Yet again, caught red-handed....

[Moai]

I have posted many times on many threads the fact that Creationists are liars. While I will admit that the average Creationist who posts on forums like these or on newsgroups is not a deliberate liar, as they just parrot what their handlers spoon-feed them, those at the top are demonstrable liars.

 

Next month, a movie called Expelled narrated by Ben Stein will be released, and it is all about how those poor ID Creationists are being excluded from the conversation regarding origins. This is true, as "God did it" is not a scientific explanation. ID-ers want it to be, and so they tried to get their version of "science" taught in Dover, PA and were promptly trounced. "Intelligent Design" is just another name for good ol' Creationism, by the way. As a result of the trial, the fact that these people are liars is a matter of public record.

 

Here's a link:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision3.html#p273

 

A quote from that document: "Defendants' previously referenced flagrant and insulting falsehoods to the Court provide sufficient and compelling evidence for us to deduce that any allegedly secular purposes that have been offered in support of the ID Policy are equally insincere."

 

But it gets better! It turns out that the Discovery Institute, the organization behind Expelled got caught plagiarizing a Harvard virology video. Shocked? You shouldn't be. Most of the members of DI are lawyers, and so do no science themselves. They have to get data SOMEWHERE. The funny thing is, they used the video without permission (copyright infringement) altered it, and passed it off as their own (plagiarizing and fraud). Pretty cool, huh?

 

Here's a link to the entire story, on a blog from a scientist who caught them and works in the HIV-1 lab at Harvard. At the site linked you can watch the real video and the one used by William Dembski in a lecture. As you probably guessed, Dembski is not a biologist; he specializes in mathematics.

 

http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/11/di-fellows-expelled-for-plagiarism.html

 

If the evidence is so compelling for ID, and they have remotely ANY evidence, why do they have to steal the work of others--not only that, but lie about what the video itself, and the data itself, suggests? Why does God need people to lie for Him? Why is it so clear that those who are all for "truth" and claim to have a corner on that market seem to lie and cheat all the time?

Edited January 30, 2008 by Moai

[JamesM]

Interesting, Moai, good to hear from you again. I was wondering why you haven't posted in awhile.

 

Thanks for the publicity for Expelled. Truthfully, I hadn't heard of it yet. Thanks to you, it is getting some great publicity now.

 

Here are some links that provide a teaser to the film and a different perspective regarding the alleged lies. While your links come from an atheist viewpoint, I will post a couple that come from a Christian view while the other is a conservative but not as Christian. It is always good to hear from both sides when discussing an issue, as I am sure you will agree.

 

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20071008/29618_'Expelled'_Producers_Deny_Deceiving_Scientists_to_Appear_in_Film.htm

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57840

 

 

Here is a portion of the film....

 

Here is the blog of Ben Stein, the actor, talking about Expelled.

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/08/21/bens-blog/

 

It appears that there certainly is more to this than simply what one blog and a site that is out to disprove creationism is saying. But even if this is all true, I am sure that someone as intelligent as you knows quite well that it doesn't invalidate anyone's views. However, I agree it does make it an interesting way to point out the theory that "All creationists are liars."

 

While I will admit that the average Creationist who posts on forums like these or on newsgroups is not a deliberate liar, as they just parrot what their handlers spoon-feed them, those at the top are demonstrable liars.

 

While I find this laughable if it was from someone who has not been well versed in both sides of the argument, I am surprised that you believe that those who believe in creationism are simply spoon fed, while those who do not have been somehow enlightened. I can see that since you do not believe there is a God that you would consider those who believe creationism as wrong, but when one considers the opposition as simply parrots, then this does his or her own view quite a disservice. It certainly makes it easier to hang on to one's own beliefs when one convinces himself or herself that the other view is simply a "party line," but it also leaves one in danger of never increasing one's intelligence and education.

 

I think you do your view more justice if you focus on the actual views and beliefs rather than to focus on the alleged criticisms of a few. It is certainly your right to attempt to invalidate a belief that is centuries old by persuading yourself that "if I prove that these people are liars, then I can prove that creation and God never happened."

 

I just think that you are better than this based on your level of arguments and demonstrable level of intelligence.

Edited January 30, 2008 by JamesM

[lovelorcet]

While I find this laughable if it was from someone who has not been well versed in both sides of the argument, I am surprised that you believe that those who believe in creationism are simply spoon fed, while those who do not have been somehow enlightened. I can see that since you do not believe there is a God that you would consider those who believe creationism as wrong, but when one considers the opposition as simply parrots, then this does his or her own view quite a disservice. .

