Ben Stein's "Expelled"

I'm no expert, but there certainly are internally consistent and logical theories/hypotheses about the origin of life based on what evidence there is. There isn't nearly the amount of evidence that there is for evolution (since soft tissue doesn't usually fossilize and we're going back much farther in time), but from what scientists can figure out about the conditions on Earth in that time period, etc. they have come up with various theories/hypotheses. You can go to the wiki page on abiogenesis to see many of the thoughts about the origins of life on Earth.

When you go into those theories you're getting into a very complicated and technical field though, which is hard to understand unless you've already studied it.

As far as the origin of matter you're going into physics and getting much more difficult. As you said the Big Bang isn't the origin of matter, but rather the expansion. There is good evidence for the Big Bang (most especially the background radiation from it) and the expansion of the universe is pretty well understood (though not really by me, of course), but in the past there have been ideas of big bang/big crunch and possible infinite expansion and contraction of the universe, but as of now (AFAIK) the expansion of the universe is accelerating so there isn't as much support for that anymore. Wiki page: Big Bang

All of this is far more abstract than the origin of life and infinitely more abstract than evolution itself. I reiterate that the ID movement doesn't talk about the origin of life or the origin of matter out of sincere curiosity they do it to show that scientists can't be entirely certain of it and they try to use that uncertainty to cast doubt on the more certain aspects of evolution. They've already made up their mind about the origin of matter, life, and humans and they're not out to gain any knowledge about it. This movie is a propaganda piece for the ID movement, not a scientific or religious discussion of the origins of matter, life, etc.

What's weird about this movie is that they are obviously attacking the political left, which is the side of the political spectrum that is in more support of evolution, etc. and has less conservative values. To do this, they try to connect evolution with the Nazis, etc. Social Darwinism is, of course, not a good thing, but the irony lies in the fact that the political leftists were not the supporters of Social Darwinism and Nazism. The Social Darwinists were uber-capitalists that tried to justify their desire for wealth and wanton disregard for others with evolution and of course the Nazis hated the communists. Socialism is the antithesis of Social Darwinism. There is nothing more unlike survival-of-the-fittest than a collective community that wants to make everyone equal.

The ID movement's point, as always, is to say that evolution destroys culture and a more traditional and Bible-based belief system is what's necessary to correct the horrible things happening in the world. Their entire purpose is to try to get ID into school so they can get more religion into school and make everything more Christian and acceptable to them, it's not and never has been to educate anyone about anything.

EDIT: daroga, evolution simply is not compatible with your beliefs about sin. Do you oppose it for this reason? The best evidence we have shows that organisms lived and suffered and died long before humans ever existed, so of course there was no possibility for them to have sinned to bring death and suffering into existence unless you're simply excluding humans and saying their sin brought their own death, but otherwise shit died anyway. Even then you'd have to tell me when humans became human and were capable of sin.
 
[quote name='daroga']Aging in terms of just getting older? I don't think so. I'd have to imagine that had a child been born in Eden before the fall into sin, the child would've grown up from a baby as we know them now to an adult. Aging as far as complete deterioration of the body, then yes. As to whether or not there was an ideal peak that the human body would get to sans sin and then remain there, I don't know. Without sin there is no death, or sadness, or pain.

Do children die because of sin, both theirs and those of the world around them? Yes.
[/quote]

Okay, I understand you. So at what age then would aging stop? Could the inhabitants of eden choose thier age to stop aging? Could they go backwards as well? Or do they just go fowards up until a certain point and then stop? Do they get to choose at all? What if a 19 year old really wants to be 21, but stops aging at 19? On that note, what is the age that the human body starts to deteriorate?


I've got one more question about: "Without sin there is no death, or sadness, or pain." Every woman can tell you that child birth is really painful, so how would we reproduce in Eden? Would babies just flop out in a quick and painless motion? Angelic obstritricians armed with super-lube? How did this work?

I also never got how we could all be spawn of adam and eve. Wouldn't inbreeding become an issue with such a small genetic gene pool? On that note, how the fuck did Noah get all those animals on one boat, certainly many of the animals couldn't survive in the same climate, or did he have refrigerated compartments for the arctic species?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Did you write this with a straight face?[/QUOTE]

He's merely stating what he believes. There is no reason to take the low road into religious intolerance here, even though it's clearly open season and very PC these days.

He is studying to be a priest, cut him some slack.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']He's merely stating what he believes. There is no reason to take the low road into religious intolerance here, even though it's clearly open season and very PC these days.

He is studying to be a priest, cut him some slack.[/quote]

I understand he is becoming a priest. If he is referring to Eden as a theoretical ideal, no problem. If he is referring to Eden as a literal place that existed, I have to balk at it.
 
Is thrust actually saying others are not playing fair because they say that magic is not a good enough answer, this thread is after all supposed to be about science.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Did you write this with a straight face?[/quote]In that is was completely speculative and a somewhat vague question in the first place, yes, I think I managed to get through that with laughing too much.

