Looks Pretty Interesting

22Jan08

 

You can get more info HERE.

Advertisements


116 Responses to “Looks Pretty Interesting”

  1. Captivating.

    this oughta strike up some debate.

    I mean…good discussion 😉

  2. 2 ronpai

    that looks good. It most definately will strike up great disscussion. Ben Stein is very dry. Will anyone make it through the movie if he is narrating the whole thing?

    Did anyone catch the Ferris Bueller reference at the end? Did anyone get to the end? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

  3. The Bueller reference cracked me up. I am sure there will be a whole lot of his narration and even his humor, but it sounds like it will be pretty well researched and lots of interviews.

    With the level of excellence in which Moore has created his documentaries, Stein would be foolish to not try to do well with this.

    I think there is a lot of hype in our world. And there is a lot of hype in the science world. I am not looking for this documentary to reveal something new or prove something. I am hoping(which it looks like is the intent) for this documentary to settle things down and get away from the hype and extremism attitude.

  4. 4 ronpai

    “I think there is a lot of hype in our world. And there is a lot of hype in the science world. I am not looking for this documentary to reveal something new or prove something. I am hoping(which it looks like is the intent) for this documentary to settle things down and get away from the hype and extremism attitude.”

    Amen and Amen.

    I think this movie might be a good one for the “Movie and Theology” night that I host through my church.

  5. Ya, this could prove to be a great attend and then discuss kind of movie.

    The reality is that this could calm a lot of Christians down as well. Many don’t want anything to do with science and they need to realize that it is a valuable resource. God and science CAN go hand in hand.

  6. 6 Sean

    Wow, this could really be something. I wonder what kind of actual release is it going to have in the general public?

  7. The site says that it will be a theatrical release in Spring..we’ll see how wide spread that will be.

  8. 8 ronpai

    aren’t you in medford? I know that you are somewhere in southern oregon because of your “Dutch Bros.” sweatshirt;). Will it be released there? I think the closest I’ll come is seattle or Vancouver.

  9. I am in Medford. I am not sure if it will be released here. Did you find a listing of where it would?

  10. 10 Ed

    The trailer was very well produced. I like his picture on his site in his shorts, long black socks and sneakers(?). I think by adding an element of humor Stein’s film might be more entertaining then Michael Moore’s who seems to just be ranting to me.

    The IMDB movie site list the release as Feb. 2008 and has an expanded synopsis, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/synopsis

    I hope that anyone who writes a review about the film will actually see it and not just criticize it out of hand because they don’t agree him.

    I can’t comment on the material in the film or on Ben Stein’s site before doing more research.

    I do find it interesting that in the debates on most subjects I see both sides make the claim of being persecuted.

    As an Atheist living in a country that has never had a non-believer as a President, were all 50 Governors (I think) believe in God, all 100 senators and all but one of the 435 members in the House of Representatives are believers I do sometimes feel like Custer did at the Little Big Horn. 🙂

  11. Hey Ed, isn’t “being a Christian” in the requirements to be an American politician 🙂

    Of course, I would tend to believe that many people lie on their resume 🙂

  12. 12 Ed

    My ISP has been wanky today. Sorry about the double post. Maybe being the only Atheist here I should make all my entries double post. 🙂

    No Atheist allowed in Congress.
    🙂
    No Christians allowed in the science lab.
    🙂

  13. hahahaha! Good one Ed. That was funny. 😉

  14. Got you covered Ed 🙂

  15. No Atheist allowed in Congress.
    🙂
    No Christians allowed in the science lab.
    🙂

    Hmmm…could there be a power struggle 🙂

  16. Most people don’t realize how highly educated Ben Stein is. They keep thinking of that voice that sounds monotone and droning… Plus the Visene commercials don’t help.

    I’ll definitely see it. It seems that the older I get, the more I love indie films…..if this is truly an indie pic.

  17. I agree!

    I actually love his voice. It is one of the most mimicked voices in movies 🙂 Although the Visene commercials are a bit of a stretch for his career. But then there is America’s Most Smartest Model as well. I love watching him on that!

  18. Did I just say that I’ve watched America’s Most Smartest Model, out loud…

  19. Wha?!

  20. 20 Sean

    That’s alright Brent just lay back on the couch there and tell the good doctor all about this TV show, America’s Most Smartest Model? you called it. We will see if you can be cured, haha.

  21. That looks like a movie I’ll have to see.
    Mud activated by lightning…lol.
    Good post and video.

  22. Mud activated by lighting?

    Mudpuppy?

  23. Some one said:

    “Most people don’t realize how highly educated Ben Stein is.”

    Robert said:

    I am a highly educated engineer, that does NOT
    qualify me to do brain or heart surgery or to speak intelligently of the intricacies of modern evolutionary biology. what Mr. steins educational training or professional background make him qualified to speak to the improbability of “random mutation, natural or artificial selection and descent with modification”. Stick to economics and politics Mr. Stein, when you speak to those matters I’ll listen. As for biology and origins I’ll listen to the people who are educated in such matters.

