RE: EXPELLED

RE: EXPELLED (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

mcp -> RE: EXPELLED (4/19/2008 1:26:36 AM)
quote: But if we are talking about an intelligence which may be entirely inhuman, or radically different from what we know, I don't think it can be detected in an easy fashion in all cases. There's always the possibility that something could be intelligently designed, yet be so radically different from our own methods of and concept of design (i.e. either so advanced, or foreign, or even so plentiful, or mundane looking) that it could be right under our noses, yet we wouldn't be able to see it as such. It appears for many posters on this thread that these last few phrases above may indeed be TRUE with regard to the physical universe [;)]... Sorry, it was just right there. But yes, before further digression, there could be those things which are designed by transcendent (or at least non-human/animal) beings that do not conjure our sense of that which is designed; however, when we speak of the physical reality (sorry to all Deepak Chopra/virtual reality fans), it does conjure something like that in many. And I would venture many here believe it should cross man's reasonable mind to consider that which is present to our 5 or so senses to have had need of a cause and due to the complexity, an intellectual force to set it in motion. I am aware that I just brought laws of causality into the discussion, but after all, in science and reason of the natural world, causality is key to the physical [note physical] and reflects on the ID considerations for complex systems, including man's abilities to discriminately observe the tool marks caused by man's abilities in ancient Mesopotamia.

henny -> RE: EXPELLED (4/19/2008 11:00:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mcp It appears for many posters on this thread that these last few phrases above may indeed be TRUE with regard to the physical universe [;)]... Sorry, it was just right there. I have no problem with the belief that the entire universe was designed, although this would really be something taken on faith. ID (or any form of "science") could never detect an intelligence that designed the universe in its entirety, as if the entire universe was intelligently designed, there would be nothing which was unintelligently designed against which we could determine intelligence. The designer's thumb print would be on everything, and by virtue of this, it would be entirely undectable via any empirical means. The most ID could point to in terms of a deity is a fallen and very human demiurge, who by some chance finds himself in the sandbox of a universe, and then designs in a manner which is subject to laws already set in motion (it seems vaguely gnostic to me). Even if Christians like the fact that ID does acknowledge the possibility of a designer, I don't think most realize how limited any possible designer it could detect would have to be. Any "intelligence" ID can claim to detect could never be the God described in the Bible. Which is why I've never understood why so many Christians seem to buy into it wholesale. It seems much more insidious and anti-Biblical in its effect than evolution ever was, as evolution never really says anything about a designer one way or another.