[quote name='SpazX'] EDIT: daroga, evolution simply is not compatible with your beliefs about sin. Do you oppose it for this reason? The best evidence we have shows that organisms lived and suffered and died long before humans ever existed, so of course there was no possibility for them to have sinned to bring death and suffering into existence unless you're simply excluding humans and saying their sin brought their own death, but otherwise shit died anyway. Even then you'd have to tell me when humans became human and were capable of sin.[/quote]Spaz, thanks for the post and the links. Once this paper is done I think I'll do some reading only to be completely lost, but at least I'll feel smarter. ;)

My opposition towards evolution comes principally and overridingly (totally a word) from my faith, of which the sin concept is a key component. It's not so much that this one component of the faith can't coexist with the scientific theory, as much as the scientific theory completely run contrary to what God has said he did to create the world.

Along with that, there's nothing that Creation cannot explain. God's creating of the universe in 6 24-hour-days is pretty all encompassing. It might not make sense, but most supernatural things don't. Creation doesn't require mental gymnastics to explain the origin of matter, life, and the species assuming the presupposition of that the supernatural can and does happen. I have a feeling that my stance on creation would make even some ID-backing scientists a little wary, because while biblical Creation certainly falls under this category, it's only a component to the ID theories and ideas I've heard.

That's also not to say that evolution doesn't happen. God created an adaptable, mobile world. Some of Darwin's ideas are blatantly obvious. The weak and the frail get picked off by predators, thus the stronger of the herds' DNA is what gets passed down. The problems come in when you try to extrapolate that backwards. The mutations to the degree that they were necessary to have life evolve from single-celled organisms generally kill creatures today because they require more nutrients to stay alive or the creature isn't stable enough to survive. The fictional world gives us amphibian ninjas and superheroes, but that's not really the way those things work in real life.

This is rambling a tad so I'll cut it off. While I'm certain I won't walk out of the movie saying "HA! GREATEST THING EVER!" some of the questions he asks in the trailer are the things that start to probe the hidden wounds of the assumptions made by the theory of evolution. The term may not really be used to describe the origin of matter or of life, but it does depend on both of those.
 
Sorry, I missed your post above Pitt!

[quote name='pittpizza']Okay, I understand you. So at what age then would aging stop? Could the inhabitants of eden choose thier age to stop aging? Could they go backwards as well? Or do they just go fowards up until a certain point and then stop? Do they get to choose at all? What if a 19 year old really wants to be 21, but stops aging at 19? On that note, what is the age that the human body starts to deteriorate?[/quote]I think I answered that already. Since this was all speculative and Eden never got beyond 2 people and presumably a short period of time, "I don't know."

[quote name='pittpizza']I've got one more question about: "Without sin there is no death, or sadness, or pain." Every woman can tell you that child birth is really painful, so how would we reproduce in Eden? Would babies just flop out in a quick and painless motion? Angelic obstritricians armed with super-lube? How did this work?[/quote]One of the consequences of sin in the world was a wretchedly painful child-birthing process for women (see Genesis 3). As to how would it work without sin there? As it's speculative again, I don't know. I do know that it would not have been painful though.

[quote name='pittpizza']I also never got how we could all be spawn of adam and eve. Wouldn't inbreeding become an issue with such a small genetic gene pool? On that note, how the fuck did Noah get all those animals on one boat, certainly many of the animals couldn't survive in the same climate, or did he have refrigerated compartments for the arctic species?[/quote]The Bible doesn't really give details on these items. I could speculate and make crap up, but that wouldn't be all that productive.

See, now wasn't that informative? ;)
 
The weakness with evolution starts from the point of nothing and ends with the first cellular organism.

The weakness with creationism starts from the first cellular organism and ends with the Sun expands into a red giant and incinerates the Earth.

...

The evolutionary explanation for aging is simple. Everything requires energy. An organism that doesn't age would have less available energy to mate, protect itself or obtain nutrients. If a competing organism doesn't expend as much energy to maintain itself but reproduces faster, it could overcome an immortal organism by sheer numbers. Then, the immortal organism starves to death.

...

Regarding creationism, why would a god create a planet and dump so many bones in the dirt? Is that god keen on red herrings?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']
Regarding creationism, why would a god create a planet and dump so many bones in the dirt? Is that god keen on red herrings?[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure what you are getting at. Are you insinuating that creationists don't/can't believe in the dinosaurs?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I'm not sure what you are getting at. Are you insinuating that creationists don't/can't believe in the dinosaurs?[/quote]

True creationism claims the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Fossil records say a few billion.

Now, are those fossils gussy-upped rocks or are geologists completely retarded in dating sediment and fossils?
 
When dating of sediment and fossils discounts a younger earth that was created with age and an event as catastrophic to the whole of the earth as the Flood, then, yeah, I'd say they're bound to make a few mistakes in dating things.

But I'm certainly not up on the methods and conclusions drawn in such fields to say anything authoritatively.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']I think this annoys me more than anything:

The movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, has been reviewed and reviewed and discussed.
But what hasn't been discussed as much is the fact that Yoko Ono either sold or gave the rights to "Imagine" to the producers of the film. In screenings around the country, and in copies of the movie reviewed, everyone notes the odd inclusion of the song.

