EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/ ^

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

Ping

[Inspectorette]

“Bueller?...Bueller??”

[ari-freedom]

[Coyoteman]

But Science is different. In Science, there is no room for dissent, for dissent is dangerous. That is why we at Big Science simply refuse to allow it.

False.

All "dissent" needs to do is bring evidence -- scientific evidence.

But there you encounter the problem: ID is religious belief masquerading as science. It has made a lot of claims, but it has produced no evidence that has withstood scientific scrutiny. Even Behe has backed away from most of his earlier claims.

Look at the efforts of the Dyscovery Institute in support of ID. Check out their blogs. Most are authored by lawyers, with an occasional English major or journalist for diversity. Where is the science? What a joke!

[griswold3]

Has Ben Stein explained why he endorsed Al Franken over Norm Coleman?

[Chode]

where's the science??? it's all in the global warming arena.

[Mr Inviso]

“”Has Ben Stein explained why he endorsed Al Franken over Norm Coleman?””

I recall that he said something about Franken was working ard for the nomination and really trying to earn it or something like that. Not saying I agree, of course. Then again, I’m not sure Coleman would be much more than a numerical loss for the GOP, being the RINO he is.

[Grut]

All "dissent" needs to do is bring evidence -- scientific evidence.

Well, kinda. Science is a lot more accepting of arguments that say "current thinking is incomplete" than of those that say "current thinking is flat wrong."

[Coyoteman]

Well, kinda. Science is a lot more accepting of arguments that say "current thinking is incomplete" than of those that say "current thinking is flat wrong."

OK, I can agree with that.

But we must remember that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs" (although I would change "proofs" to "evidences").

[truthfinder9]

Even Behe has backed away from most of his earlier claims. Let's see, I'm reading his new book and it seems he is confirming everything he said 10 years ago in in his first book. If you're going to masquerade as an adult at least try to be believable.

[truthfinder9]

P.S. See how your honest, open-minded academics have tried to silence and edit debate with Behe:

http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2007/10/23/when_will_darwinists_accept_that_evidenc

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I see that you start with the same premise as that which IDers decry. Try this on for size, if you can't logically explain your position using deduction, induction and Occam's razor to the common layman, either your position is faulty or you don't understand your subject well enough.

Now I will be the first to agree that logic is not the be all and end all of science. There is more to science than that. But illogic has no place in scientific thinking.

Therefore, I ask you to *logically* explain your position about ID without resorting to argumentum ad hominum or question begging premises (circular logic). Any assumptions will, of course, have to be logically shown to be valid for the purposes of this discussion.

Since this is a logical exercise, then any falsifiability or testability arguments either for or against ID must be waived, since it must be conceded that both sides have problems in this regard. IOW, if a point is made using either of these arguments it is to be assumed that logic is being sidestepped, therefore the point is invalid.

A word to the wise. Be very careful about relying overmuch on "scientific evidence." Scientists seem to be wrong more often than not. As an example, I give you the evidence on climate change, which has flip-flopped at least four times in the last century - each time, the consensus of scientific opinion was absolutely certain they were correct.

Remember, this not a full-blown scientific enquiry, only an exercise in logic. The main purpose for suggesting this logical exercise is to let both sides see the logical strengths and weaknesses of their respective positions. This is not designed to get people to change their minds (since it obviously won't do that), but it will force people to give reasonable apologia for their positions (something I wish our politicians would do).

For those who don't understand the logical rules I have stated, deduction is something you can absolutely show is true from the available facts (e.g. if a girl was 14 in January of 2006, then in June of 2007, it can be shown conclusively that she had passed her 15th birthday), induction is drawing reasonable conclusions with a high probability of accuracy without knowing absolutely for sure from the given facts (if a dog inside a house doesn't bark during a burglary, then it is reasonable to assume an inside job. However, there are burglars who have a way with animals, such that dogs won't bark at them. So while the odds are that it is an inside job, it is not conclusively so) and Occam's razor basically states that the simplest explanation that fits the facts is the answer you are looking for.

So, using the tools of deduction, induction and Occam's razor, en evant mes enfants. Let the games begin.

[DallasMike]

All "dissent" needs to do is bring evidence -- scientific evidence.

Right. Just like the "science" behind global warming.

[Socratic]

...deduction is something you can absolutely show is true from the available facts (e.g. if a girl was 14 in January of 2006, then in June of 2007, it can be shown conclusively that she had passed her 15th birthday)...

But what is called a fact today might not be a fact tomorrow. Suppose the girl's birthday was February 29th? I don't think 2006 was a leap year, so the day of her birth did not even occur that year. Did the Earth revolve more than once around the Sun during the specified interval? Yes. But what exactly is meant by the concept of "birthday?" I see no absolute truth in the facts presented.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

When you change the facts around as you do, the underlying assumption, of course, changes. Given the facts that I gave you, then it an absolute certainty I was correct. The underlying assumptions, in this case, were that you understood that twelve months equals one year and that January comes before June in the hierarchy of months. Furthermore, the concept of "birthday" is generally well understood to mean the anniversary of the date of one's birth. While the way we count birthdays has changed (we used to speak of a 13 year-old as being in his 14th year), the sequential nature of them has not.

I gave an example to show the use of deduction. Without changing the facts around or the generally acceptable underlying assumptions which I made, can you show that I did not use deductive reasoning?

[TASMANIANRED]

“The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live.”

Sam Harris. The End of Faith

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Also, your question about whether the earth revolved around the earth more than once in a year is a strawman since, by definition, a year consists of one revolution (except in the case of Bolivia, which has more).

Let us leave out the "what ifs" and logical fallacies please. Too often there are those who are willing to manipulate the facts to fit their worldview (i.e. MSM). Please don't fall into that trap.

[Socratic]

...the generally acceptable underlying assumptions which I made, can you show that I did not use deductive reasoning?

You used deductive reasoning quite well, but I was pointing out your "generally acceptable underlying assumptions" may be mistaken for FACTS when they are merely generally acceptable underlying assumptions.

Would you be calling a Socratic, a Sophist? Tread lightly young man.