 

Actually as a scientist myself I have to say this is really true. We have a huge problem in education the public as to what basic science theory is (because if you understood this you would see that ID is not science) as well as explaining biological science in a way that the public would understand it better.

 

Religious groups use this confusion to and add a lot of misinformation to it to cause fear. That fear further causes people who don't understand science to doubt it.

[Nemo]

Actually, scientists have very little idea how life began. One thing's for sure, whomever designed it in the first place was incredibly intelligent. If you watch Discovery Channel, then you'll know exactly what I mean.

[shadowofman]

Actually, scientists have very little idea how life began.

As scientists, it is not their job to assume. This is the job of the philosopher/theist/IDer. Id is not science. Nuff said.

 

One thing's for sure, whomever designed it in the first place was incredibly intelligent. If you watch Discovery Channel, then you'll know exactly what I mean.

 

I disagree. While ecosystems are full of mechanisms that work wonderfully, ecosystems are also full of mechanisms that are counterintuitive. Be glad your are not a rabbit, you'd have to eat your own poo!

[Enema]

One thing's for sure, whomever designed it in the first place was incredibly intelligent. If you watch Discovery Channel, then you'll know exactly what I mean.

 

Ahhh, the old Argument from Personal Incredulity.

 

"I don't understand it, so it can't be true!"

 

 

Complexity in life is by no means evidence of a creator.

 

As shadowofman points out, there are so many poor designs in nature that if there is a creator, he's clearly a bumbling fool.

[JamesM]

Ahhh, the old Argument from Personal Incredulity.

 

"I don't understand it, so it can't be true!"

 

 

Complexity in life is by no means evidence of a creator.

 

As shadowofman points out, there are so many poor designs in nature that if there is a creator, he's clearly a bumbling fool.

 

First of all, the argument is from design. If I look at my computer, I know that it is intelligently designed. Or at least that it looks that way to me. I don't understand how it all works and it does seem incredible to me, but it also breathes signs of intelligence.

 

So it seems to me.

 

While I always find it amusing that the creation critiques the Creator, we can pretend this is true. When I look at my computer, I can see things that I (as someone who already thinks it is quite something and has not education in computer design) would do differently.

 

But that critique by me does in no way mean that the designers are bumbling fools.

 

The argument will quickly be made that we KNOW there are computer factories because we have seen them, etc., etc. Yet if we landed on the moon and found a complex appearing machine...whether it be biotic or mechanical, I am pretty certain that the logical man would still assume that something was behind it. Yet we can look at all of the creatures around us and say that they just happened to evolve randomly through adaptation.

 

This I find interesting.

 

In everything else, we admire the complexity and speak in awe of the designer. We would think a man a fool for assuming that an uneducated two year old could have designed a computer. We would scoff at the man who thinks it is easy to put together a rocket...and rightly so. Yet here, we look at the animals and plants and scoff at the man who assumes that complexity is evidence of intelligence and a Creator.

 

It is not just the complexity, but it is also the beauty of it all.

 

But I kinda thought this thread was about the movie Expelled.

[JamesM]

As scientists, it is not their job to assume. This is the job of the philosopher/theist/IDer. Id is not science. Nuff said.

 

So, a scientist makes NO assumptions when he or she does research?

 

I disagree. While ecosystems are full of mechanisms that work wonderfully, ecosystems are also full of mechanisms that are counterintuitive. Be glad your are not a rabbit, you'd have to eat your own poo!

 

And does that "poo" eating somehow indicate that the rabbit cannot be intelligently designed or created? That is fascinating. I assume that you are basing on your own tastes and distastes. A cow chews its cud, too. While I find this disgusting, the cow doesn't.

[a4a]

I thought science = you have a theory then you test the theory, retest as much as needed to prove or disprove the theory.

 

I never heard of assumption = fact.

[JamesM]

Actually as a scientist myself I have to say this is really true. We have a huge problem in education the public as to what basic science theory is (because if you understood this you would see that ID is not science) as well as explaining biological science in a way that the public would understand it better.

 

Religious groups use this confusion to and add a lot of misinformation to it to cause fear. That fear further causes people who don't understand science to doubt it.

 

The main point I was making is that 99.9% of the population parrot what they have been taught. We are taught evolution from grade one in school. We keep "learning" how this theory explains how man evolved, etc. etc. But we never have actually examined the fossils, did any research, or studied the processes that have provided the basis for those assumptions.

 

To say that only one side parrots beliefs is not quite accurate, IMO.

 

I like the comment you make that is...if everyone really understood the basic science theory, they would know that ID is not science. I think it is safe to say that it is also a theory. You may not believe that there is any evidence supporting that theory, but that is your choice. This does not mean it is not a theory.

 

What I am guessing you may mean is that the newer definition of the scientific method is that science can only involve naturalistic explanations for how life began and evolved. By this definition, then yes, any supernatural intervention would not be considered "science."

 

But why does everything have to be natural? One makes the assumption that there is no God when one assumes that only naturalistic explanations are possible.

 

I don't fear what the scientists are doing, but I am quite confident that by ruling out the possibility that God was certainly involved in making this world happen does limit science.

 

And no, including God does not mean that everything can be explained by saying "God did it."

Edited January 30, 2008 by JamesM

[a4a]

Do you really have to build a weather balloon yourself to believe the theory of rain cloud formation?

 

The difference is that science will question it's own theories. It will always attempt to prove or disprove, even the old set in stone theories.

 

When you look at the "theories" of most religions they are not to be questioned. It is wrong to do so.

[JamesM]

I thought science = you have a theory then you test the theory, retest as much as needed to prove or disprove the theory.

 

I never heard of assumption = fact.

 

You are correct...assumption never equals fact.

 

But a theory is a set of assumptions that are made. Then those assumptions are tested.

 

Scientists need to assume to "create" a theory. That does not mean that this theory is no good because it is based on assumptions, but the point is...scientists assume, and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

Let me quote Isaac Asimov (as quoted in Wikipedia) regarding assumptions. Since I don't have the book here, I guess this will do.

 

An assumption according to Asimov is "something accepted without proof, and it is incorrect to speak of an assumption as either true or false, since there is no way of proving it to be either (If there were, it would no longer be an assumption). It is better to consider assumptions as either useful or useless, depending on whether deductions made from them corresponded to reality.... On the other hand, it seems obvious that assumptions are the weak points in any argument, as they have to be accepted on faith in a philosophy of science that prides itself on its rationalism. Since we must start somewhere, we must have assumptions, but at least let us have as few assumptions as possible."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

[JamesM]

Do you really have to build a weather balloon yourself to believe the theory of rain cloud formation?

 

The difference is that science will question it's own theories. It will always attempt to prove or disprove, even the old set in stone theories.

 

When you look at the "theories" of most religions they are not to be questioned. It is wrong to do so.

 

The point here is...is it wrong to "parrot" what you have been taught? Do you have to actually do the research to argue that a theory, fact, assumption etc. of science is right or wrong? Then this Board should no longer discuss science if we must all do the research and experiments before discussions.

 

To a degree, theories are questioned, but every time a scientist does research..does he question the theories that involve his research, or does he accept the research done by others which then can be used as the basis of his research? I am not saying that this is wrong...just asking.

 

Science does not keep making attempts to prove or disprove theories. Most are accepted and used for further research. This does not make them right or wrong.

 

And actually, many "theories" of religion ARE questioned. That is why there are so many beliefs, churches and doctrines.

[JamesM]

That fear further causes people who don't understand science to doubt it.

 

And one last comment.....

 

It causes people to doubt theories that make the assumption that there is no God behind everything we see. It does not cause people to doubt all SCIENCE. I have friends who are PhD biochemists who love science and do not doubt it at all.

 

They just think that science cannot answer all of the questions surrounding the creation of life because evolutionists like to exclude the possibility of a creator.

[a4a]

james science will not always trust the theories/facts of other science.

 

If you look at any medical journals or Biology related journals you will often read about a disproven "fact or theory" because the research is done again or a new way of "testing" previous research has been developed.

 

This cannot be done with established Religious theory. Look at the balking of the scientologist. Tis a theory..... but you should not question it if you are member of that religion.

 

Simply because it is not allowed. It is wrong.

[a4a]

And one last comment.....

 

It causes people to doubt theories that make the assumption that there is no God behind everything we see. It does not cause people to doubt all SCIENCE. I have friends who are PhD biochemists who love science and do not doubt it at all.

 

They just think that science cannot answer all of the questions surrounding the creation of life because evolutionists like to exclude the possibility of a creator.

 

Of course those things that cannot be explained can easily fall into the

"god must have done it" file.

 

Temp. file that at this time cannot be proven or disproven. But what god did it?