iluvatar -> RE: EXPELLED (4/19/2008 11:26:19 AM)
So, has anybody seen the movie yet? If so, what's your opinion of it? -Dan.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: EXPELLED (4/19/2008 11:42:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: henny But if we are talking about an intelligence which may be entirely inhuman, or radically different from what we know, I don't think it can be detected in an easy fashion in all cases. Even if true, with ID, we are talking about characteristics which we know are only the result of design (when the origins are known) and we apply those characteristics to objects of unknown origin. If they match, we infer those objects were the product of design. What you're referring to is the possibility of a false negative, ID can make false negatives. It maybe possible for an entity to create something such that we are unable to detect its design. We argue that a false positive will not happen, that is, if an object meets certain characteristics and the origins are known, they will be the result of design. Hence, we can argue that when we encounter those characteristics and they meet the criteria for design, then the object was designed. We are not referring to the possibility that some entity designs things different from how we would, we are referring to characteristics that we know are only the result of design when the origins are known.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: EXPELLED (4/19/2008 11:54:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: henny I have no problem with the belief that the entire universe was designed, although this would really be something taken on faith. I think it requires no more faith than assuming the entire universe was entirely the product of naturalistic processes. quote: ID (or any form of "science") could never detect an intelligence that designed the universe in its entirety ID tries to detect the work of an intelligence but we can't absolutely prove that something was the result of an intelligence. Science doesn't deal with absolute proof. quote: as if the entire universe was intelligently designed, there would be nothing which was unintelligently designed against which we could determine intelligence. We can look for characteristics that are only seen in designed objects where the origins are known. Objects without these characteristics may or may not be designed, but if we know that objects with certain characteristics are always designed when the origins are known then we can look for those characteristics in objects of unknown origin and make inferences. quote: Any "intelligence" ID can claim to detect could never be the God described in the Bible. ID doesn't claim to be able to detect who the intelligent designer is. There is no reason it couldn't be the God of the Bible (and the fact that so many people try to argue that it wouldn't be suggests that they aren't interested in the science, they are only interested in disproving Christianity). quote: Again, there's always the possibility that something could be designed yet be radically beyond anything humans are capable of. Even if it is beyond what humans are capable of, if it contains characteristics that are only seen in designed objects (ie: IC systems) where the origins are known, we can still infer design. At one time we did not know how the pyramids were designed, so we were unable to design them the way they were originally designed. So even if they were something that was beyond our capability to design (at least in its original form), that's not to say it isn't the product of design. We don't say, "we don't know how it was designed so it's not designed" we say, "it contains characteristics only seen in designed objects so its designed" even if we don't know how to design it. If we saw a spaceship on mars (that's perhaps from aliens), even if we are not yet capable of reproducing it, we can still infer it was designed if it contains characteristics only seen in designed objects where the origins are known. It could contain technology beyond our own, but if it contains certain characteristics, we can infer design. That's what SETI sets out to do. You keep mentioning the possibility of a false negative, ID can make false negatives, we argue it won't make false positives (even if the design is beyond our own capabilities to create). quote: If mankind from 1,000 years ago were to stumble upon a NASA shuttle, I think they'd obviously suspect something was up and that it wasn't "natural" -so I see the point you are making there (although, I think this would only be because a spaceship would share similar structural features to other things that they at the time were capable of designing). They would still be incapable of designing the shuttle at the time of discovery (1000 years ago) and despite their incapability, you argue they would still be able to detect that it was designed. Just because they are incapable of designing something doesn't mean they would assume it wasn't designed. The reason they can detect the design, as you said, is because it has characteristics that are only seen in designed objects where the origins are known, despite their inability to reproduce the shuttle. Just because they were incapable of reproducing the shuttle (because it's technologically is beyond them) does not mean that they can't infer design. Likewise, we argue that life has many of these same characteristics, but at a much more advanced level than our current capabilities to produce. If we can't reproduce it with forethought and an intent to reproduce it, what makes you think nature, through unguided naturalistic processes, could do so without forethought? We never see nature originate any such thing, so to assume that it did isn't scientific and it requires faith. Life seems to be something beyond natures ability to originate (through unguided naturalistic processes) and it seems to be (at least currently) beyond our own capabilities to originate (with guidance), so we can infer that something beyond both of our capabilities originated it. Since it contains characteristics only seen in designed objects, where the origins are known, we can infer it was designed.

henny -> RE: EXPELLED (4/19/2008 1:51:05 PM)
quote: ID doesn't claim to be able to detect who the intelligent designer is. There is no reason it couldn't be the God of the Bible (and the fact that so many people try to argue that it wouldn't be suggests that they aren't interested in the science, they are only interested in disproving Christianity). ID may not make any overt claims about who the intelligent designer is, but the claim that one can detect intelligence at all already infers something about the nature of this intelligence and the constraints under which it works. It couldn't detect the God of the Bible, as long as you hold that that God designed the universe in its totality. As long as you hold that God intelligently designed all things, there would be no means of detecting his intelligence from a point within the totality of his design. The trace of his intelligence (however you want to classify it) would be be present in everything, and thus completely invisible. "Design" only has meaning if there exists things which aren't designed (in fact, I don't think it would even be accurate to describe what God did in creating the totality as "design" in this sense). To use a rather crude example, it'd be a bit like growing up on a pig farm. The stench would be so omnipresent that you'd never be able to smell it unless you got outside of the stench, to smell "other" air. ID's estimation of "Design" only works within the totality of the laws of nature, and as such, it can only detect things seen to be "Designed" within its laws. It could never detect a trace of the Biblical God's intelligence unless it can remove itself from the totality of his design in someway, which is basically impossible. quote: That's what SETI sets out to do. SETI is just as flawed as ID, and in many ways is basically the same thing. SETI could only ever detect an intelligence which is equal in some way to human action. quote: They would still be incapable of designing the shuttle at the time of discovery (1000 years ago) and despite their incapability, you argue would still be able to detect that it was designed. Just because they are incapable of designing something doesn't mean they would assume it wasn't designed. The reason they can detect the design, as you said, is because it has characteristics that are only seen in designed objects where the origins are known, despite their inability to reproduce the shuttle. Just because they were incapable of reproducing the shuttle (because it's technologically beyond them) does not mean that they can't infer design. I actually agree with you on this. If, hypothetically, humanity discovered a modern spaceship 1,000 years ago they'd probably be able to conclude that it didn't derive from natural processes and was most likely "designed" -even if they themselves could not replicate this design (although, I think the hypothetical is kind of absurd, as we've yet to encounter anything quite like that -And pyramids don't really work as an example, I don't think). My only beef with ID in this case is that I think it misuses archeological conceptions of design in places where they aren't warranted, and attempts to divorce the concept of "design" and "intelligence" from human action. I don't think the concepts of "intelligence" and "design" have any meaning what so ever apart from human agency. In a sense, they are basically just glosses for "what humans do."

