Heya:) Just wondering if anyone saw the movie by Ben Stein namely "Expelled, no intelligence allowed!" I just watched it and found it a rather interesting watch, lol, also quite amusing. Does anyone agree/disagree that educator's and scientist's should lose their jobs career's and credibility if they pursue in anyway the possiblity of intelligent design?Please if you havent seen the movie refrain from commenting on it:)Calling something stupid without seeing it is rather telling, lol. Much luv

Movies are scripted and the message controlled-- real life is a lot more messy. I live near Dover, Pa. and followed the story behind this movie.

BTW, here's a quote from Ben Stein:



Talk about poisoning the well!

BTW, it was a Republican judge appointed by GWB's father who issued the ruling and who, throughout the trial, caught the ID folks in some rather bizarre lies.

-Kerry O.

ID is not science, it is really that simple.

How does someone gather data to support the conclusion of irreducible complexity?

Its an argument from ignorance thus instead of being based on evidence, its based on the lack of evidence, "I do not know how this came to be, I am such a smart person if there was a way I would have figured it out by now, I havent, thus its irreducible complex." Bollox!

The real science comes into play when data is uncovered, or recorded that then shows how evolution would act to allow an organism to make use of partial systems such as the bacterial flagella making use of several of the components of the motor system currently found.

Nature is full of examples of this; genetics and most especially evo devo has unraveled many of the mysteries of how simple changes in genes, and even in the timings of development can have dramatic effects on an organism. Proteins are macromolecules with a vast array of functionality, and to discount without evidence the capabilities of a given set of organic machinery is not science.

That movie is one giant appeal to emotion, ad hominum attacks, and gotcha quote mines. Truly and marvelously pathetic.

I saw it, it was extremely funny, I do not think it was intended to be a comedy however.

Yes, I saw it. I own it actually. It's very interesting and I'm sure those things have happened. To both sides. Hard to know what to believe anymore.

You should believe what is demonstrably true.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

I'm not confused about ID. I can see what is demonstrably true. I mean it's hard to know whether or not to believe the scientists who say that they are being forced to study/present science in a certain way. I am sure the cases presented in the film are true. But, is it a problem everywhere or just a few select cases of being silenced?

Ahhh Here you go. This series of video's goes thoroughly into what happened to the people who where supposedly expelled!
\
http://www.youtube.com/watch?playnext=1&playnext_from=TL&videos=wHJ7qCOHam0&v=F5ixmLNwF9s




From the info section.

Thank you!

I was expelled from jail for talking too much. Not ratting on others (that would draw a severe beating), not for confessing for sins I did not have to, I just mean generally. "Hi, how are you, nice day, the Blue Jays opener is next season, them Leafs, huh, they're turning red alrady in Red October, what with all the Russki kommie players. What's today's soup of the day? Cabarnet? okay, how much is six times nine?..." If anyone had to listen to this day in and day out, the prison walls would crumble.

The guards petitioned the warden. He first dismissed their plea, and called them "sissy effeminite indeluables", until somehow one day he walked by my cell within hearing distance, and for a week after that he saw everying in blue and red. Yellow was missing.

He signed the release papers the next day.

i seen it and i refuse to give my opinion cause i may piss off alot of zionist and jesus freaks

...but think of the people you may piss off by not giving your opinion. And those you won't piss of by giving your opinion, and those you won't piss off by not giving your opinion. And those you may piss off by neither giving your opinion nor not giving your opinion, as well as those you may not piss off by neither giving your opinion nor not giving your opinion, not to mention those you may or may not piss off by neither giving your opinion nor not giving your opinion.

We have to be thorough in these things.

'Intelligent Design', like 'Anthropogenic Global Warming', is an interesting oxymoron - and neither of them understand (or correctly use) science. ID, however, makes an interesting pretense of using 'creation science', which presents its conclusions first and then tortures the 'science' to fit them. They neither allow nor tolerate dissent (e.g., AlGore's 'presentations' about 'AGW'). They advance 'premises' which can NOT be tested, and claim 'results' which are non-reproducible. They're the modern equivalent of 'Elmer Gantry' and espouse a 'philosophy' which can best be summed up as 'Do as I say, not as I do'. They're the (to use a phrase) 'modern Luddites' in the 'religious' sense of the word. They embarrass themselves with their ignorance of REAL science, and they insult those of us who understand it. A mind IS a terrible thing ...

Sure . . .