I guess that the $20 million plus the estate earns every year isn't enough for Yoko Ono, not only does she feel the need to license the song out, she probably held out for the highest bidder, in this case, the money behind the movie, Walt Ruloff, who made over one hundred million dollars selling his company to Microsoft. (Irony is that a company who makes computers, perhaps the ultimate daily example of the higher power of science in our lives, indirectly funded a movie that doesn't believe science should be taught in schools.)[/quote]Nobody seems to have noticed this, but i think thats a real shame, i've always loved that song. Especially the bit about "imagine no religion, it's easy if you try." Only, people won't try.
 
Spaz, have I told you how much I love you lately?
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']The weakness with evolution starts from the point of nothing and ends with the first cellular organism.
[/quote]
Not really. You're looking for abiogenesis. Go down that hallway there - third door on the left. Completely different topic, though the two are often confused. Don't go into the third door on the right - that's big bang theory. They get real testy when you mix the two up.

[quote name='daroga']When dating of sediment and fossils discounts a younger earth that was created with age and an event as catastrophic to the whole of the earth as the Flood, then, yeah, I'd say they're bound to make a few mistakes in dating things.

But I'm certainly not up on the methods and conclusions drawn in such fields to say anything authoritatively.[/quote]
C'mon, man. The problems with The Flood (curse you, capitalism) go a lot beyond mere sediments.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']C'mon, man. The problems with The Flood (curse you, capitalism) go a lot beyond mere sediments.[/quote]Sure, but I imagine you're referring to proof of it, not what it did to the earth, which is what I was referring to.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']
Not really. You're looking for abiogenesis. Go down that hallway there - third door on the left. Completely different topic, though the two are often confused. Don't go into the third door on the right - that's big bang theory. They get real testy when you mix the two up.[/quote]

As of 2008, no one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach"). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be short on specifics.

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

If you can find a way to take Ammonia, Sulfur, Formaldehyde and Water and make something like E. Coli, you can crush Creationism more.

Evolution doesn't explain the drive for organic compounds to come together and form an organism ... yet.
 
[quote name='daroga']Sure, but I imagine you're referring to proof of it, not what it did to the earth, which is what I was referring to.[/quote]

Did the Biblical Flood scour the Earth down to the Mantle?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']True creationism claims the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Fossil records say a few billion.

Now, are those fossils gussy-upped rocks or are geologists completely retarded in dating sediment and fossils?[/QUOTE]

I've heard this from a few ashiest friends, which seems rather silly to me.

I know tons of people that believe in god. And they would say they believe god was behind all creation.

But I honestly don't know anyone that believes the earth is only a few thousand years old. Nor do I know any christian that takes the bible that literally.

So one of us has a rather antiquated definition of creationism. I've never heard the belief of the earth being that young being a requirement to be a creationist. I don't know any religious person that believes that.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']If you can find a way to take Ammonia, Sulfur, Formaldehyde and Water and make something like E. Coli, you can crush Creationism more.[/quote]Debatable. Even if they were to force such a thing to occur (I'm sure you won't blame me for not holding my breath), there'd still be the difficult process of proving that that's how it happened. Never mind a source of the Ammonia, Sulfur, Formaldehyde and Water.

Best of luck, though.

[quote name='thrustbucket']But I honestly don't know anyone that believes the earth is only a few thousand years old. Nor do I know any christian that takes the bible that literally.

So one of us has a rather antiquated definition of creationism. I've never heard the belief of the earth being that young being a requirement to be a creationist. I don't know any religious person that believes that.[/quote]Hi Thrust! You do too know one! ;)

I don't think there's a real solid date established (the genealogies in the Bible don't necessarily form a complete A-to-B flow of the course of years and length of time as that wasn't their purpose), but any age much beyond 10,000 years would give me pause.

But, yeah, biblical Creation is 6 24-hour-days. If you're going to hold to an infallible Bible, theistic-evolution (is that a concept proposed by the ID camp?) doesn't jive with the rest of the Bible.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Spaz, have I told you how much I love you lately?[/quote]

You don't tell me enough :cry:

[quote name='daroga']When dating of sediment and fossils discounts a younger earth that was created with age and an event as catastrophic to the whole of the earth as the Flood, then, yeah, I'd say they're bound to make a few mistakes in dating things.

But I'm certainly not up on the methods and conclusions drawn in such fields to say anything authoritatively.[/quote]

I may only be slightly more versed in this sort of thing and I'm no expert, but the datings seem to correlate well between methods and with the strata. Hell, how about another wiki? :p Radiometric dating

Even assuming that the dating is off, however, the order of fossils is still consistent and reliable. You don't have human bones mixed with dinosaur bones or mammals mixed with trilobites, etc. Even if the timescale was off by a factor of 1,000 or 10,000 or 100,000 the fossil record still shows organisms living, suffering, and dying before humans came about. And if it was the Flood that messed with the order then not only would the order not be so consistent, but the bones would have been thrown around haphazardly and sorted by density so you wouldn't have the fossils of an entire dinosaur lined up as if it had died there and fossilized or things like that.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Sickle cell anemia is caused by having total type S hemoglobin.

When infected with malaria, it takes a sickle shape.

If a person only has half type S hemoglobin, the growth of a malaria infection is slowed or halted when the type S cells are immobilized while regular hemoglobin remains uninfected and still providing oxygen to the body.