mcp -> RE: EXPELLED (4/19/2008 2:15:08 PM)
quote: I have no problem with the belief that the entire universe was designed, although this would really be something taken on faith. ID (or any form of "science") could never detect an intelligence that designed the universe in its entirety, There is a lot about the past and our existence and purpose that is taken by faith (to say you don't know the what, why and wherefores of reality, either past, pres, or future still requires you to assess the natural, the unknown and your track of life with faith that what knowledge/assumptions you do apply to get on in life is appropriate). quote: as if the entire universe was intelligently designed, there would be nothing which was unintelligently designed against which we could determine intelligence. The designer's thumb print would be on everything, and by virtue of this, it would be entirely undectable via any empirical means. That may be a reasonable conclusion and to me means that we all are forced to some level and type of faith; but walking in the notion that a designer never had a hand or hasn't demonstrated a hand in any observed reality would fall to the same limitations you posited. How do we know what is unitellegently designed or what level of intellegence was prescribed to anything? Are chaotic results designed? Who can say? Hence, we have those who refuse to acknowledge that nature or perhaps those things which seem chaos/chance driven to be undesigned or lacking evidence of intellegence; on the other hand, there are those who believe that everything is purposeful.... both showing faith in the unknown and faith in our reason, assumptions, and interpretations. It also requires faith in how we move on in this discussion assuming that if all is intellegently designed then all evidence of such is undetectable. Sounds like either way both sides of the argument could be stuck. quote: The most ID could point to in terms of a deity is a fallen and very human demiurge, who by some chance finds himself in the sandbox of a universe, and then designs in a manner which is subject to laws already set in motion (it seems vaguely gnostic to me). Even if Christians like the fact that ID does acknowledge the possibility of a designer, I don't think most realize how limited any possible designer it could detect would have to be. Any "intelligence" ID can claim to detect could never be the God described in the Bible. Which is why I've never understood why so many Christians seem to buy into it wholesale. It seems much more insidious and anti-Biblical in its effect than evolution ever was, as evolution never really says anything about a designer one way or another. This conclusion you present reflects points in my response above and I disagree this is the only angle available. afterall, some consider the laws of nature potentially designable [causality is a "law" we assume, observe and apply to observing/defining the natural; if there is a supernatural/paranatural, we can't say whether causality universally applies]. Yes, there are many including gnostics which believe that any god available is fallen due to the nature of the results or our abilities to conceive intellegence only in our own image (natural). That is something that each who believes a god is possible has to reconcile in their own way. If I understood you correctly, I don't see how you can deduct that a potential designer has to be anthromorphized; I don't disagree that we humans are limited by the laws of nature in how we design in our own right, but to me that doesn't preclude a designer of the laws which allows humans to be designers. Nor does it preclude our conception of said designer (we are finite creatures who can somewhat conceive of infinity, parallel reality, relative time, and transcendance). I also disagree with your conclusion (obviously) that the God of Bible is precluded and that it is more insidious to assume Him here. Your deduction of the only potential designers is the flaw IMHO [or your perceived indemnity from the traps in comparing what is product of intellegence/what is not.]

