Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

[DaveC]

Let's just say there's a reason it's "Judeo-CHRISTIAN," and not "Judeo."

You're digging your own grave with your logic here.

This is getting ridiculous.

While it's entertaining, let's get back to the topic at hand, shall we?

 

[coemgen]

Judeo-Christian = Judaism & Christianity
Ben Stein = an adherent of Judaism
therefore,
Ben Stein = Judeo-Christian

But of course, now we're arguing a stupid point that really has little to do with the topic.

This is horrible logic. He's Jewish. Judaism came before Christianity. Why would someone of the Jewish faith say they believe both Jewish and Christian traditions/texts, when they don't?

Yolland — do you consider yourself a Judeo-Christian?

 

[coemgen]

This is getting ridiculous.

While it's entertaining, let's get back to the topic at hand, shall we?

Agreed - as long as we can cut the insults and have a respectful conversation.

 

[DaveC]

Agreed - as long as we can cut the insults and have a respectful conversation.

No promises (this is why I tend to avoid making replies in FYM), but I will try.

 

[coemgen]

Hey, understood.

Keep making replies here though. That's what it's all about — the discussion.

 

[DaveC]

I gotta admit I really want to hear yolland's answer.

 

[coemgen]

Me too.

A brilliant mind.

 

[DaveC]

I've got to go to bed.

Although you can be sure I'll be back tomorrow.

 

[coemgen]

Right on.

Have a good night.

 

[melon]

Wait, we're supposed to accept a theory just because it's a common theory? So we check our brain at the door and ignore independent thought?

Scientific theory is not common theory. A scientific theory is declared one, due to overwhelming evidence. Before that, it is considered a scientific hypothesis, which would be what non-scientific folk would consider a "common theory." Even then, there is some mathematical or logical basis that would establish a scientific hypothesis.

Too many people don't put faith in a theory. It doesn't answer everyone's questions, and many find holes in the theory. Why suppress other views? Isn't that what science has always fought against?

I'm sorry. This kind of statement just shows how completely lacking scientific education is in this country. This is probably why people think nothing of adding religious nonsense into science, when it is completely uncalled for, according to centuries of established scientific rules.

 

[melon]

I understand that, but look at what you said: "it's the best workable model to explain the known facts." Like I said before, many people find holes in the theory. It doesn't explain everything to them, so for them, it's not the best workable model. It's hard for some people to accept. Why is it so wrong to not accept that? Then some people put both God and evolution together. That for them is the best workable model. Why not welcome more ideas and lines of thought into the discussion? That's all the movie is getting at, really.

God+scientific evolution=evolutionary creationism/theistic evolution, not intelligent design.

God+pseudoscience masquerading as "evolution"=intelligent design

If you want more "ideas and lines," these are things to discuss in a religion class or even perhaps a philosophy class.

If you want to add more "ideas and lines" into a science class, then you had best be prepared to do research, experiments, advanced mathematics, and extensive peer review duplicating and accepting those results before it would ever be considered going into science.

See the difference? Science is not receptive to cultural relativism. It deals solely in verifiable facts.

 

[melon]

Stein: There are definitely people who are people of faith and have no problem with Darwinism. To tell you the truth, up to a very large point, I have no problem with Darwinism. I think Darwinism as a theory explaining evolution within species is incredibly brilliant, just unbelievably incredibly brilliant.

But, as a theory that explains everything in terms of evolution--in terms of development of life, it explains very, very little. Darwinism doesn't explain where gravity comes from. It doesn't explain where thermodynamics comes from. It doesn't explain where the laws of physics come from. It doesn't explain where matter came from.

To tie everything together, God seems like the only logical explanation.

Religion or philosophy class, not science class!

 

[melon]

Let's just say there's a reason it's "Judeo-CHRISTIAN," and not "Judeo."

You're digging your own grave with your logic here.

"Judeo-Christian" refers to the common beliefs and mythology held by either Jews or Christians. If you wanted to describe the common beliefs and mythology held by Jews, Christians, or Muslims, then you'd refer to it as the "Abrahamic faiths."