    R.

  24. I understand that Robert. It did appear however that those who are “educated in such matters” are involved in this project. So I will be interested in what they have to say too.

  25. Hey Robert, what does Stein’s education have to do with this investigative report on the authority of darwinism?

    I understand if we were going to be given an education on the origin of species that Stein is not educated to do this. I believe very much so that he is educated to give us a report on the system and is more than qualified to talk about the politics of science and religion.

    Stein would be stupid to teach us about what he does not know, and he clearly is bringing in many qualified scientists to do this in this movie as we saw in the trailer and read about on the site.

    This is an independent investigative documentary. Seems to me the world heralded Michael Moore and his creations. They best be careful if they are ridiculing Stein for doing the same thing, or they will look very biased and one sided.

  26. inWorship said:

    “This is an independent investigative documentary. ”

    Robert says:

    We shall see. Though the theatrics and the ‘straw man’ arguments that I have seen Mr. Stein make on O’Reilly and other venues lead me to believe that this WILL NOT be a fair and balanced affair.

    Robert

  27. tam & inWorship:

    I am deeply concerned about the way this film is being marketed. Please read this entry by an admittedly atheist biologist who was approached by the producer of the film.

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/im_gonna_be_a_movie_star.php

    Clearly, there is something dishonest going on here.

    Robert

  28. Robert I didn’t say it would be fair and balanced. It is an independent investigative documentary by a creationist.

    Like I said, this is similar to Michael Moore’s attempts to “investigate” issues and politics. A lot of great questions will arise for both sides. the focus will be creationism and it’s part or lack of it in science study. that’s pretty clear.

    There is a message to be had and Stein will display that message. What people want to do with that is up to them.

    And I read that article and it seems NO different than any other investigative documentary put together. The people interviewed are never given the whole information or else their interview will be swayed so as not to say something they don’t want heard. Again, this is the reason Michael Moore has gotten the footage he has. He has gone into places asking questions without any info on what it was for or how he would use it. it is the only way to get an honest answer out of people.

    If you came to me and told me you were doing a report on how to disprove religion and I chose to do the interview. I would know that anything I said could be used against me and I would not answer truthfully, I would answer the best I could to defend my case. The filmmakers know this and they all use this tactic. To get honest answers, no more…no less

  29. inWorship said:

    “Like I said, this is similar to Michael Moore’s attempts to “investigate” issues and politics.”

    Robert responds:

    I hear what you are saying. But, you need to know that I am no fan of the work of Michael Moore. Personally I think his methods are counter-productive in many respects. His films seem more inclined to incite anger on both sides of an issue.

    I have not seen this film yet. So I can’t speak to its quality. this remains to be seen. However, clips I have seen show me lead me to suspect that it won’t do anything but further incite righteous indignation from creationists or ID’ers AND ridicule from scientists and supporters of the teaching of evolution.

    I hope I am wrong…

    R.

  30. I think it looks fascinating!

  31. 31 Sean

    What about waiting to see the film when it comes out and to try to approach it with as open a mind as possible when it is viewed. I must admit, I am a creationist, which if the scientific community would look at with an open mind, would be just another THEORY for the creation of the earth and everything on it. The problem seems to be that Darwinism has come to be excepted as a fact in the scientific community which in all reality is only a theory. There are still holes in the theory just as there are holes in the intelligent design theory. So, if the scientific community would approach all options with an open mind, as I believe they should, I think it would eleviate a lot of the arguement here.

    On a personal note, I can accept Creationism as a fact, for my personal viewpoint, barring any holes, because my faith also comes into play.

  32. Robert I am with you in regards to the hope that it will not further divide. I am hoping though that it will bring up some needed questions that the scientific needs to answer to be held accountable.

    There is quality scientific research going on in the ID camp and their intent is to keep it science. I wold like to see their stuff have a say. Of course I would expect the same accountability from them. We don’t need fanatics and agendas(especially political) in either camp.

  33. Sean, obviously I am with you in my stance based on my faith. My logical side would like to see both parties play nice.

    But, you are right that we should allow the movie to speak for itself and then a review will be made. I will definitely offer that review up 🙂

  34. Sean said:

    “just another THEORY for the creation of the earth and everything on it.”

    Robert says:

    I am NOT going to get into a shouting match over the definition of ‘theory’. But, Creationism is NOT a theory in the Scientific sense. I’m sorry.

    Creationism makes no predictions, cannot be tested and can not be falsified.

    Please understand that Darwin and evolution say NOTHING of where life came from. There is huge debate about how organic chemistry and by extension life originated. There may be no way to prove that it was a natural occurrence. But that doesn’t mean we should stop investigating and searching for naturalistic explanation.

    The evidence we currently have supports a naturalistic explanation for speciation i.e. the diversity of life we see around us.

    The ID’ers fight this naturalistic explanation by proposing that the systems are too complex to have evolved without a designer.

    Let’s propose for a minute that ID is true and accurate. How would you begin to prove it?