Bettawrekonize -> RE: EXPELLED (4/19/2008 2:29:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: henny Any "intelligence" ID can claim to detect could never be the God described in the Bible. The God of the Bible is perfectly capable of designing things that humans can design. quote: ID may not make any overt claims about who the intelligent designer is, but the claim that one can detect intelligence at all already infers something about the nature of this intelligence and the constraints under which it works. Well, it can give a lower limit as to the greatest capabilities of the entity, but it can't give an upper limit. A human can design a chariot, but just because a chariot is more primitive than a car, this does not mean humans can't design cars. If chariots exist and we know humans designed them, then we know that humans can at least design chariots and (probably) anything more primitive, but that's not to say that humans can't design anything more advanced (ie: cars). Observing the design does not tell us the constraints under which the intelligence works, it only tells us the intelligence is capable of producing this design. quote: It couldn't detect the God of the Bible, It doesn't detect any specific designer. quote: As long as you hold that God intelligently designed all things, there would be no means of detecting his intelligence from a point within the totality of his design. This is not to say that we can't detect characteristics only seen in designed objects of known origin, see if objects of unknown origin contain those characteristics, and if they do, determine they were designed. Again, it's possible for a designer to design something that doesn't have characteristics only seen in design, but when we observe that the origin of certain characteristics only come from design, then we can infer that objects of unknown origin were designed if they posses those characteristics. quote: The trace of his intelligence (however you want to classify it) would be be present in everything, and thus completely invisible. It's possible for Him to create things that do not contain characteristics only seen in designed objects of known origin. The entire universe is not composed of IC and SC systems. quote: To use a rather crude example, it'd be a bit like growing up on a pig farm. The stench would be so omnipresent that you'd never be able to smell it unless you got outside of the stench, to smell "other" air. Then that specific "stench" would not be an indicator of anything. However, there could be other "smells" within the farm that, when they emerge and their origins are known, could always indicate something. If we smell those other smells where the origins are unobserved, we can infer the origins. The universe is not composed entirely of IC and SC systems, but when we do observe the emergence of them, we know they are a product of design. Hence, we can infer that the ones that we don't know the origins of were also a product of design. Your point would only be valid if everything in the universe was an IC or SC system, but there are things on earth that do not posses IC or SC characteristics. When we observe IC or SC characteristics emerge, they are a product of design.

henny -> RE: EXPELLED (4/19/2008 2:38:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mcp Yes, there are many including gnostics which believe that any god available is fallen due to the nature of the results or our abilities to conceive intellegence only in our own image (natural). I raise the gnostic example, because I think all that ID could infer based upon empirical evidence of design is the existence of a gnostic demiurge type God, simply because ID must assume that the intelligence is oppporating within the laws of nature for it to be consistently detectable in anyway (i.e. it uses what comes about naturally and what doesn't come about naturally as it's "common dnominator" in determining design and intelligence). I actually think you could get around the problem I pose if you divide God in a similar way that the gnostics did -i.e. the universe as a totality was not caused by intelligent action, but rather was merely an inevitable result of emanation from the supreme Godhead. Then a lower order of the Godhead, as an intelligent designer, entered into this totality and designed humanity in a manner that was subject to is constraints. I don't think this is Biblical, but the best ID could point to is this "lower order" of demiurgic intelligence, as if one assumes that a uniform intelligence designed the universe in it's totality, as I stated above, this intelligence automatically becomes undetectable, as nothing would not be "intelligently designed" by it, and thus there would be no means of comparison, or common denominator, by which we could determine what is designed by it and what is not.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: EXPELLED (4/19/2008 2:55:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: henny I raise the gnostic example, because I think all that ID could infer based upon empirical evidence of design is the existence of a gnostic demiurge type God, simply because ID must assume that the intelligence is oppporating within the laws of nature for it to be consistently detectable in anyway ID does not have to assume it operates within the law of nature. We don't directly detect the designer, but we can detect an object to be designed. quote: I actually think you could get around the problem I pose What problem? You haven't posed any problem. quote: I don't think this is Biblical, but the best ID could point to is this "lower order" of demiurgic intelligence, as if one assumes that a uniform intelligence designed the universe in it's totality, as I stated above, this intelligence automatically becomes undetectable, as nothing would not be "intelligently designed" by it, and thus there would be no means of comparison, or common denominator, by which we could determine what is designed by it and what is not. quote: but the best ID could point to is this "lower order" of demiurgic intelligence...this intelligence automatically becomes undetectable How can ID point to an undetectable intelligence (I'm assuming you're not only referring to the direct observation of the intelligent agent, but you seem to be saying that it would be impossible to detect the work of an intelligent agent period). quote: I don't think this is Biblical Despite the fact that I pointed out inconsistencies in your logic, its interesting how you constantly try to denounce the Bible. quote: thus there would be no means of comparison I already explained what means of comparison we have. You are wrong here.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: EXPELLED (4/19/2008 3:01:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mcp It also requires faith in how we move on in this discussion assuming that if all is intellegently designed then all evidence of such is undetectable. Sounds like either way both sides of the argument could be stuck. Well, I think Henny is wrong here, but assuming he is right, this is a good point. The problem here is that the tax funded secular community brainwashes students with only one side of the issue (the side consistent with materialism) while censoring all criticisms and opposing views when their materialistic faith requires at least as much faith as Christianity. No one has ever observed the emergence of the universe and everything in it, so one has to have faith that everything in it is a product of unguided naturalistic processes, no less faith is required than the faith that Christianity requires. Yet, it seems like some materialists try to disguise their faith as science.