It is found more in black people because malaria was more prevalent in humid Africa than frozen Denmark.[/quote]

To clarify, one must distinguish between sickle cell disease (SCD, aka sickle cell anemia) and sickle cell trait (SCT).

In SCD, people are homozygous for Hemoglobin S. This means that each red cell contains mostly HbS. This is a bad thing, because HbS tends to polymerize and these cells are very prone to sickling (forming the characteristic banana-like shape). This generally occurs during periods of dehydration, low pH, or deoxygenation. The sickled cells are rigid, sticky, and fragile. Thus, they clog up the circulation causing infarctions throughout and they fall apart leading to anemia. The consequences are terrible, and people usually die in adolescence without treatment (blood transfusions, hydroxyurea, good hydration/oxygenation).

In SCT, people are heterozygous for Hemoglobin S and Hemoglobin A. In general, they have no problems. Each cell has both HbS and HbA, but the concentration of HbS is not high enough to cause sickling. In the face of malaria infection (which is a red cell parasite), it is believed that sickling is increased... so the infected cells commit suicide as abnormal RBCs are picked up by the reticuloendothelial system as they pass though the spleen. There are probably other factors, but for some reason, the RBCs of these people are not a good environment for the malaria parasite.


Now to go back a step, we have to realize that SCD is caused by a substitution of one amino acid in the Hb tetramer (discovered in Linus Pauling's lab at Caltech). This brings about a point that small changes in DNA may have wide ranging effects (usually deleterious). It is still hard for me to reconcile how random mutations over the years would lead to the diversity of life that we see now... It would seem like an incredibly tedious and drawn out process, since most large DNA alterations would tend to result in spontaneous abortions or terrible maladaptive traits...
 
BigT, showing once again why he is my favourite conservative on this site.

Can you feel the love emanating from my general direction? Can you? Motherfuckers?
 
It looks like Big T didn't skip his Genetics class as much as I did.

Let's see if he can figure this one out ...

Why is there no sickle cell anemia in Asian Indian or American Indian populations?

...

Also, I had a mad scientist experiment for Big T ...

What happens to the breathing ability of a person with cystic fibrosis degraded lungs after being placed in hyper oxygenated amniotic fluid for hours at a time over the course of several months and years?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']It looks like Big T didn't skip his Genetics class as much as I did.

Let's see if he can figure this one out ...

Why is there no sickle cell anemia in Asian Indian or American Indian populations?

...

Also, I had a mad scientist experiment for Big T ...

What happens to the breathing ability of a person with cystic fibrosis degraded lungs after being placed in hyper oxygenated amniotic fluid for hours at a time over the course of several months and years?[/quote]

India has its fair share of malaria and sickle cell disease, although I think another hemoglobinopathy that confers resistance to malaria may be more common in those parts of Asia: Thalassemia. Basically, hemoglobin is formed from different types of globin chains: usually 2 alpha and 2 beta globins. In thalassemia, either the alpha or beta chains are deficient... so, there is an excess of the other, which causes abnormal tetramers and unstable RBCs.

I'm not sure about American Indians? Did they have problems with malaria in the past?



I'm not sure what you're getting at with the CF question? Hyper-oxygenated amniotic fluid? Is that some new therapy I've never heard about? ;) I've heard of people using hypertonic saline solutions via nebulizer to try to clear out dried/thickened secretions... I guess amniotic fluid could be used in a pinch... :D

Their lungs are ravaged with with abnormal viscous secretions, chronic infections, and pus that leads parenchymal damage... they have bronchiectasis, obstructive lung disease, and large ventilation-perfusion mismatches. Since we don't have gene therapy, they will eventually need lung transplants (not fun, high mortality)
 
[quote name='BigT']To clarify, one must distinguish between sickle cell disease (SCD, aka sickle cell anemia) and sickle cell trait (SCT).

In SCD, people are homozygous for Hemoglobin S. This means that each red cell contains mostly HbS. This is a bad thing, because HbS tends to polymerize and these cells are very prone to sickling (forming the characteristic banana-like shape). This generally occurs during periods of dehydration, low pH, or deoxygenation. The sickled cells are rigid, sticky, and fragile. Thus, they clog up the circulation causing infarctions throughout and they fall apart leading to anemia. The consequences are terrible, and people usually die in adolescence without treatment (blood transfusions, hydroxyurea, good hydration/oxygenation).

In SCT, people are heterozygous for Hemoglobin S and Hemoglobin A. In general, they have no problems. Each cell has both HbS and HbA, but the concentration of HbS is not high enough to cause sickling. In the face of malaria infection (which is a red cell parasite), it is believed that sickling is increased... so the infected cells commit suicide as abnormal RBCs are picked up by the reticuloendothelial system as they pass though the spleen. There are probably other factors, but for some reason, the RBCs of these people are not a good environment for the malaria parasite.


Now to go back a step, we have to realize that SCD is caused by a substitution of one amino acid in the Hb tetramer (discovered in Linus Pauling's lab at Caltech). This brings about a point that small changes in DNA may have wide ranging effects (usually deleterious). It is still hard for me to reconcile how random mutations over the years would lead to the diversity of life that we see now... It would seem like an incredibly tedious and drawn out process, since most large DNA alterations would tend to result in spontaneous abortions or terrible maladaptive traits...[/quote]Well thats the point of natural selection, those maladaptive traits would have been bred out of the species. At least thats my understanding.
 