Quite obviously, this is more of an academic categorization, much like "Indo-European" in linguistics and sometimes ethnicity. Most everyone here is speaking an Indo-European language. But when it comes to self-identification, we will merely state the individual Indo-European language that we speak: English, Spanish, French, German, Greek, Persian, etc.

 

[coemgen]

Religion or philosophy class, not science class!

No, all three.

The science of everything can be discussed, but if someone wants to share their reasoning for ID, they should be allowed. That's it.

 

[coemgen]

"Judeo-Christian" refers to the common beliefs and mythology held by either Jews or Christians. If you wanted to describe the common beliefs and mythology held by Jews, Christians, or Muslims, then you'd refer to it as the "Abrahamic faiths."

Quite obviously, this is more of an academic categorization, much like "Indo-European" in linguistics and sometimes ethnicity. Most everyone here is speaking an Indo-European language. But when it comes to self-identification, we will merely state the individual Indo-European language that we speak: English, Spanish, French, German, Greek, Persian, etc.

Thanks for the breakdown, but I still don't see many Jewish people calling themselves Judeo-Christians.

 

[coemgen]

God+scientific evolution=evolutionary creationism/theistic evolution, not intelligent design.

God+pseudoscience masquerading as "evolution"=intelligent design

If you want more "ideas and lines," these are things to discuss in a religion class or even perhaps a philosophy class.

If you want to add more "ideas and lines" into a science class, then you had best be prepared to do research, experiments, advanced mathematics, and extensive peer review duplicating and accepting those results before it would ever be considered going into science.

See the difference? Science is not receptive to cultural relativism. It deals solely in verifiable facts.

I agree. I, for one, am not a science guru that you or A_Wanderer are. I can humbly acknowledge that. However, there are many people out there who are and happen to believe in a creator, and I think if they want to include God in their scientific thought, they should. That's it.

 

[Vincent Vega]

I understand that, but look at what you said: "it's the best workable model to explain the known facts." Like I said before, many people find holes in the theory. It doesn't explain everything to them, so for them, it's not the best workable model. It's hard for some people to accept. Why is it so wrong to not accept that? Then some people put both God and evolution together. That for them is the best workable model. Why not welcome more ideas and lines of thought into the discussion? That's all the movie is getting at, really.

So, because the one theory still has holes, which really are not big enough to refute the whole theory, they therefore create and cite a hypothesis with even greater holes and lots of evidence disproving it?

Sounds reasonable.

On the quote of Ben Stein, I agree wholeheartedly, and I sure hope this trend doesn't come to Germany like so many other trends.

 

[INDY500]

Can't wait to see this movie. Now if I can just get a day off.

But really. Pity the poor kid that does dare ask "How did the universe start?" in school. We certainly wouldn't want to open up discussion and stimulate young minds with conjecture and theories of "rubberband universes," "multiple universes,""infinite universes" or (urgh) "designed universes."

Why, next thing you know, they'll be reading science fiction.

Or dreaming. Dreaming of future discoveries, voyages, experiments, adventures and maybe (urgh) learning more about their God. After all, that's what motivated men like Galileo, Kepler and Isaac Newton and Von Braun.
But what did they know?

 

[Vincent Vega]

What, students in the US aren't allowed to ask or present their own theories to class anymore?

Yeah, I pity those kids, too.

 

[melon]

Can't wait to see this movie. Now if I can just get a day off.

But really. Pity the poor kid that does dare ask "How did the universe start?" in school. We certainly wouldn't want to open up discussion and stimulate young minds with conjecture and theories of "rubberband universes," "multiple universes,""infinite universes" or (urgh) "designed universes."

Why, next thing you know, they'll be reading science fiction.

Or dreaming. Dreaming of future discoveries, voyages, experiments, adventures and maybe (urgh) learning more about their God. After all, that's what motivated men like Galileo, Kepler and Isaac Newton and Von Braun.
But what did they know?

This is the kind of stuff appropriate for a course in philosophy or even creative writing in an English class. But you know how it goes. The standardized tests don't include this kind of "frivolous knowledge," so public schools won't teach it.

The government consistently barks about how American students are not prepared for math and science. Well, guess what? Do you think that those highly competitive students coming out of Asia are entertaining pseudoscience like "intelligent design" in science class? No, it's not scientific. It has no place in science class.