henny -> RE: EXPELLED (4/19/2008 6:47:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize ID does not have to assume it operates within the law of nature. We don't directly detect the designer, but we can detect an object to be designed. The laws of nature are implicated in it because design cannot arise naturally. An "intelligence" has to intervene into nature to create a "design" (i.e. It's highly improbable a space ship will appear on its own within nature, and we know that a spaceship is designed because it has certain attributes, complexisties, etc, which don't arise on their own in nature). So then the laws of nature themself end up becoming the common denominator in detecting ID, as they define what will arise naturally in nature on its own (or what comes about in a manner that isn't intelligently designed, or the things which aren't "irreducibly complex"), and, by comparison, what must require "intelligence" to come about. If the intelligence itself does not operate subject to the laws of nature, but rather can manipulate them or operate outside them somehow, it's designs would be undetectable in any real sense -as it's always possible it would merely be rewriting the laws of nature as it goes along. Which is what I mean when I suggest that to see something as "designed" already infers something about the intelligence that did the desiging. What it infers has nothing to do with the intelligence's ability to design things of varying levels of "complexity" (i.e. I'm not suggesting anything about infering whether it is capable of designing a "car" or "chariot") as much as it suggests, simply, that the intelligence is operating within the constrainst of what defines "That which is designed" and what defines "that which isn't designed" -or basically nature. This inference alone, I think already limits any "god" which ID could detect to one operating within the constraints of nature. So my basic point is that you can only consistently detect a design which assumes this uniform backdrop of natural laws. God does not meet this criteria, as he himself is not subject to the laws of nature. He created them. quote: How can ID point to an undetectable intelligence (I'm assuming you're not only referring to the direct observation of the intelligent agent, but you seem to be saying that it would be impossible to detect the work of an intelligent agent period). I think you are missing my point. I'm not suggesting ID can point to an undetectable intelligence at all. Quite the opposite, actually. I am only sugesting that it would be impossible to detect the work of an intelligent agent if the evidence of this agent (i.e. its designs) do not operate according to a consistent backdrop. Even more so if the same intelligence designed the "backdrop" in the same act as the designs within that backdrop, as in this case the same act of intelligence would be both the cause of what we see as "designed" and what we see as "not designed," so there would be no basis for us to detect its presence in terms of what we see as "designed" and "not designed." To do so would be to conclude from the laws of cause and effect (I.E. from the operations within the totality) that the "laws of cause and effect" (i.e. the totality as a whole) themselves need a cause, which doesn't work. quote: Despite the fact that I pointed out inconsistencies in your logic, its interesting how you constantly try to denounce the Bible. I'm not sure why you think this. I'm not denouncing the Bible at all. I'm defending the Bible from ID. I am suggesting that the only higher intelligence ID could ever point to would not be consistent with the Bibilical account of God. I am suggesting that ID could never point to a notion of God which sees him as a single intelligence responsible for the creation of the totality of all existence. I'm bored with this topic, though, and am basically repeating myself, so you can have the last word.