 

Google Rods very interesting...... real or not.... prove or disprove.... act of a god?

[lovelorcet]

I like the comment you make that is...if everyone really understood the basic science theory, they would know that ID is not science. I think it is safe to say that it is also a theory. You may not believe that there is any evidence supporting that theory, but that is your choice. This does not mean it is not a theory.

 

What I am guessing you may mean is that the newer definition of the scientific method is that science can only involve naturalistic explanations for how life began and evolved. By this definition, then yes, any supernatural intervention would not be considered "science."

 

 

A science class is where science is thought and therefore we should teach children science NOT the latest mysticism humans have pulled out of their fantasies.

 

Let me make this clear, ID is NOT science and it is simply Genesis repackaged for us to swallow.

 

Every year there are thousands and thousands of scientific publications based on or about evolution. I find it frustrating that I have to explain once again to someone that there actually is not credible debate about evolution. Not a single alternative explanation has even come close to standing up to the robustness that evolution offers us.

 

This becomes more and more obvious with each new genome we sequence. We can see how the architecture changes from one species to the next. We actually can see the new and different mutations on a gene to gene level.

[Enema]

Yet if we landed on the moon and found a complex appearing machine...whether it be biotic or mechanical, I am pretty certain that the logical man would still assume that something was behind it.

 

We would suggest that it was designed because in our experience, ore being smelted and mixed to create alloys and then combined with circuits, cogs, pulleys or power sources to serve a purpose does not happen naturally.

 

Yet we can look at all of the creatures around us and say that they just happened to evolve randomly through adaptation.

 

Evolution is an observable fact, there's no need to complicate it by throwing a designer in the mix. It works (imperfectly) without one.

[lovelorcet]

 

To a degree, theories are questioned, but every time a scientist does research..does he question the theories that involve his research, or does he accept the research done by others which then can be used as the basis of his research? I am not saying that this is wrong...just asking.

 

 

This just shows how little you understand science.

 

We do not take our theories or assumptions for granted. If they are not robust enough to withstand careful experimentation then they fall apart.

 

When I am doing genetics work I use theories that were first described by Gregor Mendel playing around with pees hundreds of years ago. Since that time the basic rules he described have never broken down.

So when I evaluate a model organism for a recessive trait I do not have to first re-prove to myself how traits are inherited. Because the evaluation would never work in the first place if his theories broke down.

[JamesM]

This just shows how little you understand science.

 

We do not take our theories or assumptions for granted.

 

 

So when I evaluate a model organism for a recessive trait I do not have to first re-prove to myself how traits are inherited.

 

Point made. I am not saying your lack of need to reprove is a bad thing. But every new bit of research does not begin by "re-proving" previous accepted theories.

 

I am not going to say that I know more science than you, and please don't take it that way. And pardon me if i am incorrect. So, you DO accept Mendel's theories and do not re examine them before beginning your own research in the recessive trait? You Do make the assumption that previous research is correct and do not re-examine it, correct? Maybe I misunderstood.

[JamesM]

We would suggest that it was designed because in our experience, ore being smelted and mixed to create alloys and then combined with circuits, cogs, pulleys or power sources to serve a purpose does not happen naturally.

 

And would you ever assume that non-living chemicals could somehow mix on their own and create life? (Yes, this abiogenesis, not evolution. )

 

Evolution is an observable fact, there's no need to complicate it by throwing a designer in the mix. It works (imperfectly) without one.

 

Two things...

 

Evolution among like kinds is observable. Whether this can be extrapolated into meaning that evolution into completely new kinds is the basis for Darwinianism.

 

Many, many scientists have no problem believing that God used evolution. So, simply accepting evolution among kinds as a proven theory does not eliminate an Intelligent Designer or Creator. The Catholic Church for instance, accepts evolution and God. Many ID scientists accept evolution and God. The majority of scientists believe an a type of God and evolution.

[lovelorcet]

You Do make the assumption that previous research is correct and do not re-examine it, correct? Maybe I misunderstood.

 

My goal is to sort out a recessive trait, lets say albinism caused by the mutation of a single gene. I will always find that statistically seen 25% of the traits I am looking for a present when 2 parents are heterozygous for that gene.

 

My experiment is to identify the albinos but I could never carry out that experiment if the rules of Mendel were to break down. If that trait were to just appear and disappear at random for example.

 

If I were to find something that went against this then you would see my picture on the cover of many magazines because it is something new but you know what, it doesn't happen because the theories are robust.