Name your argument against AGW, check your facts, check the following website, find the contradiction, hammer out the details and come back to me.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

See, your problem came when I took you up on your challenge ... the 'Woody Guthrie Award' ... right ... it's just one more Leftist blogger who's in the tank for The Gorbacle and his crowd ... sorry, you lose. You're just using the old 'Lies In, Lies Out' formula ... just like 'Dr.' Goebbels ...

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-stunner-nasa-heads-knew-nasa-data-was-poor-then-used-data-from-cru/

Climategate Stunner: NASA Heads Knew NASA Data Was Poor, Then Used Data from CRU


New emails from James Hansen and Reto Ruedy (download PDF here) show that NASA's temperature data was doubted within NASA itself, and was not independent of CRU's embattled data, as has been claimed.

March 10, 2010 - by Charlie Martin

Email messages obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute via a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that the climate dataset of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) was considered — by the top climate scientists within NASA itself — to be inferior to the data maintained by the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU).

The NASA scientists also felt that NASA GISS data was inferior to the National Climate Data Center Global Historical Climate Network (NCDC GHCN) database.

These emails, obtained by Christopher Horner, also show that the NASA GISS dataset was not independent of CRU data.

Further, all of this information regarding the accuracy and independence of NASA GISS data was directly communicated to a reporter from USA Today in August 2007.

The reporter never published it.

—————————————

There are only four climate datasets available. All global warming study, such as the reports from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), must be based on these four.

They are: the NASA GISS dataset, the NCDC GHCN dataset, the CRU dataset, and the Japan Meteorological Agency dataset.

Following Climategate, when it became known that raw temperature data for CRU’s “HADCRU3″ climate dataset had been destroyed, Phil Jones, CRU’s former director, said the data loss was not important — because there were other independent climate datasets available.

But the emails reveal that at least three of the four datasets were not independent, that NASA GISS was not considered to be accurate, and that these quality issues were known to both top climate scientists and to the mainstream press.

In a response to reporter Doyle Rice of USA Today, Dr. Reto Ruedy — a senior scientist at NASA — recommended the following:

Continue using NCDC’s data for the U.S. means and Phil Jones’ [HADCRU3] data for the global means. …

We are basically a modeling group and were forced into rudimentary analysis of global observed data in the 70s and early 80s. …

Now we happily combine NCDC’s and Hadley Center data to … evaluate our model results.

This response was extended later the same day by Dr. James Hansen — the head of NASA GISS:

[For] example, we extrapolate station measurements as much as 1200 km. This allows us to include results for the full Arctic. In 2005 this turned out to be important, as the Arctic had a large positive temperature anomaly. We thus found 2005 to be the warmest year in the record, while the British did not and initially NOAA also did not. …

It should be noted that the different groups have cooperated in a very friendly way to try to understand different conclusions when they arise.

Two implications of these emails: The data to which Phil Jones referred to as “independent” was not — it was being “corrected” and reused among various climate science groups, and the independence of the results was no longer assured; and the NASA GISS data was of lower quality than Jones’ embattled CRU data.

The NCDC GHCN dataset mentioned in the Ruedy email has also been called into question by Joe D’Aleo and Anthony Watts. D’Aleo and Watts showed in a January 2010 report that changes in available measurement sites and the selection criteria involved in “homogenizing” the GHCN climate data raised serious questions about the usefulness of that dataset as well.

These three datasets — from NASA GISS, NCDC GHCN, and CRU — are the basis of essentially all climate study supporting anthropogenic global warming.

Science is about discovering possibilities and theories. For that reason, ID is as much a science as the Big Bang theory, unless you don't believe the Big Bang is Science.

I agree with that

limiting areas of research due to preconceived opinion isn't much different from the Vatican limiting Gallileo's research

the scientific method calls for developing a hypothesis and then trying every avenue to DISPROVE that hypothesis. I don't care if a person is pursuing intelligent design or cold fusion or a round earth. its still science and those who ridicule it are not much better than the Luddites or the Vatican in the 15th century

The significant difference is that 'ID' does not put forth a TESTABLE or DISPROVABLE hypothesis. It demands that it be accepted ON FAITH. That is NOT science. It is FAITH. There's a difference. 'ID' is a fraud being presented as 'science'.

I don't really have a position or an opinion one way or the other. but intelligent design while should not be accepted as fact should be pursued as a possibility until proven or disproven. Heretofor it is only a theory. as evolution is also (a very plausible and mostly confirmed theory but still just a theory)

Well said!! (Pissed at myself that I can't think of anything else to add to make it clearer.)

To apply the SCIENTIFIC METHOD to a NON-SCIENTIFIC pretense is impossible. 'ID' is still FRAUD masquerading as science.