DanJames -> RE: EXPELLED (4/19/2008 8:56:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: iluvatar So, has anybody seen the movie yet? If so, what's your opinion of it? -Dan. I did! The interviews with people that have been "expelled" from the scientific community because they involved themselves with/talked about in a report/mentioned/acknowledged the existence of Intelligent Design was very enlightening. I feel like I have a better understanding as to why ID is NEVER debated in the public square.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: EXPELLED (4/19/2008 11:28:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: henny If the intelligence itself does not operate subject to the laws of nature, but rather can manipulate them or operate outside them somehow, it's designs would be undetectable in any real sense -as it's always possible it would merely be rewriting the laws of nature as it goes along. I don't see how the fact that an outside intelligence could manipulate or "rewrite" the laws of nature means that its designs are undetectable as being designed. ID may not be able to detect that an intelligence operates outside of nature, but that's not to say it would detect that doesn't either. Sure, an outside intelligence might be able to operate within the laws of nature, but that's not to say that it exclusively has to. Think of it this way. If I ran an emulation of an operating system within an outside operating system, I can manipulate the inside operating system from outside (ie: by manipulating the memory, adding files from outside the emulated operating system into the mounted file or partition that the emulated operating system is using). I can also work within the emulated operating system (ie: directly execute code within the emulated operating system, get a program that changes memory values within the operating system). However, if I work within the emulated operating system, I am constrained by what that emulated operating system allows me to do. If I work outside the operating system, my constraints are far fewer (I am only constrained by the outside operating system, hardware, and by the emulation program. I can manipulate the emulated operating system from outside and do the same things I can do from inside and I can manipulate it from outside and do things I can't from inside). The emulated operating system may require a password before it will allow me to continue operation at some point, where as I maybe able to manipulate the memory of the emulated operating system from outside and change things so as to circumvent the password that it's asking for. I don't have to work directly inside the emulation to manipulate things within the emulation. In fact, many emulators have ways of manipulating the emulated operating system from the emulator itself (outside the emulation) to do things the emulated operating system may be unable to do (or would at least have a lot more difficulty doing). For instance, you can save a specific state (from outside the emulated OS) and run an executable program and if you find the program is a virus, you can resort back to your saved place as if the virus were never run (and the virus can do nothing about this if the emulation software were designed properly). In this example, the emulated operating system is nature. The emulated operating system (nature) may have constraints (ie: on its applications or anyone working within the operating system) that the user outside of the emulated operating system (the agent outside of nature) does not have. The agent outside of nature maybe able to manipulate things within nature and even manipulate nature itself, but that's not to say that he is constrained by nature (or by the emulated operating system). ID would only be able to say that the agent is able to manipulate things within nature and design the object in question, it can't say much else. quote: Which is what I mean when I suggest that to see something as "designed" already infers something about the intelligence that did the desiging. What it infers has nothing to do with the intelligence's ability to design things of varying levels of "complexity" (i.e. I'm not suggesting anything about infering whether it is capable of designing a "car" or "chariot") as much as it suggests, simply, that the intelligence is operating within the constrainst of what defines "That which is designed" and what defines "that which isn't designed" -or basically nature. The agent may manipulate nature, but that's not to say it is operating within nature or within the constraints of nature. It maybe able to do stuff within nature that nature alone would be unable to do (ie: create IC and SC systems). Those IC and SC systems may operate within the laws of nature, but that's not to say nature would be able to originate them. quote: This inference alone, I think already limits any "god" which ID could detect to one operating within the constraints of nature. Just because an intelligent agent maybe able to operate within nature does not mean that it must. ID would be unable to detect that it can operate from outside nature, but ID can't say that it can't. quote: So my basic point is that you can only consistently detect a design which assumes this uniform backdrop of natural laws. God does not meet this criteria, as he himself is not subject to the laws of nature. He created them. It's true He is not subject to the laws of nature, but again, that's not to say he can't manipulate nature. quote: Even more so if the same intelligence designed the "backdrop" in the same act as the designs within that backdrop, as in this case the same act of intelligence would be both the cause of what we see as "designed" and what we see as "not designed," so there would be no basis for us to detect its presence in terms of what we see as "designed" and "not designed." What we see as "not designed" doesn't mean it's not designed, it just means that it doesn't contain characteristics that are only known to emerge as a result of design. When we see characteristics that are only observed to emerge as a result of design (which means that these characteristics were lacking before they emerged) then we can make inferences as to the origins of objects with these characteristics of unknown origin. Again, it's possible for ID to make false negatives, but we argue it won't make false positives. quote: To do so would be to conclude from the laws of cause and effect (I.E. from the operations within the totality) that the "laws of cause and effect" (i.e. the totality as a whole) themselves need a cause, which doesn't work. Science doesn't deal with questions of ultimate cause. quote: I'm not denouncing the Bible at all. I'm defending the Bible from ID. I am suggesting that the only higher intelligence ID could ever point to would not be consistent with the Bibilical account of God. I am suggesting that ID could never point to a notion of God which sees him as a single intelligence responsible for the creation of the totality of all existence. ID does not attempt to identify the designer so it wouldn't imply that the true God is the Biblical God but it wouldn't imply that it isn't. I don't see why ID could only point to an intelligence inconsistent to the Biblical God.

drj11 -> RE: EXPELLED (4/20/2008 10:12:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DanJames I did! The interviews with people that have been "expelled" from the scientific community because they involved themselves with/talked about in a report/mentioned/acknowledged the existence of Intelligent Design was very enlightening. I feel like I have a better understanding as to why ID is NEVER debated in the public square. http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/movies/18expe.html?ex=1332475200&en=709faf668585ee66&ei=5124&partner=digg&exprod=digg The stellar reviews just keep coming in: quote: One of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time, �Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed� is a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry. ... Mixing physical apples and metaphysical oranges at every turn �Expelled� is an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike. In its fudging, eliding and refusal to define terms, the movie proves that the only expulsion here is of reason itself. Ouch! Too bad you've been totally mislead. One of their interviewees who got 'expelled' wasn't even an employee in the first place. The others had questionable situations as well. Of course, the film plays off all of you're predispositions to believe in 'big science' conspiracies against ID. Its not that it lacks evidence... its a conspiracy!! Sure it is.