 

With all the thousands of scientist working in genetics those rules have not broken down.

 

Any scientific evidence you or anyone else can show to support ID can and has been taken down by much more robust theories.

[JamesM]

A science class is where science is thought and therefore we should teach children science NOT the latest mysticism humans have pulled out of their fantasies.

 

Let me make this clear, ID is NOT science and it is simply Genesis repackaged for us to swallow.

 

By definition of science that excludes the possibility of the supernatural, we agree. The theory of Darwinianistic evolution is an explanation of evolution being extrapolated to evolution between kinds. ID simply says that this was not done without a Designer.

 

As for latest "mysticism," we teach the latest theories to our children as "fact." Yet fifty years ago, we taught them something different. And 150 years ago, we taught them something different again. So, to think that what we teach today will be the same things being taught in fifty years would be a stretch, IMO.

 

Every year there are thousands and thousands of scientific publications based on or about evolution. I find it frustrating that I have to explain once again to someone that there actually is not credible debate about evolution. Not a single alternative explanation has even come close to standing up to the robustness that evolution offers us.

 

"Every year we have thousands of papers being written that the Sun revolves around the Earth. I find it frustrating that we need to tell you that your theory that the Earth revolves around the Sun cannot be true. There is no credible debate about this issue. Nothing has ever been shown to disprove this."

 

And so these words could have been spoken to Copernicus or Galileo, who both believed in God.

 

This becomes more and more obvious with each new genome we sequence. We can see how the architecture changes from one species to the next. We actually can see the new and different mutations on a gene to gene level.

 

Everything I have read, and I have not read everything, but I do read articles and books written by evolutionists, does show that mutations do exist and change among species or kinds. I just read an interesting article that explained the many adaptations among humans in different areas of the world. And an example has been used about one frog mutating into another frog. Do you have an article that I can read that explains an observable mutation of something into a completely different kind? My limited science is probably at fault here. I guess I should be able to extrapolate the idea that if a frog can somehow "evolve" into another frog, then something can evolve into a completely different creature.

 

How many of the observable mutations that we have recorded actually can be shown as improvements toward a better creature? For instance, because Europeans can tolerate milk while other areas of the world cannot, does that mean Europeans are better? And when I went to Mexico, I was told not to drink the water, yet the Mexicans had no problem, have they adapted, mutated, or evolved? Is that an improvement? Please don't dismiss this as ignorance, because the example of milk was used in the article as an example of observable evolution. (The article referred to was in Newsweek regarding a new fossil fish that was found).

 

If there was an Intelligent Designer, would we expect to see every creature with no genetic similarities? Or does genetic similarities have to mean that each creature evolved into the next?

 

And just because we see evolution within species around us, does this rule out a supernatural design?

[Enema]

And would you ever assume that non-living chemicals could somehow mix on their own and create life?

 

No, I would never assume that.

 

Two things...

 

Evolution among like kinds is observable. Whether this can be extrapolated into meaning that evolution into completely new kinds is the basis for Darwinianism.

 

Could you please define "kind" and give me an example of what you mean when you talk about one "kind" evolving into a completely new "kind"?

 

I.e. Are you looking for examples of a fish evolving into a bear in one generation?

 

Many, many scientists have no problem believing that God used evolution. So, simply accepting evolution among kinds as a proven theory does not eliminate an Intelligent Designer or Creator.

 

It also doesn't eliminate a Cerulean Starfish as an Intelligent Designer.

 

There's no evidence to suggest that the Starfish is responsible, so why add it in there?

 

The majority of scientists believe an a type of God and evolution.

 

I think I've heard you claim this before. Can you provide a source?

[JamesM]

My experiment is to identify the albinos but I could never carry out that experiment if the rules of Mendel were to break down. If that trait were to just appear and disappear at random for example.

 

If I were to find something that went against this then you would see my picture on the cover of many magazines because it is something new but you know what, it doesn't happen because the theories are robust.

 

I am not disagreeing, but I think you would also agree that additional things are "discovered" all of the time that either add to a theory or rule that can modify or even change a theory. Before Einstein, things were looked at differently. The theory of relativity changed a lot. Yet the day prior to his revelation, research was still being conducted quite effectively based on the old assumptions, or am I mistaken?

 

Any scientific evidence you or anyone else can show to support ID can and has been taken down by much more robust theories.

 

Evolution, according to many scientists, does not eliminate an Intelligent Designer, does it?