RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (121) < ... 29 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 39 ... >   
  Topic: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed., Sternberg, Gonzalez, Crocker - A film< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
theloneliestmonk



Posts: 11
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,16:12   

Kevin Miller really does = FTK???

Kevin writes,

In response to your question, Ellazim, I think you are a reasonable person. You other guys, however, need to take a primer on post-modernism. There's objective reality, and then there's our subjective experience and interpretation of that reality. All knowledge is perspectival, there's no way around it. No one can experience reality objectively, only from his or her limited point of view. That's why, when presented with the same body of evidence, people will arrive at such different conclusions. How we interpret the evidence depends on the worldview through which we view the evidence.

Here:
http://kevinwrites.typepad.com/otherwi....omments

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4820
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,16:20   

The value of pi is not socially constructed. People with all sorts of "worldviews" agree on pi, just as they agree on the findings of evolutionary biology. How can that happen if the social solipsism of dilettante post-modernists were true?

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on April 04 2008,16:48

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
godsilove



Posts: 36
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,16:20   

Mike Huckabee plugs Expelled.  I'm SHOCKED!

http://vbuttons.com/ec/8683/index.php?em_id=13156243

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1028
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,17:57   

Stein basically admits that he just wishes to silence scientists like Darwin.  This is a post that I have tried to put onto Talkorigins (hasn't gone through before now, anyway).  I think it really could be some good ammunition against their hypocritical attacks on science:

 
Quote


More dull, ignorant repetition from the highly prejudiced Stein:

http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007058.cfm

Then

 
Quote
5. What would you like to say to Darwin?

[Ben Stein]"You are a wealthy man, you married a wealthy woman, why don’t you just live quietly out in the countryside and not torture us with your half-baked suppositions, which have caused so much misery?"

I want to emphasize, Darwin was not like the crazed neo-Darwinists of today. Darwin believed in the freedom of inquiry. He encouraged there to be further study and debate. He said that in writing before he died.

Neo-Darwinists ask us to believe in things not seen. We’re not supposed to have an established religion in America, but we do, and it’s called Darwinism.



The guy can't help but contradict himself.  All he wants to happen is for Darwin, and those who accept his theory, to shut up, the complete opposite of their claims to desire freedom and open inquiry

And of course we happen to believe in freedom of inquiry, Stein is just too stupid and dishonest to even consider how this could be the case.

Certainly we don't want them to believe in things not seen (the IDists obviously do), we want people to have the freedom to observe and to follow the evidence.  The evidence of evolution is quite visible and quite easily seen, except for those who just want scientists to shut up, as Ben obviously does.


Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Jasper



Posts: 76
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,19:39   


  
Jason Spaceman



Posts: 163
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,19:48   

Dembski watched Expelled and made a bold prediction:

Quote
"FORT WORTH, Texas (BP)--A controversial documentary set for release nationwide April 18 could foster a cultural shift "equivalent to the fall of the Berlin Wall," says William Dembski, research professor of philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.


Oh, and Dembski also added:

Quote
"One of the biggest obstacles to people coming to Christ in Western culture is the impression that science has disproved the Bible and Christianity," he said. "ID therefore helps to correct this false impression by showing that our best science supports belief in a higher intelligence responsible for life. ID does not give you the Christian God as such, but it puts you in the right ballpark."

   
Annyday



Posts: 583
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,20:03   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 04 2008,16:20)
The value of pi is not socially constructed. People with all sorts of "worldviews" agree on pi, just as they agree on the findings of evolutionary biology. How can that happen if the social solipsism of dilettante post-modernists were true?

My favorite version of this is that even the most post of postmodernists rely happily upon gravity. True social constructivists ought to fear that gravity will give out at any moment. If you abide by and coexist with gravity, for whatever reason, you ought to accept at least a modicum of shared reality.

--------------
"ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

  
kevinmillerxi



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,20:06   

i think wesley et al misunderstood my meaning. see my latest comment on the "everyone who disagrees with me is stupid' post on my blog.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,20:13   

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ April 04 2008,20:06)
i think wesley et al misunderstood my meaning. see my latest comment on the "everyone who disagrees with me is stupid' post on my blog.

So Kevin, why are you guys emailing people and telling them that screenings are moved or cancelled when they're not? Isn't that, like, lying?

I mean, as much as you want to keep educated people away from this film, you do realize that you can't keep them away *forever*, right?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Jason Spaceman



Posts: 163
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,20:31   

Mathis changes his story again:

Quote
Some of the pro-evolution scientists and philosophers in the film have claimed the interviews were conducted under false pretenses -– a claim Stein and the producers reject. Mathis said he contacted each person, telling him or her they were working on a film about the cultural intersection of evolution, religion and Intelligent Design.

"[We said,] 'You, Mr. or Mrs. Scientist, are an outspoken person on this topic. Would you like to do an interview with us on this film? And you'll be paid.' And they said, 'Sure, we'd love to,' because they do this sort of thing all the time," Mathis said.

In some instances, he said, questions were sent to people in advance. After the interview was done, the person signed a form giving the producers the rights to use the footage as they deemed necessary. Those who believe in evolution, Mathis said, are given ample time in the film to explain their position. The producers didn't tell anyone the name of the film, he added, because the film didn't yet have one.


Yet, according to the letter Mathis sent PZ in April/2007 the film was titled "Crossroads:  The Intersection of Science and Religion."

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,20:38   

Darn. Kevin wandered off again. I really wanted to hear his explanation of why Jesus wants him to lie to people about movie times.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,20:43   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 04 2008,18:13)
   
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ April 04 2008,20:06)
i think wesley et al misunderstood my meaning. see my latest comment on the "everyone who disagrees with me is stupid' post on my blog.

So Kevin, why are you guys emailing people and telling them that screenings are moved or cancelled when they're not? Isn't that, like, lying?


For Jesus.  That makes it OK.  Besides it's our fault for being evil and truthful.

 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 04 2008,18:13)

I mean, as much as you want to keep educated people away from this film, you do realize that you can't keep them away *forever*, right?


Well, at best they've got about 2 weeks of "intellectual freedom" left.  Of course, it doesn't really matter since they've already failed multiple times. They know this, hence the enforcers in night-vision gear stalking the aisles during screenings.  Maybe they can ask Dr. Gaius Baltar to develop a Darwinist detector and have people submit a blood sample along with 12 forms of identification, a letter of recommendation from at least 3 members of the clergy/academia on the DI-approved list of those religious and "scientific" professionals who reject "Darwinism", an affidavit testifying to personal academic suppresion, forensically verified photographic evidence of church attendance, and of course their ticket stub which must actually be for Expelled. That'd probably work.  

Or, they could just decide not to release the film at all. On any medium. Ever.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,20:48   

Quote (theloneliestmonk @ April 04 2008,15:12)
Kevin Miller really does = FTK???

Kevin writes,

In response to your question, Ellazim, I think you are a reasonable person. You other guys, however, need to take a primer on post-modernism. *snip*

AGAIN?  :angry:

Kevin, the PM argument is like writing a short story in Freshman Composition about how the deer feels about hunting season. *yawn*

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,21:14   

Quote (Glen Davidson @ April 04 2008,16:57)
Stein basically admits that he just wishes to silence scientists like Darwin.  This is a post that I have tried to put onto Talkorigins (hasn't gone through before now, anyway).  I think it really could be some good ammunition against their hypocritical attacks on science:

     
Quote


More dull, ignorant repetition from the highly prejudiced Stein:

http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007058.cfm

Then

     
Quote
5. What would you like to say to Darwin?

[Ben Stein]"You are a wealthy man, you married a wealthy woman, why don’t you just live quietly out in the countryside and not torture us with your half-baked suppositions, which have caused so much misery?"*snips


Glen Davidson

RichardDawkins.net has barf emoticons. I hereby put in a request for them at this site.

That is the end! I have never seen a bigger media whore Flaubert-for-hire, smarmy, dishonest, preening, self-inflated (except probably in critical areas), repulsive windbag fark than Ben Stein. *expels barf*

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
stevestory



Posts: 10212
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,22:27   

Quote (Jason Spaceman @ April 04 2008,20:48)
Dembski watched Expelled and made a bold prediction:

 
Quote
"FORT WORTH, Texas (BP)--A controversial documentary set for release nationwide April 18 could foster a cultural shift "equivalent to the fall of the Berlin Wall," says William Dembski, research professor of philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Dembski said the Berlin Wall thing years ago, IIRC. Didn't happen then, ain't happening now.

   
ERV



Posts: 329
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,22:50   

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ April 04 2008,20:06)
i think wesley et al misunderstood my meaning. see my latest comment on the "everyone who disagrees with me is stupid' post on my blog.

Who made your animation, Kevin?

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4820
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,23:58   

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ April 04 2008,20:06)
i think wesley et al misunderstood my meaning. see my latest comment on the "everyone who disagrees with me is stupid' post on my blog.


Clearing up misunderstanding could be good.

The quote from Kevin that started this:

 
Quote

In response to your question, Ellazim, I think you are a reasonable person. You other guys, however, need to take a primer on post-modernism. There's objective reality, and then there's our subjective experience and interpretation of that reality. All knowledge is perspectival, there's no way around it. No one can experience reality objectively, only from his or her limited point of view. That's why, when presented with the same body of evidence, people will arrive at such different conclusions. How we interpret the evidence depends on the worldview through which we view the evidence.


Now Kevin's latest comment:

 
Quote

I think what's also getting missed here is the point that I'm not saying reality is socially constructed.


Don't various post-modernists say exactly that? Is that not in the recommended primer on post-modernism?

 
Quote

But our interpretation of that reality certainly is.


Not *all* interpretations are socially constructed, thus my reference to the concept of pi. If pi is an exception, then so can other things be...

 
Quote

Take the fossil record, for example.


Science works by not relying upon individual interpretations, but rather placing value in the evidence and inferences from that evidence that can survive a process of intersubjective criticism. It is still not the unobtainable goal of objective knowledge, but it is as close as we humans have managed to come.

 
Quote

We're all working with the same body of data.


What exactly does Kevin mean when he says that he has been "working with" data from the fossil record?

 
Quote

There's no question that the fossils are out there, and that these are the calcified remains of creatures that were once alive.
But over the years, people have interpreted this body of evidence in vastly different ways.


Historically, though, there were "interpretations" of the fossil evidence that held that they were more like crystals in their formation, and not the remains of once-living organisms. There were "interpretations" that God created them in situ out of whimsy.

 
Quote

Why is that? Because each person brings something different to the evidence.


Why then does the scientific community, comprising millions of individuals from almost every culture in the world, have just one broad consensus that the fossil record shows the history and diversity of life evolving by descent with modification showing common descent from one or a few original forms? Is that "interpretation" of only equal value to the "interpretation" of the long-dead people who didn't even believe that fossils were anything but odd mineral deposits? Or can there be "interpretations" that can be demonstrated to be superior to other "interpretations" by consistent criteria? Whether Dawkins notes it or not, ignorance is common. Do the "interpretations" of people who are ignorant count just the same as the interpretation hammered out over decades of intersubjective criticism and testing by thousands of domain experts?
The science community subjects interpretations to intersubjective criticism and ruthlessly discards the unworkable, meaningless, and counterfactual interpretations. Does that count for anything in the end product?

 
Quote

We all view it through a different worldview. After all, if the data truly were conclusive--if we were all able to view it objectively--the proper interpretation should be plainly evident to everyone, not just a select few. (which brings us back to the stupid/ignorant/insane/wicked thing, I know).


Actually, with the fossil record, the interpretation of common descent is accepted by the great preponderance of those who have spent their lives gaining expertise in paleontology. Isn't it instead only a few hundred people with advanced degrees of any sort at all who insist on a different "interpretation", as in the DI "Dissent from Darwin" list?

Is post-modernism a field comprised of independent claims that don't have to be taken as any sort of coherent whole? Doesn't post-modernism espouse moral relativism? Don't some post-modernists deny an objective reality? Why do religious antievolutionists invoke select parts of post-modernism that conveniently immunize claims from criticism, but fail to adopt the rest of the post-modernist agenda?

I'm all for clearing up possible misunderstanding, so let's reduce this to practice. Let's recall that Kevin has tossed his hat in the ring as someone who has enough understanding of the fossil evidence to be able to justify his own "interpretation" of what it means (that pronoun "we" implies just that). So, Kevin, let's see your "interpretation" of what the evidence in the following reference to the peer-reviewed literature shows. I say it shows an instance of speciation, something that Ben Stein likes to imply doesn't happen.

 
Quote

Pearson, P.N.; Shackleton, N.J.; and Hall, M.A., 1997. Stable isotopic evidence for the sympatric divergence of _Globigerinoides_trilobus_ and _Orbulina_universa_ (planktonic foraminifera). Journal of the Geological Society, London, v.154, p.295-302.


Happily, Don Lindsay has put various of the figures online for your viewing pleasure.

Someone claiming to be "working with" the evidence of the fossil record in some substantive sense should either already be familiar with the cited work or have no difficulty in locating and retrieving the actual paper for study.

Is there an alternative "interpretation" that follows from a principled examination of the evidence?

There are a lot of ways to argue to set aside this research that have nothing to do with the evidence at all. This is where religious antievolutionists shine. The following is from a challenge I make to people who claim that no transitional fossil sequences exist.

 
Quote

Evidentiary and Non-Evidentiary Responses to Challenges

There are two main ways in which respondents can deal with the Transitional Fossil Existence Challenge. The intellectually honest and appropriate way is with specific discussion of the fossil evidence as described and discussed in the primary literature. This is by far the least common approach taken by those who have been given the TFEC, and typically only follows after a long period of non-response, the elapsed time apparently serving as an index of the claimant’s unfamiliarity with the specific evidence.

The other category of approach is to ignore, so far as possible, any mention or discussion of actual fossil evidence. These varied strategies are what I term “non-evidentiary” responses, since they are completely independent of empirical data. There are many routes to achieving this end. The simplest is non-response. The challenged person may decide that not saying anything further is the best option, sometimes in the hope that there will be no long-term penalty for this behavior, and that eventually few, if any, persons will remember the abandonment of the original claim. Another common non-evidentiary response is digression. Bringing up a different topic as if it held some relevance to the TFEC allows someone to give a semblance of a reply, even though few will be fooled by it. Yet another strategy is to discuss theoretical issues as if theory did away with the need to actually look at the empirical data. A variant of the theory strategy is the quote-mining of those people who expound theory. Usually, though, quotes reveal nothing about the specific data at hand, and often come from sources whose opposition to anti-evolutionary action is otherwise well-known. Still another variant upon the theory strategy is the definition game. One can construct connotations of “transitional” such that no real-world evidence can satisfy all the piled-on conditions. It is useful to know when an anti-evolutionist simply defines evidence out of existence, though. Another possible tactic is to dismiss the taxonomic category from which the cited example comes. A respondent can claim that they really meant no transitional fossils in some other taxonomic hierarchy, but they often seem to forget that this means that the “no transitional fossils” claim is then self-admittedly false. A particularly brazen non-evidentiary response is to play an “even if” game, as in, “Even if this is true, it doesn’t mean anything.” That ignores that if the cited sequence does contain transitional fossils, it at least means that the claim of no transitional fossils is false.

The following is a short form for response to the TFEC, if a challenged person wishes to ignore the evidence and simply adopt one of the non-evidentiary tactics for their own. Simply indicate which one or more of the following Non-Evidentiary Response Items (NERI) fits what would otherwise involve a bunch of redundant typing.

Non-Evidentiary Response Items:


Let me note that each of the following items follows a pattern of being like a response that I have actually received from challenged religious antievolutionists at least once, and for many of these I've seen that same sort of dodge from many different antievolutionists. They span the gamut from ignorant through stupid to insane, and maybe some wicked thrown in to boot. None of them comes anywhere near the thing that would put that statement from Dawkins in any danger, a principled denial of evolution based on the evidence.

 
Quote

A. You have your faith; I have mine.

B. I meant that no vertebrate transitional fossils exist.

C. I meant that no transitional fossils above taxonomic rank  (fill in blank), which means that none can exist.

D. I have quotes from  (give list of names) that say that no transitional fossils exist.

E. My understanding of _ theory (fill in blank) is that transitional fossils cannot exist.

F. My connotation of “transitional fossils” is __ (fill in blank), which means that none can exist.

G. I have a cool rebuttal of _ (fill in blank). What were you saying about transitional fossils?

H. Even if the cited example does show transitional fossils, it doesn’t mean anything.

I. I cannot be bothered to support my claim, so I will not be giving you a reply.

J. I promise to support my claim Real Soon Now. I will be in touch. My reply will be devastating to you and completely and utterly convincing to everyone. Just you wait. It’s in the mail.

K. Provide the fossils for the transition from X to Y, which will let me ignore these fossils that actually exist. (Courtesy of “edwin voltaire” aka “evossler” 20030210.)

L. Person X says this challenge is bogus, therefore I don’t have to provide any response to actual evidence of transitional forms.


Kevin has the opportunity to prove Dawkins wrong the right way, by making a principled argument against evolution having occurred that is based upon the specific evidence at hand. Will he do that?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2008,00:44   

Quote (ERV @ April 04 2008,22:50)
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ April 04 2008,20:06)
i think wesley et al misunderstood my meaning. see my latest comment on the "everyone who disagrees with me is stupid' post on my blog.

Who made your animation, Kevin?

My oh my. Kevin, if you don't answer this question by the lady, I'm going to have to assume you have bad manners. Then, I could believe anything about you couldn't I?

Who made you animation? Do you pay royalties to the artist?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
JMax



Posts: 12
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2008,01:02   

Heard a small story about the marketing of Expelled on Marketplace on NPR.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display....d_movie

  
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2008,01:17   

Wes you left out

M. I have already shown this so many times, I'm not going to do it again.

Michael

  
kevinmillerxi



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2008,01:35   

Wesley: You could probably have saved yourself a lot of time (and a lot of words) by simply saying, "I'm going with the majority." But you of all people should know that consensus science is like patriotrism--the last refuge of a scoundrel.

By your logic, it was right for Galileo to be persecuted for his views, because the overwhelming majority of astronomers were certain that geocentrism was right and heliocentrism was wrong. The evidence was just so overwhelmingly obvious.  The same goes for virtually any other scientist that revolutionized his discipline.

On a related note, on my blog, Kristene said, "Try this on for size: It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet someone who claims not to believe in heliocentrism, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that.)"

I think she believes this refutes my point. But she's merely proven it instead. Prior to Copernicus, no one would have agreed with her statement, even though they were studying the same body of evidence that led Copernicus to conclude that the earth orbited the sun and not the other way around. Heliocentrism was just so obviously wrong. Wrong, because even though people were examining the same data as you, they brought a completely different worldview to their study and completely different methods, which led them to completely different conclusions.

So, as I said earlier, just because something seems obviously true to you does not mean that it is. Who knows when new information will shed new light on our observations? Isn't that what science is about? Looking for new information so we can understand the world better? Or is it merely about confirmning our pre-existing dispositions?

  
kevinmillerxi



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2008,01:37   

Who made our animation? Some nondescript place with no sign called "Plagermation." Seemed legitimate to me...

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2008,02:34   

So Kevin, why are you guys emailing people and telling them that screenings are moved or cancelled when they're not? Isn't that, like, lying? Isn't that supposed to be bad in your religion?

I mean, as much as you want to keep educated people away from this film, you do realize that you can't keep them away *forever*, right?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2008,02:35   

Quote
So, as I said earlier, just because something seems obviously true to you does not mean that it is. Who knows when new information will shed new light on our observations? Isn't that what science is about? Looking for new information so we can understand the world better? Or is it merely about confirmning our pre-existing dispositions?


We do understand the world in many ways, Kevin.

And a 6,000 year old earth is a load of shit.

You're a conman, Kevin. I really can't imagine how you convince yourself that Jesus wants you to lie like this. You're a despicable advertisement for your faith.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2008,02:50   

Quote
By your logic, it was right for Galileo to be persecuted for his views,


As I recall it was you guys who did that, right Kev?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
MillstoneCam



Posts: 9
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2008,04:15   

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ April 05 2008,07:37)
Who made our animation? Some nondescript place with no sign called "Plagermation." Seemed legitimate to me...

 
Quote

Who made our animation? Some nondescript place with no sign called "Plagermation." Seemed legitimate to me...

Google suggests "Plagiarization" since it finds no hits with "Plagermation".

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2008,04:55   

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ April 05 2008,01:35)
Wesley: You could probably have saved yourself a lot of time (and a lot of words) by simply saying, "I'm going with the majority." But you of all people should know that consensus science is like patriotrism--the last refuge of a scoundrel.

By your logic, it was right for Galileo to be persecuted for his views, because the overwhelming majority of astronomers were certain that geocentrism was right and heliocentrism was wrong.

While I think arguing about science with a screenwriter is about as productive as a monkey humping a football, I had to comment on this little gem.

Kevin, much hay is made by the anti-evolution crowd about majority views when polls are published indicating that only a minority of the general American public believes in evolution.  Apparently, some majorities are better than others?  It is especially ironic when the anti-evolution side (of which I, for the moment, presume you are part) prefers the majority view of unschooled scientific layman over the  views of people who have actually, you know, learned the subject over many years of scholarship.  This, in and of itself, is a form of scoundrel majoritarianism with it's rejection of expertise in favor of "the will of the people."

As far as Galileo, you should know that there is a well-worn, and proven, path to advancing controversial ideas in the sciences. It is called "returning to the lab and building a case" and it is the stuff Nobels are made out of.  But, that is not the path the advocates of ID have chosen.  Not content to be censored by Big Science, they have been reduced apparently to censoring themselves.  Their own journals are defunct. Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (William Dembski, General Editor) has not been published in almost 2 and half years. Origins and Design has not been published in nearly 8 years.  And  let us not forget the Biologic Institute, who's website is a moribund shell, a fitting metaphor for their scientific output despite being incorporated and funded three years ago outside the selective pressure of the dogmatic Darwinists of Big Science.

The fact of the matter is that the anti-evolution crowd is just not interested in actually, you know, doing science.  There are plenty of religious universities that are sympathetic to the ID movement and many even have science departments. Yet none are engaged in supportive scientific research even though they have the means and motive to do so. Why do you suppose that is?  Why is it so important to dump poison in the well by attacking scientists while offering absolutely nothing in return?  Just how much satisfaction are you getting from those 30 pieces of silver?

No sir, our intrepid advocates of the nascent, groundbreaking science of Intelligent Design have eschewed such a proletarian strategy of actually building their case. They are much more content to put the cart in front of the horse and publish textbooks, help dimwitted legislators draft various bills, and film movies.  Good luck with that. In the meantime Big Science continues to roll along providing new medicines and treatments that both our families will benefit from.  I suppose it is a good thing (for you anyway) that you don't have to actually believe in evolution to benefit from the knowledge of it.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2008,05:31   

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ April 05 2008,01:35)
Who knows when new information will shed new light on our observations? Isn't that what science is about? Looking for new information so we can understand the world better? Or is it merely about confirmning our pre-existing dispositions?

Would you then approve of skinheads teaching nazi ideology at a Jewish school?

Or teaching that different colours of skin indicate different moral values?

Or teaching that women are not equal to men and should stay at home?

Or perhaps how the lumps on your head define your personality?

Teach the controversy!

I asked you several times, as have others, but what is the single most important piece of evidence that materialist scientists have not followed where it lead?

What's the starting point once the revolution has happened Kevin? What will be lab project number 1?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4820
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2008,07:08   

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ April 05 2008,01:35)
Wesley: You could probably have saved yourself a lot of time (and a lot of words) by simply saying, "I'm going with the majority." But you of all people should know that consensus science is like patriotrism--the last refuge of a scoundrel.

By your logic, it was right for Galileo to be persecuted for his views, because the overwhelming majority of astronomers were certain that geocentrism was right and heliocentrism was wrong. The evidence was just so overwhelmingly obvious.  The same goes for virtually any other scientist that revolutionized his discipline.

On a related note, on my blog, Kristene said, "Try this on for size: It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet someone who claims not to believe in heliocentrism, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that.)"

I think she believes this refutes my point. But she's merely proven it instead. Prior to Copernicus, no one would have agreed with her statement, even though they were studying the same body of evidence that led Copernicus to conclude that the earth orbited the sun and not the other way around. Heliocentrism was just so obviously wrong. Wrong, because even though people were examining the same data as you, they brought a completely different worldview to their study and completely different methods, which led them to completely different conclusions.

So, as I said earlier, just because something seems obviously true to you does not mean that it is. Who knows when new information will shed new light on our observations? Isn't that what science is about? Looking for new information so we can understand the world better? Or is it merely about confirmning our pre-existing dispositions?


Kevin appears to be delusional. By his logic, science either must accept every hare-brained counterfactual notion that anyone posits, or it is equivalent to the Inquisition. News flash: this not only is not true now, it wasn't true when Galileo advocated heliocentrism. It wasn't his empirical-minded colleagues that Galileo ran into trouble with, because Galileo backed up his arguments by reference to the evidence. It was, in fact, the Inquisition that caused trouble for Galileo, and they had no use for science, consensus or otherwise. The only scoundrel here is Kevin for implying that I'm casting myself as part of the Inquisition. Nothing I've written even implies that science can't get behind a new idea that comes with evidence and tests of relevant hypotheses.

Let's go through this step by step.

 
Quote

Wesley: You could probably have saved yourself a lot of time (and a lot of words) by simply saying, "I'm going with the majority."


This wasn't about what *I* thought. The exchange was about what *Kevin* thought. Kevin claimed that I misunderstood him. I asked questions to figure out in what way I might have misunderstood him. Kevin chooses to skip over clearing up misunderstanding and goes directly to bait and switch, trying to make this about me instead. I'm not buying it, Kevin.

 
Quote

But you of all people should know that consensus science is like patriotrism--the last refuge of a scoundrel.


That statement alludes to facts not in evidence. The scoundrels I'm familiar with in the developing story of the forthcoming propaganda film are the producers, and it appears, the writer. The evidence speaks clearly that false claims are made in the movie and that false claims are made in promotion of the movie. It's not just one "interpretation" that John Lynch was told that the Tempe, AZ screening had been cancelled when the promoter knew full well that the screening would proceed.

I'm not talking, as Kevin has to be, about "consensus" imposed artificially from the top down. We scientists know what that looks like. It looks like the Inquisition that harassed Galileo. It looks like Lysenko's discarding of genetics and the evolutionary biology of the west in favor of a Stalinist form of Lamarckism. (Scientists died for standing up to Lysenko, by the way.) It looks like a socio-political movement that will do anything and call its arguments by any label to force them into public school classrooms without having passed muster via the scientific process.

What I was pointing out is that a scientific consensus is different, it proceeds from the evidence through hypotheses that are tested, and a community that criticizes the arguments until what convinces that community is the consilience of evidence and theory, not the personal authority of either any one individual or even the collective authority of the community. The process doesn't always proceed smoothly, as Kuhn noted in discussing paradigm shifts. But what happens even then is driven by the various and sundry individuals of the scientific community, each of whom by Kevin's earlier (and apparently abandoned) argument having their own separate worldview and thus without any expectation under Kevin's argument that they could possibly agree upon some one view, and yet that is exactly what the history of science shows us has happened time and again.

 
Quote

By your logic, it was right for Galileo to be persecuted for his views, because the overwhelming majority of astronomers were certain that geocentrism was right and heliocentrism was wrong. The evidence was just so overwhelmingly obvious.  The same goes for virtually any other scientist that revolutionized his discipline.


No, Kevin, that's your logic and your sublime ignorance of history, not mine. The fact is that it wasn't any "overwhelming majority of astronomers" who put Galileo under house arrest; it was the Inquisition. Nor is there any evidence cited that Galileo's secular astronomical colleagues had any particular fondness for geocentrism. In other words, the folks without a predisposition to a particular religious doctrinal view were open to the evidence and arguments Galileo produced for heliocentrism.

 
Quote

On a related note, on my blog, Kristene said, "Try this on for size: It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet someone who claims not to believe in heliocentrism, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that.)"

I think she believes this refutes my point. But she's merely proven it instead. Prior to Copernicus, no one would have agreed with her statement, even though they were studying the same body of evidence that led Copernicus to conclude that the earth orbited the sun and not the other way around. Heliocentrism was just so obviously wrong. Wrong, because even though people were examining the same data as you, they brought a completely different worldview to their study and completely different methods, which led them to completely different conclusions.


Again, this is historically inaccurate. Copernicus himself was influenced by Greek and Muslim scholars who developed either heliocentric models or at least posited motion of the earth, a stance at odds with the geocentrism espoused in particular religious doctrines. The fact of the matter is that in doing science, what is commonly accepted can and does change, when the new concept comes with evidence and convincing arguments (testable hypotheses that aren't found false when tested).

Robert Park cast this in terms of Galileo, and it is relevant to this discussion: "To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough to be persecuted by an unkind establishment. One must also be right."

Copernicus was right on at least some of his propositions. Galileo was right on at least some of his propositions. Both of them were willing to put in the work needed to collect evidence and attempt to convince the scientific community of the worth of their ideas. The IDC community, on the other hand, does not propose to convince the scientific community. They are actively seeking to evade scrutiny by the scientific community, to promulgate their conjectures as if they were science, but without doing the work needed to justly do so. Your movie, Kevin, seeks to disestablish the scientific community as a body worthy of respect by falsely imputing the sort of top-down enforcement of edict that characterized the Inquisition. There's a word for that; it's called projection.

Kristine is right.

 
Quote

So, as I said earlier, just because something seems obviously true to you does not mean that it is. Who knows when new information will shed new light on our observations? Isn't that what science is about? Looking for new information so we can understand the world better? Or is it merely about confirmning our pre-existing dispositions?


Again, projection is a wholly satisfactory description for this note from Kevin. What is IDC except a long-running attempt at confirming pre-existing dispositions? IDC was taken up and discussed by the scientific community. We call that "the 19th century". It was given a fair hearing and discarded. IDC is not itself "new information". The four major arguments of IDC proceed directly from precursor arguments found in the Rev. William Paley's 1802 book, "Natural Theology". That includes "irreducible complexity", "specified complexity", various arguments about anthropic principles, and the argument about observability popularized in "The Privileged Planet".

Science is open to genuinely new information. Evolutionary biology has seen quite a few new ideas arise, be criticized, and then be accepted when the proponents did the hard work of collecting, analyzing, and presenting evidence along with tests of hypotheses to establish that what they were saying had scientific merit. This happened for transposons. This happened for the endosymbiotic hypothesis. This happened for the neutral theory. This happened for punctuated equilibria. Also, evolutionary biology since Darwin has cleared away a number of once popular theories that simply didn't measure up to the evidence. Bathmism is gone. Darwin's own pangenesis was discarded. Orthogenesis and aristogenesis? Gone. The notion that evolutionary biology is a closed shop with a fixed top-down enforcement of doctrine is demonstrably poppycock. Only someone who is either ignorant of the actual history, or who is willing to lie to spread a false view of that history could say otherwise.

Now, back to stuff Kevin skipped right over. Kevin said something about the fossil record and working with the data. I brought up a particular piece of research that presented evidence of speciation and asked Kevin to expound upon it.

 
Quote

Kevin has the opportunity to prove Dawkins wrong the right way, by making a principled argument against evolution having occurred that is based upon the specific evidence at hand. Will he do that?


The answer, it appears, is "No."

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on April 05 2008,07:16

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
pzoot



Posts: 8
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2008,09:23   

You can't make this up.

http://www.google.ca/search?q=Plagermation

"Did you mean: Plagiarization"

  
  3608 replies since Aug. 12 2007,07:23 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (121) < ... 29 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 39 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]