DanJames -> RE: EXPELLED (4/20/2008 12:06:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drj11 quote: ORIGINAL: DanJames I did! The interviews with people that have been "expelled" from the scientific community because they involved themselves with/talked about in a report/mentioned/acknowledged the existence of Intelligent Design was very enlightening. I feel like I have a better understanding as to why ID is NEVER debated in the public square. http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/movies/18expe.html?ex=1332475200&en=709faf668585ee66&ei=5124&partner=digg&exprod=digg The stellar reviews just keep coming in: quote: One of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time, �Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed� is a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry. ... Mixing physical apples and metaphysical oranges at every turn �Expelled� is an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike. In its fudging, eliding and refusal to define terms, the movie proves that the only expulsion here is of reason itself. Ouch! Too bad you've been totally mislead. One of their interviewees who got 'expelled' wasn't even an employee in the first place. The others had questionable situations as well. Of course, the film plays off all of you're predispositions to believe in 'big science' conspiracies against ID. Its not that it lacks evidence... its a conspiracy!! Sure it is. The clearly not liberal New York Times is giving a BAD REVIEW for Expelled?!!?! [sm=icon_smile_yikes.gif]I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT TO BELIEVE ANYMORE!!!! [sm=widecry.gif]

benelchi -> RE: EXPELLED (4/20/2008 12:27:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drj11 quote: ORIGINAL: DanJames I did! The interviews with people that have been "expelled" from the scientific community because they involved themselves with/talked about in a report/mentioned/acknowledged the existence of Intelligent Design was very enlightening. I feel like I have a better understanding as to why ID is NEVER debated in the public square. http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/movies/18expe.html?ex=1332475200&en=709faf668585ee66&ei=5124&partner=digg&exprod=digg The stellar reviews just keep coming in: quote: One of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time, �Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed� is a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry. ... Mixing physical apples and metaphysical oranges at every turn �Expelled� is an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike. In its fudging, eliding and refusal to define terms, the movie proves that the only expulsion here is of reason itself. Ouch! Too bad you've been totally mislead. One of their interviewees who got 'expelled' wasn't even an employee in the first place. The others had questionable situations as well. Of course, the film plays off all of you're predispositions to believe in 'big science' conspiracies against ID. Its not that it lacks evidence... its a conspiracy!! Sure it is. Your right we probably really need to heed what is being said by the leading scientist like Dawkins (author of the God delusion). In an interview in the movie Expelled he set us all straight with a far more scientific explanation about the appearance of design in life. He said that it was possible that extraterrestrial beings more advanced than us had intentionally seeded the planet with life, and that they themselves had evolved from a yet unknown process. With explanations like that, how could anyone possibly believe that God had anything to do with the design evident in life? Oh, wait. That was the part of the movie that caused the entirely sold out theater to erupt in laughter. How anyone could seriously put forth a theory like this one is beyond reason to me. Oh, and if you don't like that theory, many of the prominent evolutionary scientists have others just like it to choose from i.e. anything but God is a valid answer to them.

essentialsaltes -> RE: EXPELLED (4/20/2008 1:19:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: benelchi Your right we probably really need to heed what is being said by the leading scientist like Dawkins (author of the God delusion). In an interview in the movie Expelled he set us all straight with a far more scientific explanation about the appearance of design in life. He said that it was possible that extraterrestrial beings more advanced than us had intentionally seeded the planet with life, and that they themselves had evolved from a yet unknown process. With explanations like that, how could anyone possibly believe that God had anything to do with the design evident in life? Since Dawkins accepts evolutionary theory, he does not believe that aliens seeded earth with life. This was (as Dawkins relates it) in response to a hypothetical question about "whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It's the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be." Dawkins was trying to provide the most scientific version of ID theory; obviously, he's not the best choice of a spokesman for ID, but the fact that you found his statement ridiculous is not his fault, but ID's.

