Posted on 04/18/2008 4:04:57 PM PDT by PurpleMountains
I just returned home from seeing the premiere of Ben Stein's new movie, "Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed". I was amazed that such an important movie that addresses serious questions would be so enjoyable and have such great entertainment value. The movie exposes Darwinism and the crushing of scientific inquiry going on in this country. Darwinism is the foundation science of modern liberalism, and just as liberalism is a failed philosophy and imposes political correctness to stifle debate, so is some of Darwinian theory wrong, and scientific study and debate about it is simiarly stifled. I urge everyone to see this movie and spread its messsage.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthegrandchildren.blogspot.com ...
Are you able to define “empirical evidence”?
A Typical ID argument
”The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself, not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs. (This is the disclaimer that is designed to overcome Edwards vs. Aquilard) Inferring that biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent is a humdrum process that requires no new principles of logic or science. It comes simply from the hard work that biochemistry has done over the past forty years, combined with consideration of the way in which we reach conclusions of design every day. ( Note that no evidence is offered)
What is "design"? Design is simply the purposeful arrangement of parts. The scientific question is how we detect design. This can be done in various ways, but design can most easily be inferred for mechanical objects. While walking through a junkyard you might observe separated bolts and screws and bits of plastic and glass, most scattered, some piled on top of each other, some wedged together. Suppose you saw a pile that seemed particularly compact, and when you picked up a bar sticking out of the pile, the whole pile came along with it. When you pushed on the bar it slid smoothly to one side of the pile and pulled an attached chain along with it. The chain in turn yanked a gear which turned three other gears which turned a red-and-white striped rod, spinning it like a barber pole. You quickly conclude that the pile was not a chance accumulation of junk, but was designed, was put together in that order by an intelligent agent, because you see that the components of the system interact with great specificity to do something.”
ID evidence is non-existent. The entire argument is anecdotal and emotional. This is to be expected because the ID movement is a LEGAL strategy and not a sincere effort in scientific enquiry. ID’ers accept the Biblical story of creation and use ID as a subterfuge to introduce Biblical Creationism into public schools. In 1987, the Supreme Court of the United States held that teaching Creationism in public schools was unconstitutional. To circumvent this, ID was created. The fraud was exposed in a federal trial Kitzmiller vs. the Dover School District.
Our world doesn’t adequately explain that. I dont think this particular existence is capable of such “all knowing” subjects.
Perhaps what science will evolve into 10,000 years from now will be closer, but....
I can define empirical evidence and scientific evidence. Give me a prediction of the characteristics that an Intelligent Designer will have and describe an experiment that has been done to validate it.
He and I have something in common. lol
This is a very heavy thread for a Friday night. I'm gonna go watch Alien vs Predator Requiem, have a good night.
I guess it’s because there’s no concensus on what “evidence” “science” “imeical evidence” AND SO ON AD INFINATUM mean to everyone.
This is the inherrent problem with science, it’s no more absolute than the man in the moon!
Tomorrow we’ll hear about a drug or food being good or bad again too.
You apparently believe in ID. Could you tell me why without mentioning Darwin or evolution?
May I repeat your statement to some freepers who are already jumping on the critical bandwagon:
That’s an easy one...just like post #112. Not all agree, therefore that’s HARDLY proof.
Try again.
You are wiser than me. BTW, I just got on demand and watched Bounty. Beutiful topless babes.
Why will no one give supporting evidence for the “scientific” theory of ID?
algore loves ALL food and most likely some non food items, like a goat.
I think algore evolved from goats, not apes.
Darwinism is CLEARLY wrong!
You remind me of someone that built a house out of titanium and it still blew down in an F-5 tornado, and DEMANDING from otheres to tell you what material can be used to build your next house and withstand nature’s fury!
Well first you need to show me where every scientist is in agreement on let’s say the very definition of science.
I'm not considering I.D. I reject much of their premises out of hand.
You're giving me no scientific reason to consider random evolution. I asked a simple question. Where are the billions of failed mutations? Show me in the archeological record.
As for ID, there is as much empirical evidence for ID, as there is for all life evolving from the same single microorganism, hence, the conundrum. I, however, have no trouble admitting that.
Sure...think of scientifically proving to someone that your parents love you.
You can produce all kinds of data...they nourished you, they gave you your first car...you can show ALL KINDS of physical evience they love you.
at the end of the day your peers either agree with you and accept this is enough “scientific proof”, or not.
There’s simply no absolutes.
WE creatively design things like the laptops we’re on, and so forth back up the (evoutionary) chain.
At some point there’s a beginning, that which science or nothing else can yet explain to our small minds. OTHER disciplines outside science help explain a full experience.
The science (jury) is still out on all there is to know about the human brain, and we simply are still collecting the data on defining science itself.
Years ago the medevel barber put leeches on people and that was the best scince of the day.
10.000 years from now people are going to chuckle at what passes for science today, and how it’s “defined”.
To think banana splits or pink poodles are responsible or somehow involved ion the beginning...is your set of data if you wish, but not many peers will buy it, no more than all peers will buy a bing bang to primordal soup to naked mole rats to apes to people.
In other words, you have no scientific evidence, but it makes you feel good to believe it. Okay. Good night.
You seem like a nice person, but I don't have the time to explain scientific method to you. I have asked every proponent of ID for evidence and no one has even tried. Good night
You should have taken Samuel Johnson’s advice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.