The more that the Religious Right pursues their vigorously anti-intellectual, anti-science agenda, the more American students will continue to lose out. Some subjects are open to subjective interpretation and discussion, like literature or philosophy. Some subjects deal solely in factual knowledge, like mathematics and science. 2+2, in base 10 math, is always 4. If some Religious Right organization decided that the Bible said 2+2=5, and wanted to teach students that there was, indeed, an "alternative answer" to 2+2, it still would not change the fact that 2+2, in base 10 math, is always 4. Likewise, the scientific method and all the evidence points to the scientific Theory of Evolution. "Intelligent design" has been evaluated, and contains so many blatant scientific errors, you can tell it was formulated by a group of people with a poor scientific background. And this is before we even get to non-scientific, non-verifiable claims about God!

Those who advocate "intelligent design" as an "alternative theory" that deserves a "place" in science class (and simultaneously refers to evolution as "just a theory") are, frankly, people who have clearly failed in their understanding of science and the scientific method--Ben Stein included. And they are merely proving the government correct in that Americans generally have a poor grasp of science.

 

[melon]

This whole "debate," which has been raging for a century or more now, is frankly ridiculous. I went to a religious school for 13 years, and not once was my scientific education compromised with non-scientific principles.

Hell...the Big Bang theory was created by a Belgian Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître. His theory, actually, was not embraced at all by the scientific community, at first, because they were inclined to believe that the universe just "always existed," and to create a beginning, they thought, implied a religious connotation. Sounds like a superficial connection to "intelligent design," right?

That's where the similarities end. Lemaître was a mathematician and scientist, and had very clearly created this theory, based on scientific evidence, not religious precepts. He published his theories, opened them up for criticism, and let the facts do the work. And, eventually, science embraced the Big Bang, because the science was sound. Lemaître died in 1966, shortly after cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered, proving his theory.

 

[1stepcloser]

 

[coemgen]

Yeah, but how does the Big Bang negate God?

Let's not forget, too — There is no theory of evolution, just the animals Chuck Norris has allowed to stay alive.

 

[deep]

My 80 year old neighbor asked me to take her to see this movie,
will probably go next Wed or Thurs evening.

 

[melon]

Yeah, but how does the Big Bang negate God?

And how does the scientific Theory of Evolution negate God? Darwin didn't think it did. The Catholic Church clearly doesn't think it does either.

Science doesn't inherently negate God either. It is theologically agnostic; it deals solely in the theoretical, observable, and verifiable in the concrete universe of ours.

"Intelligent design," frankly, is completely superfluous, in light of these facts. The people who fabricated this pseudoscience either wasn't aware of the concept of "evolutionary creationism/theistic evolution" or is using it as a backdoor attempt to open up teaching Biblical creationism in public schools.

I think, frankly, the answer is the latter.

 

[INDY500]

Can we still mention that the planets and moons in our solar system, why even our moon (and the programs that allowed man to walk it's surface) are all given the names of Roman gods? As well as many comets and our Sun.
Or would that be promoting polytheistic paganism?

 

[melon]

Can we still mention that the planets and moons in our solar system, why even our moon (and the programs that allowed man to walk it's surface) are all given the names of Roman gods? As well as many comets and our Sun.
Or would that be promoting polytheistic paganism?

Only a creationist would make an inane comment like that.

 

[Bluer White]

Can we still mention that the planets and moons in our solar system, why even our moon (and the programs that allowed man to walk it's surface) are all given the names of Roman gods? As well as many comets and our Sun.
Or would that be promoting polytheistic paganism?

I think the origin of names of the planets and moons should be addressed in philosophy class. The same goes for the intelligent design theory, which I subscribe to somewhat.

But in science class, in public schools.......not so much.

 

[melon]

So is this what this thread is going to devolve into? A logically fallacious "appeal to ridicule"?

I guess when one's arguments run out...

 

[indra]

I think the origin of names of the planets and moons should be addressed in philosophy class.

Or when studying literature/mythology. Or ancient history. It fits very well in several subjects...just not science.