benelchi -> RE: EXPELLED (4/20/2008 1:34:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes quote: ORIGINAL: benelchi Your right we probably really need to heed what is being said by the leading scientist like Dawkins (author of the God delusion). In an interview in the movie Expelled he set us all straight with a far more scientific explanation about the appearance of design in life. He said that it was possible that extraterrestrial beings more advanced than us had intentionally seeded the planet with life, and that they themselves had evolved from a yet unknown process. With explanations like that, how could anyone possibly believe that God had anything to do with the design evident in life? Since Dawkins accepts evolutionary theory, he does not believe that aliens seeded earth with life. This was (as Dawkins relates it) in response to a hypothetical question about "whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It's the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be." Dawkins was trying to provide the most scientific version of ID theory; obviously, he's not the best choice of a spokesman for ID, but the fact that you found his statement ridiculous is not his fault, but ID's. You are right about the question "it was in the movie", but you have very much mis-characterized his answer, his answer implied a far more vigorous defense of that proposition that you would lead people to believe. Additionally, Dawkens had be quite public about his view that there is an apparent design in life long before this movie came out. Trying to blame ID for this garbage is really a strawman.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: EXPELLED (4/20/2008 3:37:46 PM)
I found this interesting quote: Darwin Central Advocates Crime - Make a Pirate Copy of Expelled Comment written by a moderator of Darwin Central: Someone desparately need to blog an exclusive pirated copy of Ben Stein�s Expelled. quote: ORIGINAL: Gods iPod Over at Digg, they are nearly all suggesting people pirate it. (post 4) http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwin-central-advocates-crime-make-a-pirate-copy-of-expelled/ and then Gods ipod quotes some inappropriate, hostile quotes made by darwinists on Digg criticizing the movie (and he provides a link. I will not quote them here because it would likely get me banned from here). It's amazing how much hostility some of these people have toward anyone who criticizes their naturalistic religion or introduces opposing views, even suggesting to break the law for the sake of posting a movie and trying to refute it. Forget the law, it's not important when it interferes with their noble ends of restricting academic freedom and open inquiry.

DanJames -> RE: EXPELLED (4/20/2008 3:43:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize I found this interesting quote: Darwin Central Advocates Crime - Make a Pirate Copy of Expelled Comment written by a moderator of Darwin Central: Someone desparately need to blog an exclusive pirated copy of Ben Stein�s Expelled. quote: ORIGINAL: Gods iPod Over at Digg, they are nearly all suggesting people pirate it. (post 4) http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwin-central-advocates-crime-make-a-pirate-copy-of-expelled/ and then Gods ipod quotes some inappropriate, hostile quotes made by darwinist on Digg criticizing the movie (and he provides a link). It's amazing how much hostility some of these people have toward anyone who criticizes their naturalistic religion or introduces opposing views, even suggesting to break the law for the sake of posting a movie and trying to refute it. Especially one put together as well as Ben Stein did with this one.

DanJames -> RE: EXPELLED (4/20/2008 3:51:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drj11 Too bad you've been totally mislead. One of their interviewees who got 'expelled' wasn't even an employee in the first place. The others had questionable situations as well. Of course, the film plays off all of you're predispositions to believe in 'big science' conspiracies against ID. Its not that it lacks evidence... its a conspiracy!! Sure it is. Which interviewee was not an employee of the organization of which he claimed to not be an employee? Please tell me because you're basically saying that Ben Stein and ALL the producers of this documentary are liars. And what's with the waving of the hand? "The others had questionable situations." So basically none of these people were fired because of their relationship with ID? Who are they, who were their employers, and what were the situations under which they were fired? Have you seen the movie? Did you see the letters from their employers? Should I just be more skeptical?

mcp -> RE: EXPELLED (4/20/2008 3:56:33 PM)
As a slight aside- for those on this forum that disagree with ID being a viable assumption on which to bounce science off or just reject God (as wholly unevidenced), how do you feel about Dawkins? I know some in agreement with his stance feel he isn't the best spokesman or PR rep for atheism or evolution, but what about his arguments & evolutionary explanations? I only know of his main contributions and have only read short paragraphs of his books in the past; but he seems to be the forefront in the critique of this movie (that is, of the anti-IDer experts interviewed for the movie, not ny times editors and such). I haven't seen the movie yet, but am more interested now that I have seen the angst, increased tensions and the he said, she said non-sense. Of course, as people see the movie, I am sure interested in your takes of the presentation as well; more so than news articles. Regards.

mcp -> RE: EXPELLED (4/20/2008 3:59:10 PM)
Thanks, DanJames, for the post-viewing opinion.

DanJames -> RE: EXPELLED (4/20/2008 4:42:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mcp Thanks, DanJames, for the post-viewing opinion. Thank YOU, sir. Not very expansive, I know, but I try to balance spoilage with informativeness.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI