Expelled

[VLinvictus]

This site does an admirable job of exposing the fallacies and idiocy contained within this so-called "documentary."

http://www.expelledexposed.com/

ID is essentially an argument from ignorance. It's proponents assume that life is too complex to have "evolved" by an internal dialectic and there requires as external, intelligent designer.

However, complexity is subjective. Moreover, to throw up one's hands when confronted by something we don't yet understand and say "God did it" is intellectual abdication.

[Thorolf]

T says--

"And, until it can be SCIENTIFICALLY discounted without particularly unscientific assumptions and bias, I don't see how it can be legitimately argued that ID should not be investigated as a possible answer to the question of "how did we get here."



ID is *not* a "scientific theory." It only exists to try to disprove Evolution. It has no theory of its own to present and no scientific studies to offer as proof.

Thank you for sharing your enlightened opinion. The SCIENTISTS who do or want to study the possibility of ID would undoubtedly disagree with you.

[Thorolf]

This site does an admirable job of exposing the fallacies and idiocy contained within this so-called "documentary."

http://www.expelledexposed.com/

ID is essentially an argument from ignorance. It's proponents assume that life is too complex to have "evolved" by an internal dialectic and there requires as external, intelligent designer.

However, complexity is subjective. Moreover, to throw up one's hands when confronted by something we don't yet understand and say "God did it" is intellectual abdication.

I've seen that site... it really doesn't address the movie all that much other than denigrating the character of some of the people who are featured in the film. There are a TON of misrepresentations about the movie, though.... so I guess it evens out.

So much for the fairness and openmindedness of science.

Expelled isn't really a film that argues for the validity of ID at the expense of Evolution. It does point out a few things about Evolution that may be considered weaknesses in the theory to support the notion that there may be alternative views, and it does present a really, REALLY basic idea of what ID claims to be, and what it claims to NOT be... but it deals much more with the bias of what it calls "Big Science." And I think it does a fairly good job of making its case. The veritable temper tantrums from some in the "scientific community" in response, like the website posted above, seem to actually help that argument, IMO.

Is Expelled completely accurate and compelling as a scientific study that reveals the "truth" about how life came to be as it is today? No, absolutely not. Even if it claimed to be (which it doesn't), it really fails to even come close to presenting a compelling scientific argument.... but, IMO, that's not really what it is, contrary to the presentation of many of the anti-Expelled sites and articles out there.

[VLinvictus]

And I'm sure your opinions aren't biased in any way

Question:

Are there any proponents of ID who conjecture that the identity of the designer is someone or something other than the Christian god?

Like aliens, from this universe or another one? Or maybe some other god like Odin or Amon-Ra?

Just curious.

[Thorolf]

I'm sure I am biased. Don't think I claimed otherwise... although I try to look at things from both sides. Sometimes I have trouble understanding one side or the other, though, because their reaction seems so unreasonable or arbitrary...


As for proponents, yes. The proponents of ID may have personal opinions (and they range across the board, including aliens), but from a scientific standpoint they tend to claim no presupposition on the matter.

ID is *NOT* Christian Creationism, no matter how many times its opponents claim otherwise. Intelligence is not necessarily God. It's just intelligence.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a joke (admittedly a pretty funny and clever one, and I've considered buying one of their T-shirts) - but honestly, I don't even care if a scientist believes in the FSM... they are still able and welcome to study ID, in my opinion, and I think should be allowed to without stigma attached.

[metis]

Maybe we'll never really know.  Is there a problem with that? 

BTW, as a side, there's at least one cosmologist that I have read who believes that they may actually be able to determine what combination of events may have precipitated the BB.  Right now much of the focus is on studying the "after-glow" (the flowing of sub-atomic particles scattered throughout the universe), and some believe that this pattern may help to picture what happened to cause the BB. 

However, realistically, even that won't resolve the issue as to whether there was any kind of theistic causation.

[WorldWarrior]

T says--

"Thank you for sharing your enlightened opinion. The SCIENTISTS who do or want to study the possibility of ID would undoubtedly disagree with you"

I'm guessing this means you haven't read any of the ID literature?

Because it consists entirely of attempts to disprove Evoltion--and contasins NO original science or research or theories.

[Thorolf]

Please provide us with this vast amount of ID literature that you have personally studied.

[Thorolf]

Maybe we'll never really know.  Is there a problem with that? 

BTW, as a side, there's at least one cosmologist that I have read who believes that they may actually be able to determine what combination of events may have precipitated the BB.  Right now much of the focus is on studying the "after-glow" (the flowing of sub-atomic particles scattered throughout the universe), and some believe that this pattern may help to picture what happened to cause the BB. 

However, realistically, even that won't resolve the issue as to whether there was any kind of theistic causation.

There have been some very interesting and informative programs about the big bang on television lately. I was just watching one the other day by Joao Magueijo that was pretty technical, entertaining, and broke things down into rather plain language. It was well done, but I found myself astounded at the leaps between observation and allegation of causation and the observed phenomena's apparent relation to BB.

I'm sure they left out some important stuff, like the math involved, that helps to make that link because most people wouldn't be willing or able to follow it anyway - but some of it simply seemed to be arbitrarily trying to squeeze an observation into the theory.

Magueijo did note something he termed a "huge problem" for BB called the Horizon Problem. I was pleased that he mentioned it, because many such programs that speak of scientific theories with the apparent presumption that they are truly accurate representations conveniently leave out the problems that seem to directly contradict some fundamental aspect of the theory.

I actually found myself trying to think of explanations for the Horizon Problem (and no, I wasn't trying to squeeze in ID  ).

Of course, much smarter people than me have failed to explain it... not sure why I was trying!

[WorldWarrior]

T---



I asked YOU if YOU'Ve read any ID literature?

Because from your posts here it sounds like you don' know what it contains.

[Thorolf]

T---



I asked YOU if YOU'Ve read any ID literature?

Because from your posts here it sounds like you don' know what it contains.

Allow me to remind you of what you wrote...

I'm guessing this means you haven't read any of the ID literature?

Because it consists entirely of attempts to disprove Evoltion--and contasins NO original science or research or theories.

You are welcome to guess all you want. I'm more curious about the apparent claim that you have read all of the ID literature.

[metis]

Thorolf, I had to look it up since I couldn't remember what exactly the horizon problem consisted of, but essentially it deals with parts of the universe that are very far apart and yet they often have similar characteristics.  Essentially, it is viewed by the cosmologists that the inflation theory (the BB itself) probably accounts for these similarities. 

As you're probably aware of, there are, however, other sections of the universe that are so different from each other that many, if not most, cosmologists tend to think that even the laws of physics may not be the same as in certain other parts of the universe.  Leonard Susskind, who's a research cosmologist, does an excellent job, imo, of covering this is his book "The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design" (contrary to what the title suggests, he does not give evidence against the possibility of a theistic causation, but concludes that there's no reason to surmise there was one either).       

[Thorolf]

The way the Horizon Problem was explained, the parts of the universe that are literally the furthest apart from each other as possible are actually not just similar - they are identical.

It was also explained that BB and expansion theory does NOT account for this. According to traditional BB theory, the two absolutely should NOT be identical.

At least, that was how it was being presented...

[metis]

If they used the word "identical", then I certainly would question the source as to its accuracy.  I don't think we can find anything that's identical-- even identical twins differ.  Similar-- yes; identical-- no can buy based on what I've read.

Let me add to the above.  Let's say that the horizon between certain various areas is similar.  What does that mean or imply?  Since our universe prior to the BB was extremely small (probably smaller than a present day marble), and since it expanded from there, it might not be unexpected that certain areas would possibly be similar. 

On the other hand, most areas differ and often differ significantly.  So exactly what does this "prove" or indicate?  None of the books that I have on cosmology suggests that somehow this is an indication of a theistic causation.  However, neither does it necessarily give indication that there was no theistic causation.  We're right back to square 1.     

[Thorolf]

The word "identical" was used...although it may not have meant identical in terms of exact mirror images, but more like same physical structure, temperature, etc, etc... After all, we still don't have any equipment that can get granular enough to tell if they are truly identical in every way, right?

[WorldWarrior]

See the Nova documentary

"Intelligent Design on Trial"

which recreates the trial (Kitzmuller v. Dover) in which the determination was made that "intelligent design" is based on religion and not on science.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/


This website not only has the video available for viewing online, it gives access to many of the documents from the trial.

IE--"intelligent design" materials and literature.

[metis]

The word "identical" was used...although it may not have meant identical in terms of exact mirror images, but more like same physical structure, temperature, etc, etc... After all, we still don't have any equipment that can get granular enough to tell if they are truly identical in every way, right?

I would assume they don't.  I don't know exactly how much cosmologists know about the similarities and differences in the cosmic landscape, but I'm sure it's very far from complete.  I guess if we knew everything life would be quite boring. 

[jacknky]

WW,
"See the Nova documentary""

Nova is just liberal propoganda. (My tongue is firmly in my cheek.)

[WorldWarrior]

Jack--lol--

Yes that Pennsylvania court judge was so "liberal" that he rounded the corner and turned into a conservative.

Which indeed he was.

That didn't stop him from understanding--and ruling--that "intelligent design" is not science--because he actually listened to testimony on "intelligent design" materials and also read them for himself.


They're available at the website I linked above.

[Thorolf]

Actually, the "ruling" was that ID cannot be taught as an alternative to Evolution.

His opinion on ID not being science was a critical component of that ruling.

He's right - as long as ID does not come up with a measurable standard to determining the presence of a designer, it has a tough road ahead.

Not that the alternative has a particularly measurable standard, either... but it's already accepted.