Looking at evolution at the genetic level can be a bit confusing, but after studying it for some time I think I have a pretty decent grasp of it.

So, mutations can be extremely deleterious, so how can this process be of much help? The first problem seems to be a misunderstanding of the nature of mutations. You have to remember that most mutations are neutral. Secondly, deleterious mutations are weeded out fairly quickly, simple natural selection at work.

A point that helped me understand evolution much better is looking at genes are in a different way. All genes are essentially copies of another. It is these copies building up over time that allowed organisms to grow in complexity. Take one set of genes that code for a type of cell and then copy it so that it makes more cells exactly like it. Now over time mutations will change the coding so that two cells that were once the same start to differentiate. This is where we see specialization occur. One set of cells might continue to whatever it did while the differentiated cells can carry out new and separate tasks. So you can think of this such that all organisms are basically sets of repeated and differentiated structures. I hope this poor explanation makes some sense.

People tend to assume more randomness in evolution than there actually is. Mutations are simply building on what is already there. And whatever doesn't work is gone pretty quickly.

I also must take issue with the assertion that macroevolution is some sketchy extrapolation of microevolution. This isn't the case. The processes at work guarantee that evolutionary processes inevitably lead to changes that would be considered macro. There's simply no magical barrier that prevents a species from evolving past a certain point. I can get into this more later if anyone is interested.
 
[quote name='daroga']
Hi Thrust! You do too know one! ;)

I don't think there's a real solid date established (the genealogies in the Bible don't necessarily form a complete A-to-B flow of the course of years and length of time as that wasn't their purpose), but any age much beyond 10,000 years would give me pause.

But, yeah, biblical Creation is 6 24-hour-days. If you're going to hold to an infallible Bible, theistic-evolution (is that a concept proposed by the ID camp?) doesn't jive with the rest of the Bible.[/QUOTE]

Ah, I see. Yeah, I certainly don't believe the bible is infallible. I believe it's true as far as it's translated correctly.... which is mostly up to an individual to discover.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Nobody seems to have noticed this, but i think thats a real shame, i've always loved that song. Especially the bit about "imagine no religion, it's easy if you try." Only, people won't try.[/QUOTE]

Yoko Ono did not give them permission to use the song.

Apparently the producers have very sticky fingers and did not pay for any of the songs or videos they used.
 
Lot of good points here. When did CAG become Conservative Ass Gamer ;)

[quote name='daroga']Interesting, so can someone who's a critical thinker not have views different from yours on stem cells, abortion, and homosexuality?[/quote]

Absolutely not - in fact, I think it's the mark of critical thinking when a group of people come up with different viewpoints on the same issue. That's why I take issue with conservative Christians, it's too much of a coincidence to think that they all came to the exact same black-and-white viewpoint on stem cells, abortion, and homosexuality by critically evaluating the issues. I sincerely doubt this voting block performed a thorough reading and evaluation of moral philosophy and the teachings of several religions before making up their minds.

[quote name='t0llenz']Thank you, daroga. I was planning to say something similar.

They key word that you should notice, camoor, is the term conservative. I know plenty of non-religious conservatives who oppose embryonic stem cell research, same-sex marriage, and abortion. I know a number of Christians who attend church regularly who are middle of the road on abortion and in some cases even support wholeheartedly same-sex marriage. One can be a critical thinker even within their own religious views and come to a different conclusion than someone else. Religious people do critically think and it's not merely the religious that are part of the voting block that came out to vote for President Bush. Just because these "Evangelical voters" came out in 2000 and 2004 suddenly, doesn't mean that they're a huge portion of the voting population and the sole basis for the support of President Bush. He had united fiscal conservatives who cared little for his social issues and war hawks. These people who only cared about social issues because of their religious views are in the vast minority when compared to the larger voting public. Look at how the GOP primary played out and how the characters who only pushed forward these views (i.e. social conservatism as #1) failed to make enough traction to come close to winning, ex. Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback. Heck, Huckabee still didn't have as many delegates as Romney until the last primary he competed in and still didn't have the number of actual votes Romney had when he dropped out...and say what you will about Romney, his candidacy wasn't a one-trick, social conservative pony like Huckabee.[/quote]

Yes, I have several friends who are both conservative and Christian as well - not them, I'm really talking about the people who mix the two to the point that they equate a disagreement with their policy opinions to an attack on their religion (the so-called "War on Christianity"). I believe there are many more of these people then your analysis would suggest, I believe religion plays a much larger role in contemporary American politics then you do. For example - I sincerely doubt fiscal conservatives were pulling for Bush the second time around. Besides - ask yourself if you honestly think a non-Christian could win the White House. Not likely.

[quote name='t0llenz']Also, did President Bush bold-faced say that he believes in the Christian Bible verbatum with no leeway for symbolism, etc? I can't think of an actual quote where he's said that. He's a member of the United Methodist Church, which is the same church as John Edwards, Dick Cheney, and Hillary Rodham Clinton -- quite the varied background.[/quote]

[quote name='George W. Bush']I believe God did create the world. And I think we're finding out more and more and more as to how it actually happened.
...
After all, religion has been around a lot longer than Darwinism.
[/quote]

So Bush believes the bible as far as ID vs. evolution is concerned. Bush W. also literally believes the the Christian God specifically told him to be President, told him to order the United States to invade the Middle East, etc. That's a pretty literal interpretation of the Christian God as presented in the OT, many of my other Christian friends don't think that God speaks specifically to them.

[quote name='thrustbucket']I've noticed a lot of people really believe Bush is a fundamentalist. The extreme left pushes this belief in order to justify what they say about him and vilify him further. (I am NOT saying Camoor is extreme left).

But I too, have never seen proof of it, which can really only be an admission stated somewhere.

Camoor, it would be silly for me to claim the issues you listed are not at least partially influenced by religion. But I don't see that as a bad thing. I think ultimately, with the issues you listed, people go by their gut feeling. Does it feel wrong or right? Most religious and non-religious people I know ultimately do that.[/quote]

I believe a gut-feeling can be a legitimate component of one's decision making process. However IMO it must be accompanied by a rational evaluation of the situation. It's all too easy to judge everything anecdotally, it's much more challanging to judge issues based on an evaluation of all perspectives and the basic concept of fairness.
 
[quote name='daroga']...See, now wasn't that informative? ;)[/quote]

Three "I don't know"s!?

And people say that Religion has all the answers! Bah. But yes, it was informative, thanks for answering honestly.

I'm kind of surprised that the words "separation of church and state" haven't shown up in this thread yet, especially since, from a legalistic standpoint, it's the crux of the argument against allowing ID to be taught in schools.

ID is strictly a church/religious view. You can't even bring it up without bringing up G-d and Religion at the same time.

Those crazy assholes who wrote our constitution knew the pitfalls of having a religious state, and didn't want their country to be that way.

ITS UNfuckINGCONSTITUTIONAL!!! End of story.

Keep religion out of our government, out of our laws, out of our courts, out of our executive branch, out of our police departments, schools, and anything else run by the government.

NO religion in the government people! Go to church or synagogue or mosque or anythign else for that. It does not belong in our state buildings.

Lemon test from Lemon v. Kurtzman
The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs:
  1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
  2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
  3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.
If any of these 3 prongs is violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

FYI, a government paid teacher teaching somethign is a "government action."
 
ID is fine, if they go "God created the Big Bang" because we don't know what or how it was created.

However if ID goes "God made humans in 7 days", then fuck them.
 
[quote name='bigdaddy']ID is fine, if they go "God created the Big Bang" because we don't know what or how it was created.

However if ID goes "God made humans in 7 days", then fuck them.[/quote]How is that any different? Isn't the issue not primarily the time frame of the existence and actions of God in shaping out world? You're conceding a lot more than you might think by allowing "God" to create the "big bang."

It's something called theistic evolution that tries to marry the Bible's creation account and science's guesses about the origins of the universe. The problem is that it's a horrible offense to both the Bible and science.
 
[quote name='daroga']How is that any different? Isn't the issue not primarily the time frame of the existence and actions of God in shaping out world? You're conceding a lot more than you might think by allowing "God" to create the "big bang."

It's something called theistic evolution that tries to marry the Bible's creation account and science's guesses about the origins of the universe. The problem is that it's a horrible offense to both the Bible and science.[/quote]

Daroga, you seem to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, which is fine.

My question is, do you want that taught in schools?
 
[quote name='camoor']Daroga, you seem to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, which is fine.

My question is, do you want that taught in schools?[/quote]Not at all. No more than I want prayer in school or other religious stuff to be commingled with our public school system. Let the churches deal with that.

What I would like to see is a little bit more honesty and transparency in things we're uncertain about. Present the layers of sediments, present the carbon datings, present goofy pictures of cells turning into apes, whatever. But be honest and don't lie to the kids like we've been lied to for years. The hubris of "This is absolutely the way it was no questions asked no other ideas are even remotely possible" needs to be toned down. Honesty such as "Based on what we can observe and extrapolate back, this is the best guess we've got."

Let's be honest about what a significant mutation usually means for the life of the organism. Let's be honest about how there's no inter-species breeding; and thus, how that brings to doubt the ability for significant mutations to be able to reproduce with those not mutated and thus having the mutation, even if it's viable on its own, dieing without passing on its genes. Let's be honest that we don't even know simple things like why cells stop dividing let alone creating a bacteria out of simple components. Let's be honest to say we don't have any idea where the matter in this universe came from save for an idea of eternal matter which has its own set of problems.

Even just a mention that some people find an answer to these problems in a supernatural creation by a force greater than ourselves would be kinda neat too. Like, maybe on paragraph at the end of a section of a text book. It needn't be specific to biblical Creation, but just a recognition that there are other beliefs out there.

I'd be thrilled to see any of that happen. I certainly never heard any of that in school. And I'm not that old!
 
[quote name='daroga']Not at all. No more than I want prayer in school or other religious stuff to be commingled with our public school system. Let the churches deal with that.

What I would like to see is a little bit more honesty and transparency in things we're uncertain about. Present the layers of sediments, present the carbon datings, present goofy pictures of cells turning into apes, whatever. But be honest and don't lie to the kids like we've been lied to for years. The hubris of "This is absolutely the way it was no questions asked no other ideas are even remotely possible" needs to be toned down. Honesty such as "Based on what we can observe and extrapolate back, this is the best guess we've got."

Let's be honest about what a significant mutation usually means for the life of the organism. Let's be honest about how there's no inter-species breeding; and thus, how that brings to doubt the ability for significant mutations to be able to reproduce with those not mutated and thus having the mutation, even if it's viable on its own, dieing without passing on its genes. Let's be honest that we don't even know simple things like why cells stop dividing let alone creating a bacteria out of simple components. Let's be honest to say we don't have any idea where the matter in this universe came from save for an idea of eternal matter which has its own set of problems.

Even just a mention that some people find an answer to these problems in a supernatural creation by a force greater than ourselves would be kinda neat too. Like, maybe on paragraph at the end of a section of a text book. It needn't be specific to biblical Creation, but just a recognition that there are other beliefs out there.

I'd be thrilled to see any of that happen. I certainly never heard any of that in school. And I'm not that old![/quote]

The educational system could certainly use some cleaning up - more critical thinking and less memorization. It could also use some philosophy to round out the mathematics, science, and literature.

On the issue of evolution, which is already complex for a young mind, I think multiple theories can be a bit much to lay on them. To be sure, you have to explain what a scientific theory is (IE it's not an apriori fact). Yet I remember how confusing it was when my bio teacher (who was typically very scientific and thorough) quoted Crosby Stills Nash and Young on her final, asking us to explain
We are stardust, we are golden,
We are caught in the Devil's bargain,
And we got to get ourselves back to the garden.
Click to expand...
in the context of evolution. You're getting into territory that a gifted HS sophmore is going to be grappling with, let alone the average student out there.
 
[quote name='daroga']Not at all. No more than I want prayer in school or other religious stuff to be commingled with our public school system. Let the churches deal with that.

What I would like to see is a little bit more honesty and transparency in things we're uncertain about. Present the layers of sediments, present the carbon datings, present goofy pictures of cells turning into apes, whatever. But be honest and don't lie to the kids like we've been lied to for years. The hubris of "This is absolutely the way it was no questions asked no other ideas are even remotely possible" needs to be toned down. Honesty such as "Based on what we can observe and extrapolate back, this is the best guess we've got."

Let's be honest about what a significant mutation usually means for the life of the organism. Let's be honest about how there's no inter-species breeding; and thus, how that brings to doubt the ability for significant mutations to be able to reproduce with those not mutated and thus having the mutation, even if it's viable on its own, dieing without passing on its genes. Let's be honest that we don't even know simple things like why cells stop dividing let alone creating a bacteria out of simple components. Let's be honest to say we don't have any idea where the matter in this universe came from save for an idea of eternal matter which has its own set of problems.

Even just a mention that some people find an answer to these problems in a supernatural creation by a force greater than ourselves would be kinda neat too. Like, maybe on paragraph at the end of a section of a text book. It needn't be specific to biblical Creation, but just a recognition that there are other beliefs out there.

I'd be thrilled to see any of that happen. I certainly never heard any of that in school. And I'm not that old![/QUOTE]

Have you ever taken a biology course past the 10th grade level?

Is your college accredited?

There is really no way to even begin to respond to your post.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Have you ever taken a biology course past the 10th grade level?

Is your college accredited?[/quote]Yes. And, yes. My sights were set more on lower strata of education, though.

[quote name='Msut77']There is really no way to even begin to respond to your post.[/quote]You needn't try. I won't think any less of you for giving up.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Nobody seems to have noticed this, but i think thats a real shame, i've always loved that song. Especially the bit about "imagine no religion, it's easy if you try." Only, people won't try.[/QUOTE]

Now this is probably just an urban legend -- and I searched Snopes.com without success -- but I've heard that some American stations (and I've only heard this rumour about American stations) played a version with the lyrics changed to "imagine one religion, it's easy if you try".

If this is true, and while part of me dismisses this rumour out of hand, another part thinks this is all too possible, then maybe it's not that people haven't noticed, but that the people who should notice have never had the opportunity to.
 
[quote name='daroga']You needn't try. I won't think any less of you for giving up.[/QUOTE]

Considering you ignore about half the direct questions presented to you... never mind here goes.

...present goofy pictures of cells turning into apes, whatever.
Click to expand...

We have a pretty decent fossil record all things considered and it is only getting better and more complete.

For example:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071220220241.htm

The wiki is pretty thorough as well:

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


But be honest and don't lie to the kids like we've been lied to for years. The hubris of "This is absolutely the way it was no questions asked no other ideas are even remotely possible" needs to be toned down.
Click to expand...

You described basically every religion ever. If you really mean what you are saying then perhaps the ID guys should come out with better arguments than those shown in "expelled" if they want to be taken seriously.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know&sc=rss


Let's be honest about what a significant mutation usually means for the life of the organism.
Click to expand...

No matter how you define significant this is practically irrelevant, slowly but surely is the best way of summing it up, what you may have heard of punctuated equilibrium aside.

Let's be honest about how there's no inter-species breeding; and thus, how that brings to doubt the ability for significant mutations to be able to reproduce with those not mutated and thus having the mutation, even if it's viable on its own, dieing without passing on its genes.
Click to expand...

The mutations (again slowly but surely) are only significant in hindsight over the course of thousands and thousands of years. Are you arguing that inter-species breeding is the most important source of mutation?

Let's be honest that we don't even know simple things like why cells stop dividing
Click to expand...

Telomeres?
 
[quote name='pittpizza']

ID is strictly a church/religious view. You can't even bring it up without bringing up G-d and Religion at the same time.

[/QUOTE]

So then how do you classify those that believe people are the results of genetic tampering by an outside alien race?

How do you classify those people that believe life on earth was created by an alien race?

How do you define those that believe there is an underlying "force" behind all things and connecting all things, which also brings order out of chaos - but do not belong to a religion?

Most of those people (and I know many) feel their beliefs can be classified as ID. But they don't belong or adhere to any church or religion. I have been in many discussions with people like that who never brought up God, religion, or a church. So would that make it ok to at least "mention" it in schools?
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Daroga, do you really beleive Noah fit two of every species on his ark?[/quote]Sure. Although it doesn't specify if they were adult animals or young. There were obviously no aquatic animals and likely no amphibians on the ark. Hibernation has been theorized for feeding problems.

Remember, the Ark wasn't a fishing boat. The thing was enormous (over 500 of our standard railroad cars, over 2 million cubic feet if my quick Google is at all accurate). Assuming vertebrate animals, even allowing for some that may be extinct now, an estimate has been put for that between 1500 and 2400 animals were on board.

But I don't think that has a lot to do with our current topic.
 
[quote name='daroga']Sure. Although it doesn't specify if they were adult animals or young. There were obviously no aquatic animals and likely no amphibians on the ark. Hibernation has been theorized for feeding problems.

Remember, the Ark wasn't a fishing boat. The thing was enormous (over 500 of our standard railroad cars, over 2 million cubic feet if my quick Google is at all accurate). Assuming vertebrate animals, even allowing for some that may be extinct now, an estimate has been put for that between 1500 and 2400 animals were on board.

But I don't think that has a lot to do with our current topic.[/QUOTE]

So how do you think he gathered them up?

Surely the whale who swallowed Jonah could have helped gathering and transporting some of them correct?
 
Msut, you've missed a lot of my points I think. Most likely because I worded them poorly. Let me take another stab at 'em.

Mutations: Slow and sure works just fine for mild things, but eventually you need massive leaps in that chain. Take the heart for example. Things that are "slowly but surely" developing a 3 chambered heart from a 2 chambered heart will... die. There's gotta be a big jump there.

Likewise, at some point in macro evolution for it to truly become a new species it has to cross the line where it is no longer compatible with the old species. And you can say slow and steady all you want but we don't have any "in between" species that can breed with relatives on either side but the relatives can't breed to the best of my knowledge.

Thanks for the lesson on telomere. Learned a few things I'd not known or forgotten :) I misspoke a bit. My point was in that we don't know how to make cells not stop renewing themselves. At a certain age we begin to decline with no way to stop it. If I'm not mistaken all of our great promises of increasing our life span exponentially run into this wall and stop. It's not a big factor in this discussion, but more of just a reality check that we can't even manipulate existing cells in this way; we're much farther away from somehow being able to create out own cells out of base material than we might like to think.

As to our off-topic tangent and the animals and the ark, the Bible pretty clearly says that God brought the animals to Noah. It doesn't specific exactly how.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Yoko Ono did not give them permission to use the song.

Apparently the producers have very sticky fingers and did not pay for any of the songs or videos they used.[/quote]Yeah, thats what i meant. It's a shame that they ripped lennon off. Not that yoko really needs the money....
 
[quote name='daroga']How is that any different? [/quote]


Are you stupid?

One is that we don't know how everything started. i could say that an giant ant started the universe we live in, there is no way to prove or disprove it.

However saying that God created the Earth and only the Earth 8,000 years ago in seven days is teaching religion in school, and that is wrong.
 
[quote name='Msut77']So how do you think he gathered them up?

Surely the whale who swallowed Jonah could have helped gathering and transporting some of them correct?[/quote]
I always figured the smaller animals road on the backs of the larger ones. Monkeys riding on elephants etc...
 
[quote name='bigdaddy']Are you stupid?

One is that we don't know how everything started. i could say that an giant ant started the universe we live in, there is no way to prove or disprove it.

However saying that God created the Earth and only the Earth 8,000 years ago in seven days is teaching religion in school, and that is wrong.[/quote]Direct insults aren't welcome here. You get one pass.

And you also changed what you stated. You originally said "ID is fine, if they go 'God created the Big Bang'" which would be, by your definition, teaching religion in school and therefore be wrong.

I question the concept was just spouting off useless drivel simply because "we don't know." Is there anything productive to be gained from saying "a giant ant started the universe"? I think it would be far more reasonable, and far more academically appropriate, to simply put forth different views in the classroom. I'm not sure that ID demands that they be postulated as the right answer, but simply as an option. If you read above, you'd see I'd be more than happy with it as a footnote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top