    Just saying: “The bacterial flagellum and the human immune system are far too complex to have evolved via natural processes, so therefore there had to a super-intelligence or a divine designer.”

    Contrast that with a similar argument:

    “There’s no possible way two jetliners could possibly bring down two modern steel skyscrapers so therefore there was foul play and and involvement of some other organization.”

    Both of these arguments are examples of the fallacy known as the argument from personal incredulity. It’s a common error, it doesn’t make the any one stupid. We all make errors in logic. We’re human.

    Sean, you say your acceptance of creationism as fact is based on your ‘faith’. I can’t argue with that, nor would I.

    But to say creationism or ID is an equivalent and equally valid scientific theory, well that is not accurate.

    R.

  35. “Let’s propose for a minute that ID is true and accurate. How would you begin to prove it?

    Just saying: “The bacterial flagellum and the human immune system are far too complex to have evolved via natural processes, so therefore there had to a super-intelligence or a divine designer.””

    I agree with this Robert. in our discussions, we as Christians fully understand that our faith is one of just that…faith. As well, this argument for ID is not good enough for me, but my hope would be that scientists would be allowed to study and research based on their beliefs and ideas. I think this is already happening on both sides and we just need to be held accountable on both sides.

  36. @inWorship:

    Please understand I am not saying that evolutionary explanation for speciation is perfect. It’s not! There’s much we have yet to explain.

    Here’s the thing though, we’ve only been at this for about 150 years. In that sliver of time much has been learned and discovered.

    I will state again that I can’t begin to even fathom how one would construct an experiment to prove ID. I would love to see one! If there is a scientist out there who has done it, he deserves a Nobel Prize.

    Even if some aspect of design were definitively proved. How could we make a distinction between the God of Christianity or super-intelligent aliens from the 17th dimension who for all intents and purposes would b Gods from our point of view?

    These are the thoughts that keep out of the really good schools! 😉

    R.

  37. Maybe God is an alien 🙂

    I personally am not looking for scientists to prove ID. I am only hoping they are allowed to take their thoughts and ideas into the research room. Like you said, who knows what we could find out in the next 150 years.

  38. “These are the thoughts that keep out of the really good schools!”

    Who needs really good schools when we’ve got the blog world 🙂

  39. inWorship says:

    “I am only hoping they are allowed to take their thoughts and ideas into the research room.”

    Robert says:

    Therein lies the rub…

    What does an ID scientist do? Where does he (or she) begin? Is it simply a matter of finding something that COULDN’T have evolved?

    How could you definitively say that it couldn’t?

    It’s like saying, “There are leprechauns in the world.” And then proposing the proof of the statement is that we haven’t proved there aren’t.

    This in the end is an epistemological argument.

    R.

  40. I was in fact activated by lightening…

  41. I think that scientists right now take their thoughts and ideas into the room. There is always a bias that it is involved.

    I am not asking ID scientists to prove or disprove. I am asking for the opportunity for scientists working on evolution to be allowed to have an ID mindset. Similar is the post I threw out there on the ice melt and global warming. There is a definite bias in that scientists mind that even though there is still some research in front of him, he is still convinced it will be chalked up to Global Warming.

    That to me is wrong, but it is ok for that scientist to believe that global warming is accurate and then through his research have that in the back of his mind.

    Am I making sense showing the difference I see.

  42. mudpuppy – LOL!!!

  43. inWorship said:

    “I think that scientists right now take their thoughts and ideas into the room. There is always a bias that it is involved.”

    Robert says:

    Absolutely they do! The scientific endeavor has been based on finding naturalistic explanations for what we observe around us. That’s been the business of science since its beginning.

    To turn around and say to a scientist: “OK now we’d like you to consider something that goes against nearly a thousand years of empiricism.”

    You can see why some scientists would choke on that, myself included.

    As to “Global Warming” I didn’t comment on your post because I don’t feel I don’t know the science well enough. when that happens we tend to let out intuitions run riot.

    That said: what I do know, leads me to believe that ‘Global Warming’ is not a good description of the challenge.

    Climate change is much more accurate and encapsulates the problem better.

    It’s hard to convince someone of the dangers and risks ‘greenhouse gas’ emissions using a term like ‘global warming’ when there are regions experiencing record cold.

    Bottom line is you can’t expect to pump billions upon billions of tons of carbon based gases into the atmosphere year after year and NOT expect it to have an effect. That’s ludicrous to the point of insanity. It WILL have an effect.

    What those affects are and how long they’ll take to manifest themselves is open to debate.

    We do need to make more efficient use of carbon emitting fuels for MANY reasons. That’s just good sense.

    But we needn’t be alarmist.

    Robert

  44. “To turn around and say to a scientist: “OK now we’d like you to consider something that goes against nearly a thousand years of empiricism.””

    I definitely would not ask any scientist to change his/her process. I only ask that scientists who may think differently be given a chance to speak and research without being discounted purely for their beliefs.

    “But we needn’t be alarmist.”

    I wholeheartedly agree!

  45. inWorship says:

    “I only ask that scientists who may think differently be given a chance to speak and research without being discounted purely for their beliefs.”

    Robert responds:

    But that definition though, it opens the door to ANYTHING.

    Should astronomical observatories start give equal time on the telescope to astrologers?

    Should chemistry laboratories and universities allow alchemy access to the labs?

    Should medical research labs be on par with (stifling a laugh here) homeopathy?

    Questions to ponder.

    R.

  46. I don’t believe that all ID scientists do not agree with evolution. I just believe they have a different take on where it may lead.

    I don’t want astronomers to speak for astrologers and vice versa.

    I didn’t mean to suggest that.

  47. Mudpuppy…

    That’s between your parents 😉

  48. inWorship said:

    “I don’t believe that all ID scientists do not agree with evolution. I just believe they have a different take on where it may lead.”

    Robert says:

    I’m intrigued! Is there a candidate scientist you have in mind?

    I’d really like to hear more about such a nuanced view.

    R.

  49. I have listened to Christian scientists studying evolution talk. in fact I heard a program about 3 months ago on a discussion of ID vs Evolution. All three of the scientists (who seemed to be respected as such) believed in micro evolution and what it is showing us. But all three had a problem with the belief that Macro evolution is an easy step, because the research is still up for debate. I did not see that any the intent was to discount evolution. Just not to see it for something it wasn’t yet.

    I will try and see if I can find this discussion noted somewhere.

  50. inWorship said:

    “But all three had a problem with the belief that Macro evolution is an easy step, because the research is still up for debate.”

    Robert says:

    It isn’t an EASY step, but there IS evidence for it.

    These scientists have my blessing, if they can find a method or mechanism behind speciation that evolutionary theory missed or overlooked…by all means…submit a paper on it I know we’d ALL love to hear it.

    R.

  51. This debate can have no winners.
    Resolution may not be possible, with a controvesy, that cannot be resolved.

    Should make for an interesting debate.

  52. Robert – It will be interesting to see how this movie, if at all, defines any of these positions.

    Dale D – Welcome and thanks for stopping by. I think there can be winners, but obviously to win, something would have to be mutual. Maybe respect…maybe just some understanding. Of course we would all win if both sides learn what the word “hype” means.

  53. 53 Ed

    I doubt that no matter what research is found neither the creationist the evolutionist(?) will change their position.

    I have more confidence in the scientific process but scientist themselves can be as closed minded as anyone else.

    I don’t see a dialogue between the sides with each willing to listen the other. I see a debate for the minds of the public.

    The debate to me is over how should evolution be taught in schools. Should ID be taught in science class?

    I don’t think ID or creationism is science because as far as I know no proponent as submitted their evidence for critical peer review. Darwin did. That doesn’t mean ID is right or it is wrong. All theories are worthy of research.

    The critical thing that should be taught in schools is how to perform your own experiments and research so you can decide for yourself which theories you can place the most faith in. Evolution provides a model for how to conduct scientific research. How to gather, examine and test evidence. To my knowledge ID does not fit this scientific model. as least not as yet.

    I will probably rent and watch the Ben Stein movie. I will try to approach it with an open mind, but I do have a scientific bias.

  54. Ed – Your’e probably right about relations between the two camps, but one can always hope.

  55. Interesting advertisement for Intelligent Design.

    There you got reasons why you can’t just call Creationism scientific:
    http://darwinsbeagle.wordpress.com/2008/01/22/the-scientific-vacuity-of-intelligent-design-creationism/

    ..and I really think everything serves its special purpose.

    Regards.

  56. Good Lord Ray – That thing is long!!!

    But well written, researched and thought out.

    Aspects of evolution have gone through the scientific process(as Ray laid our in his post…take time to read it). This is from Ray’s post…

    “It consist of (1) making observations; (2) proposing a theory to account for the observations; (3) making a testable prediction based on that theory; and (4) testing the prediction.”

    Question to Ray or anyone else. At what point in this process do we start teaching or claiming that something is possible or plausible. Maybe this argument will hurt the ID’rs, but I think it could also help keep science accountable.

  57. 57 Ed

    What a great blog Ray. Thanks for the link. I will add it to my growing list of blogs to read. It’s a good thing I am retired and don’t have to waste my time at work. 🙂

  58. Ed, I’ll take that as a compliment that you don’t feel your wasting your time around here 🙂

  59. 59 Ed

    This is fun. One thing I have learned is what a great sense of humor Christian’s have.

    A tad crazy perhaps, 🙂 but a lot of fun to be with.

  60. I just realized something.

    Ray is this link to your blog or someone else’s? Because I have responded on their blog as if it was you.

  61. I wanted to say something funny, but it all felt inappropriate.

    🙂

  62. 62 Ed

    It comes down to what standard is used in evaluating an idea. Each discipline has it’s own standard.

    ID is taught in religious class with the entity being God. I would guess theories like ID are taught philosophy class

    For science it’s the peer review process.

