RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (121) < ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... >   
  Topic: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed., Sternberg, Gonzalez, Crocker - A film< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
kevinmillerxi



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,15:08   

I forgot to address the Holocaust. No, I won't teach my kids that Darwin initiated the Holocaust, because that is patently untrue. However, I won't shy away from explaining how social Darwinism and the science of eugenics--which was founded by Darwin's cousin Francis Galton as an attempt to apply Darwin's theory on a social level--were contributing factors to Hitler's views on race.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10061
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,15:10   

Quote
Religious agendas aside, I really do believe that people like Sternberg, Dembski, Marks, Berlinski, Gonzalez, Behe, etc are sincerely seeking the truth. That may be difficult for some of you to accept, but they weren't anywhere close to the fundamentalist bogeymen they're often made out to be.


No. They think they have the truth, his name is God and he should be in science class. They have the answer before you ask the question. Every "we don't know" gets filled by God the designer.

How many times has ID detected design?

Why does ID look *exactly* like "creation science" minus the illegal bits?

Edit - changed "-" to "minus"

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
olegt



Posts: 1378
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,15:11   

David Berlinski is an expert in biology?  That's rich.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10061
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,15:13   

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 26 2008,15:08)
I won't shy away from explaining how social Darwinism and the science of eugenics--which was founded by Darwin's cousin Francis Galton as an attempt to apply Darwin's theory on a social level--were contributing factors to Hitler's views on race.

My goodness.

(1) did he travel back in time to Sparta, as they culled the weak?
(2) Is it natural selection, *cough* "Darwinism" or artificial selection that mankind has known about through for example animal husbandry, for thousands of years?
(3) Is there any long debunked creationist canard you think we haven't heard?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,15:13   

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 26 2008,16:08)
I forgot to address the Holocaust. No, I won't teach my kids that Darwin initiated the Holocaust, because that is patently untrue. However, I won't shy away from explaining how social Darwinism and the science of eugenics--which was founded by Darwin's cousin Francis Galton as an attempt to apply Darwin's theory on a social level--were contributing factors to Hitler's views on race.

And why do you think that the concept of eugenics was a greater contributing factor than centuries of Christian persecution of Jews?

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Annyday



Posts: 583
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,15:14   

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 26 2008,14:30)
You guys are merely proving my point. The only thing you seem to be interested in is attacking me personally. Any attempt at discussion is immediately turned into an opportunity to tell me what a stupid, smug, ignorant propagandist I am. I'm not whining about that. It's just not my idea of a good time. If anyone wants to approach me with a formal interview request for an established publication or web site, I'm all for it. But I'm not going to be the bloody chicken in the henhouse just so you have a few hours of entertainment.

Look, I wrote a rather long post about why what you've written here (whoever's original words they were) is wrong, on two specific points. Wesley's made specific points curtly, too. Everyone else has been more blunt, but they raised plenty of points, too. Instead of answering peoples' arguments, you respond with this:

Quote
You know guys, you are about as predictable as an animal driven soley by hunger and instinct. Sort of like a crocodile. What never ceases to amaze me is how completely binary your thinking is.

...


You bear all the marks of the religious fundamentalists you despise: A complete inability to countenance two seemingly contradictory ideas in your brain and a fervent need to squash and destroy anyone who diagrees with you.


And then, when you're called a smug propagandist for it, you run away because we're "clearly" not interested in a real debate. If you'd actually defend your position, you'd have the high ground from which to tell people to stop being sarcastic bastards. Instead, you condescendingly insist that by disagreeing (sorry: disagreeing rudely) everyone's a complete fundamentalist out to squash and destroy you.

I'm not unhappy you're leaving, but the hypocritical indignity is obnoxious.

--------------
"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

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,15:16   

Quote
Ben consulted with many individuals regarding biology and Darwinism, some of whom I know and some I don't. One individual who I know had a significant influence on him is mathematician and philosopher David Berlinski.


Ok, NOW Ben makes total sense to me.  I get it (and I get why Ben doesn't). Thanks for answering all my questions, I have no interest in debating any of this with you, only because there is no point.  So I will leave it with I appreciate you shedding some light on the subject(s).

The question about the wedge strategy was just trying to figure out how educated you are on the subject.  Your answer told me volumes.  Thanks!

Chris

edit - I gotta say one more thing.  Kevin, no one cares that Dembski, behe et al are searching for answers.  The issue is the dishonesty they ALL indulge in to advance IDC into our public science classes, pretending IDC is science. THAT is the issue

Ever  heard of the Templeton Foundation?  They are searching for the truth, yet no one bothers them because they, unlike the IDC crowd, are not trying to sneak religion into out public science classes.  This is a vital point that you and Ben seem to not get.  No one cares about scientists trying to find god, more power to them.  But all these fine fellows have publicly lied, quote mined, and micharacterized science in the name of advancing their creationist cause.

That is not science.  It's anti-science.  Yet you and Ben portray "big science" as the enemy.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10061
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,15:22   

Quote (Annyday @ Feb. 26 2008,15:14)
I'm not unhappy you're leaving, but the hypocritical indignity is obnoxious.

He was EXPELLED!!! by the darwinist establisment!

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
kevinmillerxi



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,15:25   

Annyday: I'm sorry I neglected to respond to your points. If you want to make a list of questions you'd like me to answer, I'll do my best.

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,15:28   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 26 2008,16:16)
Ever  heard of the Templeton Foundation?  They are searching for the truth, yet no one bothers them because they, unlike the IDC crowd, are not trying to sneak religion into out public science classes.

And it gets worse.  Guess who had this to say about the "ID" movement:

Quote
"From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review,"


--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 752
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,15:29   

Quote
can ID produce compelling evidence and arguments to back up their theories? I think the jury is still out on that. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't get a chance to try.


And who is stopping them from trying?

Besides which, why haven't they found evidence in the roughly 200 years since Paley?

What you're doing, Kevin, besides accusing falsely, is judging solely by "sincerity" of the IDists (which can be disputed, and has been), and not by the fact that science is interested in claims that at least potentially can be backed up by evidence.

As it happens, ID tries as hard as it can to avoid making reasonable predictions based on known design practice.  It won't predict rational solutions to problems (like the mousetrap, vs. the highly modified organs and organisms that we actually see), it won't predict the novelty and/or extensive "borrowing" that real designers utilize, and it won't predict evident purpose.  The sole reason that we can recognize for the lack of those predictions is that your "sincere" IDists know very well that these do not exist, and so refuse to make the entailed predictions, knowing that they will immediately be falsified by the evidence.

Furthermore, the only "predictions" they attempt to fob off onto the public are that "life is too complex to have evolved," a false dilemma.  We detect design because we know what designers do (think and act rationally and purposefully), we do not default to design the moment that we can't explain something by known means.  How would we even be able to hypothesize that evolution occurred if we had merely assumed that "God did it" when we didn't have a good explanation for life's diversity?

Indeed, IDists can try to do their magic as much as they wish.  One problem is that they rarely do any science at all, and even when they do, they aren't really doing ID science because they have no testable hypotheses (since they refuse to produce hypotheses that can be tested, for those hypotheses failed long ago).  Why is PCID, which was expressly invented to publish "ID research," languishes without any papers having been published in years?  Obviously they can make or find outlets for any science or pseudoscience they choose, they just don't have any legitimate output.

The other problem is what we've already pointed out to you without you bothering to answer:  ID isn't science in any way whatsoever, since it wishes us to get rid of the requirement to provide evidence.  Need I remind you of what Dembski wrote long ago?

 
Quote
As for your example, I'm not going to take the bait. You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.

http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi....152;p=3


Sure, Kevin, not connecting the dots makes ID into a real science (note the weaseling that allows some dots to be connected (selective treatment of evidence), while not treating cause and effect analysis as the only way to get to the facts, which is the case in classical science).  

The problem we have with you and your chihuahua attacks and chihuahua whimpers is that you don't simply let such pseudoscientific nonsense be held by religionists and whatever they are at the Biologic Institute, but you insist that we grant such pseudoscience exceptions that have never been granted to similar pseudosciences.  You wish to use gov't to force science to accept what is anathema to science--meaningless evidence-free religiously-inspired drivel.

But these things have been pointed out to people like you countless times, and you all manage to ignore everything of substance that you receive in response.

Glen D

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

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

   
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,15:30   

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 26 2008,12:18)
You know guys, you are about as predictable as an animal driven soley by hunger and instinct. Sort of like a crocodile. What never ceases to amaze me is how completely binary your thinking is. This is supremely ironic in a field that introduced us to ideas like transitional forms, evolutionary trajectories and continuums of change. You just can't seem to shake free of the "either/or" "black/white" thinking that pretty much became untenable during the first decades of the 20th century. You bear all the marks of the religious fundamentalists you despise: A complete inability to countenance two seemingly contradictory ideas in your brain and a fervent need to squash and destroy anyone who diagrees with you. This is exactly why I was initially hesitant to accept Chris's invitation to come over here and chat. Not because I'm afraid of criticism (I could get involved with a project like "Expelled" if I were afraid of that) but because of your utter disinterest in true debate and discussion. It's more like a dogpile than a dialogue. And frankly, it's just supremely boring. So I'll let you guys get back to being oh so clever while I get back to doing something a little more productive.

Productivity, in film or in science, is ultimately judged over the long term.

It's a date, Kevin.

--------------
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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,15:32   

I'm sure that many of us would like to hear just how you can make ID a scientific enterprise, if you want to get around to that one (we already know how to make it a commercial enterprise.... wink wink nudge nudge saynomore saynomore).

Quote
I'd rather disentagle <sic> the scientific questions from the religious questions so that the real question becomes, can ID produce compelling evidence and arguments to back up their theories? I think the jury is still out on that. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't get a chance to try


Yeah, we'd love for you to do that also.  We'd also love to hear you explain why, in the absence of any compelling evidence that there might BE such evidence or arguments you think that ID'ers deserve this affirmative action?  What makes their religious beliefs privileged?

Why don't I deserve to have the NSF fund me completely for 12 years while I work out whether or not the fact that the sun appears yellow to our eyes is predicted by the first principle that god made everything?  Why don't we privilege everyone's arbitrary religious beliefs?  Let's just forget about science and evidence and reason:  you deserve a chance to make the absolutely stupidest argument you can muster, and at the expense of people who actually take this sort of thing seriously.

Your democratic fallacy is showing hon.  Might wanna cover it up, it's liable to get bruised 'round heah.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,15:39   

Hey Kevin, just as an FYI there are numerous actual biologists here.  Feel free to ask them science questions.  Well if you want.  Maybe you have some questions about evolution you'd like answered.

Anyhow, questions are a two way street.  You're being a sport answering some questions, feel free to ask too.

Chris

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
kevinmillerxi



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,15:40   

Thanks, Chris. I actually do have a number of questions. I'll come back later.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,15:44   

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 26 2008,15:40)
Thanks, Chris. I actually do have a number of questions. I'll come back later.

Cool beans.  That could lead to some interesting conversations.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Annyday



Posts: 583
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,15:46   

Quote
Annyday: I'm sorry I neglected to respond to your points. If you want to make a list of questions you'd like me to answer, I'll do my best.


"Non-material causes" is a meaningless buzzword. Anything we can observe- any "cause"- is considered "material" enough to be a part of science. Human agency, quantum mechanics, and the like are included in this definition. So what does ID actually want to change about the philosophy of science?

That's the only real question. The other thing is that biologists are slaves to empirical results. Even most theorists can still wax eloquent for ages on the minutia of their most-studied organism's traits and behaviors. It's actually kind of terrifying. So, it's really not empiricism vs rationalism.

Quote
I'd rather disentagle the scientific questions from the religious questions so that the real question becomes, can ID produce compelling evidence and arguments to back up their theories? I think the jury is still out on that.


... and, when the jury's still out on whether a large group of people can produce any evidence for their case after twenty years and some millions of dollars, it bodes very poorly.

--------------
"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

  
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,15:55   

Kevin,

When I was fourteen (32 years ago), I believed in all kinds of woo and firmly believed that science was blind. Unhappily (but fortunately) I found that each guru had feet of clay until I have become a confirmed sceptic. These guys have a good story and if you use them as your only source of information it is easy to be seduced.

A lot of the people you see around here have been fighting anti-science for over 20 years. Instead of ignoring ID science and simply attacking the people (which is what Berlinski, Behe etc would like you believe) these guys have done detailed critiques of their ideas. It's all easy to find on the internet if you research. The reason that a lot of people on this board and people like PZ seem angry is that the ID people never address the critiques.

I believe that this movie will be like the Dover trial. The more popular the movie, the more likely somebody will do another documentary where they do look under the rocks, where they do do the research (I have a great title "Duped").

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,15:59   

Quote (improvius @ Feb. 26 2008,15:28)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 26 2008,16:16)
Ever  heard of the Templeton Foundation?  They are searching for the truth, yet no one bothers them because they, unlike the IDC crowd, are not trying to sneak religion into out public science classes.

And it gets worse.  Guess who had this to say about the "ID" movement:

Quote
"From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review,"

Yeah, they of all organizations should be ID friendly and they're not.  And my point was that science is not trying to silence people who are seeking god in a test tube.  Holy cow man if someone discovered god from a scientific standpoint they'd win ever freakin prize known to man.

I wonder if the Templeton Foundation is in Expelled.  They should have been included.  They're a perfect example of theists seeking an understanding through science.  The biggest difference is they do not have a hidden political agenda and they're not out to discredit science to bolster their argument.

In short, they're not creationists trying to slip religion back in the public science class.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,16:03   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 26 2008,15:13)
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 26 2008,15:08)
I won't shy away from explaining how social Darwinism and the science of eugenics--which was founded by Darwin's cousin Francis Galton as an attempt to apply Darwin's theory on a social level--were contributing factors to Hitler's views on race.

My goodness.

(1) did he travel back in time to Sparta, as they culled the weak?
(2) Is it natural selection, *cough* "Darwinism" or artificial selection that mankind has known about through for example animal husbandry, for thousands of years?
(3) Is there any long debunked creationist canard you think we haven't heard?

And more to the point, Kevin: science tells us how the world works, not how it ought to work.
Had Hitler worshipped Darwin's name in his book, that wouldn't falsify the theory of natural selection.

Is it so hard to understand?

  
ERV



Posts: 329
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,16:10   

hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe

Email me, Kevin.  We need to talk about Behe and Dembski.  If youre looking for a student who has been harassed, slandered, and threatened by professional scientists/philosophers just seeking the truth for EXPELLED, I would be happy to sign on.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,16:11   

Quote (jeannot @ Feb. 26 2008,16:03)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 26 2008,15:13)
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 26 2008,15:08)
I won't shy away from explaining how social Darwinism and the science of eugenics--which was founded by Darwin's cousin Francis Galton as an attempt to apply Darwin's theory on a social level--were contributing factors to Hitler's views on race.

My goodness.

(1) did he travel back in time to Sparta, as they culled the weak?
(2) Is it natural selection, *cough* "Darwinism" or artificial selection that mankind has known about through for example animal husbandry, for thousands of years?
(3) Is there any long debunked creationist canard you think we haven't heard?

And more to the point, Kevin: science tells us how the world works, not how it ought to work.
Had Hitler worshipped Darwin's name in his book, that wouldn't falsify the theory of natural selection.

Is it so hard to understand?

What's so laff riot ironic is the bible clearly condones slavery and was used to justify slavery in this country.  I mean Leviticus is a slave owners manual.  The bible to this day justifies slavery (and murdering innocent little boys, stoning women to death, etc) but Darwin is  bad because he formulated a theory about how species evolve...Never mind that his theory has stood every single test since his ideas were published.

Did anyone ever see the Flock of Dodos movie?  I did not.  Was it any good?

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Annyday



Posts: 583
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,16:14   

Quote (jeannot @ Feb. 26 2008,16:03)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 26 2008,15:13)
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 26 2008,15:08)
I won't shy away from explaining how social Darwinism and the science of eugenics--which was founded by Darwin's cousin Francis Galton as an attempt to apply Darwin's theory on a social level--were contributing factors to Hitler's views on race.

My goodness.

(1) did he travel back in time to Sparta, as they culled the weak?
(2) Is it natural selection, *cough* "Darwinism" or artificial selection that mankind has known about through for example animal husbandry, for thousands of years?
(3) Is there any long debunked creationist canard you think we haven't heard?

And more to the point, Kevin: science tells us how the world works, not how it ought to work.
Had Hitler worshipped Darwin's name in his book, that wouldn't falsify the theory of natural selection.

Is it so hard to understand?

He didn't say that, he was answering a question. Just because it's a classic ID/creationist line doesn't mean any specific person agrees with it, mkay?

--------------
"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

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,16:16   

Quote (ERV @ Feb. 26 2008,16:10)
hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe

Email me, Kevin.  We need to talk about Behe and Dembski.  If youre looking for a student who has been harassed, slandered, and threatened by professional scientists/philosophers just seeking the truth for EXPELLED, I would be happy to sign on.

Oh but you're just a girl...  

ERV, go to his blog and you'll find a link to his email address.

I wonder if Kevin is hip to Behe's HIV denial or the fact that so many of the DI fellows have signed on to HIV denialism.  I wonder if Kevin read Well's reasons for getting his PhD in biology?  

Note to Kevin, ERV is a hard core HIV researcher (who knows kung fu).  As in cutting edge HIV research (not just some crank who's read a pamphlet on it).  The question is can she behave? ;-)

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10061
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,16:23   

Oh, Welcome Pharyngulans!

*waves*

PS KRISTINE HARTLEY IS TEH WITCH.  :angry:

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,16:24   

Quote (Annyday @ Feb. 26 2008,16:14)
 
Quote (jeannot @ Feb. 26 2008,16:03)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 26 2008,15:13)
   
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 26 2008,15:08)
I won't shy away from explaining how social Darwinism and the science of eugenics--which was founded by Darwin's cousin Francis Galton as an attempt to apply Darwin's theory on a social level--were contributing factors to Hitler's views on race.

My goodness.

(1) did he travel back in time to Sparta, as they culled the weak?
(2) Is it natural selection, *cough* "Darwinism" or artificial selection that mankind has known about through for example animal husbandry, for thousands of years?
(3) Is there any long debunked creationist canard you think we haven't heard?

And more to the point, Kevin: science tells us how the world works, not how it ought to work.
Had Hitler worshipped Darwin's name in his book, that wouldn't falsify the theory of natural selection.

Is it so hard to understand?

He didn't say that [...]

Say what, specifically? It seems clear to me that Kevin confuses the validity of a scientific theory with its social implications.

Perhaps I miswrote the phrase "Had Hitler worshipped Darwin's name...". I didn't imply that Kevin said such thing. Remember that English is not my native language.

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1000
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,16:25   

Kevin,

I never got an answer to my question "from what was Sternberg expelled?"

"Watch the movie" is not an answer.  I love spoilers and I will see the movie, anyway.

Poor Sternberg.  One little slip and he's a piranha.  (inside joke)

Only it wasn't his first slip, now, was it?  Surly you did the research, Kevin, and you know that Sternberg had a history of shepherding dubious papers into publication.

Such as this one:

Quote

>>> Frank Ferrari 09/08/04 03:29PM >>>
Hi Hans,
Rafa gave me a heads up about the Nature - News. What is troubling is the implication in the article that
the manuscript was peer-reviewed. I doubt that it was, based on my experience with Sternberg and the
infamous Nizinski manuscript, which Sternberg also wanted to publish and also insisted had been
peer-reviewed. Prior to publication, I asked him who reviewed the Nizinski manuscript, but he would not
give me any names. When I insisted that the manuscript be reviewed internationally, the concensus of 4
international reviewers was rejection [sadly, Sternberg published it anyway].
Frank


Sternberg knew the Meyer paper would be reviewed as rubbish because it is rubbish.  Sternberg covered his tracks and snuck it through into publication anyway.  Only Sternberg of all the other editors saw the manuscript, there was no Abstract and only Sternberg reviewed the galley proofs.  

Total inside job?  Unethical?  Dishonest?  Crop circles?  You decide.

So, tell me Kevin old bean, from what was Sternberg expelled?  Was he "expelled" for his beliefs which he held and expressed for years with no consequence, or was he castigated for his actions of malfeasance and abuse of his editorial privilege?

Let me guess.  See the movie because it covers all this in great deal, in color, and in stereo.  Can't wait.

  
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,16:29   

Quote
But Ben Stein is no one's toady. He is a completely free agent who has developed his own unique perspective on this issue.


Unfortunately con men tell us that these are the easiest people to con.

Quote

Did you guys do ANY checking up on the Discovery Institute?  Their goals and objectives?  Of course we did. We researched them extensively and conducted interviews with numerous Discovery fellows.


Did you interview their critics? Gave people they criticized (basically the science establishment) a chance to rebuff. Spend a weekend reading the archives of Panda's Thumb to see the other side of their various press releases. They also have some interesting critiques of Berlinski.

Please don't think we are being mean. BELIEVING that there may be more to existence than what science has shown is fine and dandy. BELIEVING that some scientist somewhere will find this is also fine. We are more curious as to why hitch your wagon to these particular characters?

It doesn't take much research to discover that these guys are wrong, dishonest or both.

Sternberg -- there was a senate investigation. read the appendix, this guy was pretty odious and would have been sacked from any private company.
Gonzales -- Wasn't expelled just not promoted. Didn't take any students to Doctorate. Brought in hardly any research money, Did hardly any research. He did write the book privileged planet but didn't develop this any further.
etc. etc.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10061
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,16:46   

Is this P-A-R-O-D-Y?

http://www.benstein4president.com/

(from "expelled"). Is he connect with reality at *any* level?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
rpenner



Posts: 5
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,16:50   

Now, I'm not a professional biologist or expert in biological molecules (despite over 30 days of sinus discharge) but I would like to ask Kevin a question, since he would seem to prefer questions than pointed explanations and empirical details.

Why is this movie taking so long from the appearantly completed version being shown around the country to it's rumored April theatrical release? Are you waiting for original animation, additional on-site footage or clearance? Is "Bad to the Bone" going to be replaced with an AC/DC song to match Stein's costume?

Why are schools being (promised to be) paid to get children to see this film, that being the opposite of the usual Hollywood strategy and children being the opposite of the typical documentary audience?

Is Ben Stein still attached to this project? The movie website only has two posts from Stein on the purported blog. Generally spokespersons get paid to, um, speak. Did Stein write his own lines in the trailer? Reminding us of his association with Nixon, doesn't seem to put him in the modest, trustworthy, or likeable catagories. (Wasn't it Nixon who created the modern Federal Holiday which in many people's minds takes the place of the actual dates of Washington's and Lincoln's birthdays? I ask because one of the movie's producers seems to blame this on evolution, not Nixon.)

Good luck, I hope to see the movie someday.

  
  3600 replies since Aug. 12 2007,07:23 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (121) < ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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