaps in the doctrine of creationism implies that they are equal. They are not.

Creationism explains nothing. It replaces an unexplainable reality with an unexplainable God. It's answer to every question is "God," itself an unanswerable question. What made God? Why did God make us? Who is God, what does he do? All of these questions are questions of faith that have nothing to do with science. I'm not claiming that they aren't valid questions, or that people that believe in a creator are stupid or can't hold those beliefs. I am simply stating that this is not a science, and introducing these beliefs in a classroom as a scientific theory is a mistake.

[BuddyGoodness]

Re: Expelled

explain to me the use of differing sexualities, using darwinian logic. how does homosexuality fit within this rubric on natural selection.


i will get to the rest later. gotta catch my bus.

Sexualities - genetic mutation perhaps? Homosexuality - a natural genetic response to over population? Who knows. Those are questions best posted to evolutionary biologists.

[Knifeboy]

Re: Expelled

TheRuleofThree.. The tables have turned!
You said in several paragraphs, what I could not say in 3 lines of text