  63. Mudpupy – Trust me, there is nothing inappropriate that can’t be handled around here 🙂

    Hey Ed, I think you are responding to my questioning, but maybe I didn’t make complete sense. My thought is this.

    Since Evolution hasn’t proven origin of life, should it even be considered as a likely candidate until it has a proven theory. I am mostly saying this from an educational stand point, but just curious.

  64. I have read things about these kind of findings in the past, but when enquiring from the same mags to get archives, I get no response. I thought that was odd..but now I don’t. I would see this..

  65. 65 Ed

    Brent, evolution has passed the peer review process. It has been judged to be best idea that fits the evidence currently available.

    Many of the scientific advances in fields like medicine, I think, start with the idea of mutating cells. Someone more knowledgeable than me could come up with better examples.

    When observing an orchilady with “the nectaries eleven and half inches long, with only the lower inch and a half filled with nectar.” “What can be the use, it may be asked, of a nectary of such disproportionate length?”

    Darwin predicted that there is an insect that had a proboscis 12″ long before anyone had observed such an insect. “When the indeed nocturnal hawk-moth, the pollinator of Angraecum sesquipedale was discovered and described for science no less than fifty-five years after Darwin’s prediction.”

    http://orchidlady.com/pages/orchidGarden/ChristmasStar.html (long and boring article unless your are interested in orchids.) 🙂

    Evolution is proven in the scientific sense. It may also be true that someday someone will make new observations and come up with a better idea than evolution that fits this new evidence.

    To disprove evolution someone needs to find new evidence, or a different way of looking at old evidence, that will pass the test of critical peer review.

  66. Sounds a lot like what us Christians say. When better evidence comes along than we’ll believe. The burden of proof demanded by a Christian should be the same for a scientist. If it isn’t proven it does not exist. it is only faith or belief.

    It seems strange to me that science, which prides itself in being accurate and detailed would say that origin of life comes from evolution even though there is no proof of that…only theory. There is much in the process of evolution that has been proven and is taking us further down the road and I acknowledge that, but NOT the origin of life.

    Doesn’t the science community need to be cautious to not imply theories as proof?

  67. 67 Ed

    For me the difficult thing to grasp about the process of scientist is that no theory should ever be considered 100% proven. By that I mean every new scientist should start with the idea every theory that read about may be wrong.

    The new scientist needs to be willing to say Darwin could be wrong. Einstein could be wrong. They have to prove it, but they should be prepared to challenge every idea currently excepted as fact.

    Theories that have passed critical peer review can be used to make new discoveries, build new technology. These are the models that new research is built on. However every new generation of scientist needs to reevaluate existing theories and improve on them or, if one can found, come up with a better idea.

    Evolution is as proven as any theory in science.

  68. I would agree with this Ed, and maybe the science community is attempting to live this way, but politics and media take it too far.

    there are so many things happening today that would show me science is used to answer and agenda. It should be that agendas are made because we’ve been given answers.

  69. 69 Ed

    Anyone who only uses the media stream as their only news source will get very bias and incomplete information.

    Most people either don’t have the time or won’t take the time to do a little research on their own. They read the news that confirms their own opinions.

    Just about any who speaks in front of a camera speaks from their own agenda.

    I do have my hopes on the Internet which gives easy access to any information we might want.

    In the debate between evolution and ID my only concern is how these ideas are used to build a better world.

    My faith is in the scientific process. A Christian’s faith is in God’s guidance.

    These are not mutually exclusive. We both may be right. I sure hope one of us is.

  70. Ed, I have no doubt that both worlds can be mutually valuable. We both have to do it with integrity and honesty and do what we are called to do. live by our standards and morals. I think if this happens, people won’t have issues with either side.

  71. 71 Sean

    What is everyone’s opinions about the teaching in school though?
    (I’ll wait for some responses to this, then I will through in my two cents)

  72. I don’t have a problem with the science of evolution being taught in schools. I do have a problem with evolution as having the answer for the origin of life being taught, cause this would be false.

    I think however the creationism should be taught as well in religious studies. Of course I think the whole Bible should e taught as religious studies in school.

  73. As it caused confusion, I just wanted to state that the texts behind the link in my previous comment were not written by me.
    I’m sorry if it appeared that way. My delight thoughts are rather to be found at the link behind my name.

    Anyway, I think specific religious beliefs (other than general information and comparisons to all such beliefs) should not be found in general education.
    There are reasons for sciences, why the bring us further in life and why the are to be taught in school. Religions have more social value but would interfere with each other when taught parallel.

    That’s why I think that a comparison between sciences and religions would be like a stack of a variety of apples (sciences) and an apple-smoothie with a variety of apples mixed together (religions).

    Regards and back to work!

  74. 74 Sean

    I guess a question I would have about this then would be, can the theory of Intelligent Design be taught in a secular fashion?

  75. Sean said:

    “I guess a question I would have about this then would be, can the theory of Intelligent Design be taught in a secular fashion?”

    Robert responds:

    That’s the HUGE issue…

    If s theory alludes to some sort of designer, what is the nature of that designer? Are we talking about a divine supreme-being or just another super-intelligence? How do we distinguish? There would be no way to make this distinction by surveying the evidence at hand.

    I agree with Ed, that Intelligent Design belongs more appropriately in a philosophy or religious classroom.

    Robert

  76. I have no problem with intelligent design being limited to the religious classroom. That’s probably where I’d differ with you Ray, as I see the opportunity for people to learn about religions as something valuable.

    If we limit our education to certain things than there is more of a chance to have incomplete or incorrect information. We then form ideas and thoughts and plan out our lives based on something that is false.

    Robert if i could prove that aliens didn’t do it…would we be getting somewhere 🙂

    I’ll go find one and ask 😉

  77. inWorship said:

    “Robert if i could prove that aliens didn’t do it…would we be getting somewhere 🙂

    I’ll go find one and ask ;)”

    Robert says:

    If you were to convince me that you found and conversed with an alien…I don’t think I’d be interested in discussing ID vs. Evolution anymore. 😉

    I’d be much more interested in hitching a ride to Alpha Centauri or the Orion Nebula!

    R.

  78. Robert…I am definitely with you on that. wouldn’t it be amazing!

    Alright, no more science threads…we’re talking alien now!!!

    🙂

  79. 79 Jason

    Hiya,

    Thanks for posting this Brent. I have been saying this over and over.

    Robert,

    “If s theory alludes to some sort of designer, what is the nature of that designer?”

    I’m sorry, Robert, but the question is smoke a mirrors, trying to change the subject. Asking what God’s name is or where he lives has nothing to do with, as I have said, the universal fact that there are informational patterns of expression and language which have no known cause apart from a designer, and no known self-ordering mechanism. The point of the discussion is not that we want to know God’s favorite color, the point is that, when we see informational patterns, these patterns are presumed in any existing forum, except dogmatic naturalism, to be the effect of an intelligent, intentional causational agent.

    I am presuming, everybody, that you have read Steve Meyer’s paper. If you have not, it is well worth it. For those of you who don’t have a scientific background, it won’t be easy.

    This is a philosophy of science issue, which is not popularized philosophy, not Russell going on and on about why he hates Jesus, but it is the very foundation of all scientific work. It is the world view that undergirds all scientific presuppositions. But the presuppositions have been swiped by censorous materialists who have, as I have said at least a hundred times, faith structures which predate the presuppositions in a way which makes their response to real open-ended scientific inquiry heretical. Dawkins is the materialists’ Bellarmine.

    Bacon’s scientific method is not some basal equation, it is a philosophic view regarding to how to do science. You can’t actually do anything without having a view as to how to do it, even if your view is way off, so to relegate ID to hippies contemplating their navels with copies of “Nausea” in their back pockets is to demonstrate a lack of understanding of just how important philosophy of science is.

  80. 80 Jason

    R,

    Just saying: “The bacterial flagellum and the human immune system are far too complex to have evolved via natural processes, so therefore there had to a super-intelligence or a divine designer.”

    Contrast that with a similar argument:

    “There’s no possible way two jetliners could possibly bring down two modern steel skyscrapers so therefore there was foul play and and involvement of some other organization.”

    Do you really want to go here?

  81. Hey Jason, where could I get a copy of Meyer’s paper?

    Would you say that he is pointing out how philosophy should or shouldn’t be a part of the scientific process?

  82. 82 Jason

    “Hey Jason, where could I get a copy of Meyer’s paper?”

    here is the paper and a couple of resources clarifying the flammable, moving, semantic targets in this discussion.

    http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=549

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/01/28/do2803.xml

    http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=3580

    http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2598

    “Would you say that he is pointing out how philosophy should or shouldn’t be a part of the scientific process?”

    If you mean Robert, it reads as though he thinks that they are separate disciplines, which couldn’t be farther from the truth. I’m no texactly sure what he is saying, but what I am saying is that philosophy CAN’T NOT be part of the scientific process. The very leap above Aristotelian spheres made by Copernicus involved a massive philosophic shift which allowed him to look at things in a way different than nearly all had before. (Except for, of course, Jewish theologians, who understood the bible to indicate this long before Christ was born.)

  83. Cool thanks! I will take some time to read through.

    And, I was asking you what you thought based on his papers…thanks for the thoughts.

  84. 84 Jason

    “And, I was asking you what you thought based on his papers”

    In opposition to Ed’s erroneous overstatement of biblical proportions, “Evolution is as proven as any theory in science.”, there is no variation on the Darwinian theme which can come close to explaining the great diversity and divergence of existing life. This ipart of the reason why some have taken up panspermia, or the idea that IT came from outer space.

    right, Robert?

  85. Jason said:

    “I’m sorry, Robert, but the question is smoke a mirrors, trying to change the subject.”

    Robert responds:

    Perhaps it is but it’s still a valid question worth pondering.

    Jason said:

    “I have said, the universal fact that there are informational patterns of expression and language which have no known cause apart from a designer, and no known self-ordering mechanism.”

    Robert says:

    Again that maybe so, but because we have no known explanation, (a statement which I am still not convinced of but I’ll let it go), is that a reason to say that it MUST have been designed? Naturalistic science will continue to search for naturalistic causes for speciation.

    For all I care ID leaning scientists can continue to search for evidence to support ‘design’ but I fail to see how you would be able to find irrefutable evidence FOR design.

    To your mind what would constitute such evidence?

    All I have seen Mr. Behe and others do is look at some biological construct and pronounce it too complex or irreducibly complex such that it can’t have been generated through random mutation and natural selection.

    That’s not a good scientific argument. That’s an example of a logical fallacy.

    Let’s assume for a moment that a complex biological system was NOT the result of random mutation and natural selection. Now what? Do we just assume by default that it was designed? Or do we keep looking for another cause? I would choose the latter.

    This is where I am struggling.

    As for the where organic chemistry of life came from: my understanding is the science is inconclusive at best. I firmly acknowledge that and that we may NEVER know conclusively either. I think many scientists suspect this too. However, I think experiments should continue to see if proper conditions WOULD allow the natural development of organic chemistry and eventually the formation of molecules able to make copies of themselves. Such a positive experimental outcome could never prove that this is what happened on Earth or somewhere else all those billions of years ago, but it would show it’s possible.

    As for Mr. Stephen C. Meyer….

    When you are done reading his work read this:

    http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000430.html

    R.

  86. I think one thing I have realized in all this discussion of evolution. There will never be a consensus between science and religion.

    I personally believe that science will continue to prove(even through lack of proof) that the God I believe in is the designer. I have no problem with research into the unknown. I will continue to point out when I think that something is being heralded or claimed fact when it isn’t.

    I want to see ID’rs continue their journey and I want to see evolutionist continue theirs. I honestly believe neither will find that absolute nugget of truth, because I believe there was a creator.

    I just want to see science held to an intense standard of scrutiny. So as not to allow “truth” claims until actually proven. There will always be talk of maybe and theory and perhaps. But the community needs to be cautious to depend or rely on something as fact when we know it can’t be(evolution or something else).

  87. Found this today:

    http://www.physorg.com/news120405972.html

    Not saying that it’s proof of anything…but it IS interesting.

    R.

  88. SO, some guys are taking bacteria and creating life out of it.

    Sounds like a plus for “designers”.

    🙂

  89. inWorship says:

    “Sounds like a plus for “designers”.”

    Robert says:

    That’s on way to look at it yes.

    Another way is that MAYBE it’s not so hard to do and MAYBE it could have happened on it’s own…

    R.

  90. I know…I figured that was your point. I just had to throw that in 🙂

  91. 91 Jason

    “Sounds like a plus for “designers”.”

    bingo was his name-o.

    “Do we just assume by default that it was designed?”

    I don’t understand why this is so hard. You don’t assume anything. But
    that is

    not not not

    what the scientific communty is doing. They assume in the direction of materialism which is no less fallacious and no more scientific.

    As well saying that Behe is just seeing structure A and saying “couldn’t be!” is a massively simplistic. For the same reason that the trap door of panspermia was cracked opened, which was Crick’s realization of the vast, vast statistical unlikelihood of these frail structures forming on their own in a way that says something so specific, Behe is posing his questions. Once a person stops saying “random chance” and starts looking at just how chancy the randomness is, one must land, at the very least, where Flew landed, that is, to say that this all just happened on its own is so statistically insignificant that it not just borders but resides in make believe.

    Which is part of the difficulty I have with your, partially correct, observation that evolution does not speak to origins. If we were just dealing with this subject one paper at a time, you could be right. But we aren’t, which is the bigger point I have been trying to make and, what appears to be, a big part of the point of this film, however truthful or decietful it may be in content and presentation. We are dealing with a scientific community which demands that you must be a dogmatic materialist, or at least don’t ask don’t tell, in order to walk among them.

    Let me say again that I don’t mind one tiny bit that evolution would be taught anywhere ever, just be honest about its presuppositions and limitations, and neither would I encourage anyone to teach 6 day creation as science, (although to argue against it indicates a presuppositional dependence on certain observable scientific laws and mathematical conclusions which must be disregarded in order to preach the gospel of materialism and evolution).

    I just want honesty and real inquiry. Observing that information only comes from an informer is, at this point, a universal observation. To say so is not theology, it is the same variety of ex post facto observations which all of evolutionary theory presumes.

  92. 92 Jason

    “Another way is that MAYBE it’s not so hard to do and MAYBE it could have happened on it’s own…”

    yeah and maybe your gonna give me a lot of money.

    maybe….

  93. Jason said:

    “yeah and maybe your gonna give me a lot of money.”

    Robert says:

    keep having faith! 🙂

  94. 94 Jason

    hahahahaha

  95. 95 Jason

    @R,

    I tried to briefly peruse the blog, work, thing at “Panda’s Thumb”, and it sounds like they have some quite reasonable critiques when they chose to ellucidate their point. Most of it makes refutation by citing papers which, for ascholastic shorthand, is a perfectly reasonable method, and I couldn’t possibly take the time to wade through the substance of all the citations, and maybe that’s what they are hoping. Maybe…

    Maybe…

    Here’s what I find most telling. In the midst of this and many other debates what is cited is a lack of peer review. But here is a peer review. So what do the critics do? They first denigrate the other peer review publication, then cite other peer review publications in order to refute a peer review publication! My peers can beat up your peers!

    Two kinds of presuppositionalists: Those who admit it and those who don’t.

  96. 96 Jason

    tangent alert!

    Robert,

    I was lookin around last night on line and found this.

    oooo

  97. Jason said:

    “I was lookin around last night on line and found this.”

    Robert says:

    Unfortunately the corporate firewall blocks youtube…

    I can’t imagine why!

    I’ll see to this tonight sometime, provided my my “Flock of Dodos” DVD hasn’t arrived from netflix… 😉

    One must have priorities!

    R.

  98. Tangent accepted. I love this video. I saw it a while back. It is amazing to watch someone do what they are gifted to do.

  99. “provided my my “Flock of Dodos” DVD hasn’t arrived from netflix…”

    Dude, they rocked int eh 80’s 🙂

  100. 100 Ed

    Jason, I agree that the peer review process has some problems because it does after all involve humans with our human egos.

    ” My peers can beat up your peers!”

    Never. My peers are on steroids. 🙂

  101. inWorship said:

    “It is amazing to watch someone do what they are gifted to do.”

    Robert said:

    For the love of Pete!!! What is tarnation is the video about?!

    R.

  102. ooooh this is kind of fun. I actually feel a little control over Robert 🙂

    It is an awesome video of Neil Peart playing a drum solo. The dude is incredible!

  103. Neil is THE God-man virtuoso of percussion!!!

    Oddly i am listening to Rush right now now….

    “Natural Science” is playing appropriately enough 😉

    R

  104. 104 Jason

    R,

    “Natural Science” is playing appropriately enough”

    hahahahah, oooo the Permanent wavings, that spectacular organized train wreck at the end of the first movement of that song, where peart does that spectaculational fill..oooo

    @Ed,

    “Never. My peers are on steroids.”

    hahahahah

    the wonders of science

  105. Hahahaha!!!!

  106. “Wheels within wheels in a spiral array,
    A pattern so grand and complex,
    Time after time we lose sight of the way,
    Our causes can’t see their effects.”

    Very telling indeed!

    R.

  107. 107 Jason

    I agree completely. Peart’s view of Aristotle’s spheres occasionally leads him to a vision which is, well, Calvinistic!!!

    YAAYYY!

  108. Was wondering if you had picked up on that … 😉

    R.

  109. there’s no way Jason was going to miss that 🙂

  110. 110 Sean

    ‘Calvinistic’? Are we talking about Calvin and Hobbes now? That at least is not over my mental capibilities! (Hey, if you can’t laugh at yourself then who can!)

  111. Come on Sean, all of us can laugh at you 🙂

    Of course I wouldn’t expect anything different back 😉

  112. 112 Jason

    I always thought that they were poorly named and the names should have been switched around. Calvin always seemed more circumstantially dour and Hobbes always seemed more hopeful and ready to play (which is really how I see Calvin, yeah I know, nuts.)

  113. Oh how I miss that comic strip….Good that he went out strong rather than letting the strip suffer a long decline.

    I recently bought the anthology….

    PURE GENIUS!!

    R.

  114. 114 Sean

    I actually went through the trouble of buying three of the books Robert!

  115. 115 Ed

    Jason, have you signed up yet?

    “Creationists launch ‘science’ journal”

    http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080123/full/451382b.html

    The organization that last year opened a US$27-million creation museum in Kentucky has started its own ‘peer-reviewed’ scientific research journal.

    On 9 January, Answers in Genesis, a Christian ministry run by evangelical Ken Ham, launched Answers Research Journal (ARJ ), a free, online publication devoted to research on “recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework”. Papers will be peer reviewed by those who “support the positions taken by the journal”, according to editor-in-chief Andrew Snelling, a geologist based in Brisbane, Australia.

    “There have been these kinds of publications in the past,” says Keith Miller, a geologist at Kansas State University in Manhattan, who follows creationism. For the most part, he says, the work is ignored by the scientific community. But those without a science background, including some policy-makers, may not be able to judge the difference in value of a paper in ARJ and a genuine science journal.

  116. 116 Jason

    I thought this part was funny:

    “But those without a science background, including some policy-makers, may not be able to judge the difference in value of a paper in ARJ and a genuine science journal.”

    You mean like the bonehead judge in Dover, DE, telling people who do science that they are doing it wrong based on a misguided legal maneuver?

    And this transparent summary of peer review:

    “support the positions taken by the journal”

    Just keep repeating, Jason…can’t put out all the fires, can’t put out all the fires…



%d bloggers like this: