Ben Stein Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

[LSU]

This looks great.

Should be a good topic here.

Ben Stein, game show host, explains how intelligent design and those supporting it are getting cornholed.


http://www.expelledthemovie.com/home.php

[domenick2x]

This looks great.

Should be a good topic here.

Ben Stein, game show host, explains how intelligent design and those supporting it are getting cornholed.


http://www.expelledthemovie.com/home.php
I don't have a problem with intelligent design.


Until you try promoting it in the schools. There's precedent there about teaching religion.

[LSU]

I don't have a problem with intelligent design.


Until you try promoting it in the schools. There's precedent there about teaching religion.


Essentially I agree. One of the main reasons conversations develop into a "prove Creation" thought is because it's been argued that ID and/or Creation should be taught in science courses. The very fact that a testable hypothesis cannot reasonably be tested precludes either of those from falling under "science". Christians (here at least) will readily admit that a Creator cannot be proven or disproven, and since ID or Creation will rely on their being a Designer or Creator which cannot be proven or disproven, well... There you go.

If people want to believe God created everything in 7 days, go for it.

If people want to believe God designed everything intelligently (some believe through the process of what we call evolution) then so be it.

But don't try to pass either off as science, because neither are.

Teach in a religious studies course or theology or something along those lines. Not science.

[Smoke681]

Essentially I agree. One of the main reasons conversations develop into a "prove Creation" thought is because it's been argued that ID and/or Creation should be taught in science courses. The very fact that a testable hypothesis cannot reasonably be tested precludes either of those from falling under "science". Christians (here at least) will readily admit that a Creator cannot be proven or disproven, and since ID or Creation will rely on their being a Designer or Creator which cannot be proven or disproven, well... There you go.

If people want to believe God created everything in 7 days, go for it.

If people want to believe God designed everything intelligently (some believe through the process of what we call evolution) then so be it.

But don't try to pass either off as science, because neither are.

Teach in a religious studies course or theology or something along those lines. Not science.
I can agree with that.

[ryr8828]

Ok to teach evolution theories. Not ok to teach other theories, unless they're against the bible.

[LSU]

Ok to teach evolution theories. Not ok to teach other theories, unless they're against the bible.



Your failure to understand the difference, or at least recognize it is no surprise.

[domenick2x]

Ok to teach evolution theories. Not ok to teach other theories, unless they're against the bible.
You mean the Bible that claims Godzilla is real?

[LSU]

For some reason, the producers of this "documentary" (I put it in parentheses because the way it sounds, it's about on par with one of Michael Moore's "factual" documentaries) invited editors of Scientific American to preview the movie.

Here are the reviews that I've found. Interesting to say the least.


http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-john-rennie

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-michael-shermer

[LSU]

Ok to teach evolution theories. Not ok to teach other theories, unless they're against the bible.



In case you forgot the difference between "scientific theory" and an any old idea "theory".

http://www.thepartisanpatriot.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56&highlight=scientific+theory

[domenick2x]

In case you forgot the difference between "scientific theory" and an any old idea "theory".

http://www.thepartisanpatriot.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56&highlight=scientific+theory
I have a theory that Republicans will only elect a white male to the Presidency.

QED.

[LSU]

This is the opening paragraph on Shermer's article about the movie linked above.

Sound familiar?

"In 1974 I matriculated at Pepperdine University as a born-again Christian who rejected Darwinism and evolutionary theory—not because I knew anything about it (I didn't) but because I thought that in order to believe in God and accept the Bible as true, you had to be a creationist. What I knew about evolution came primarily from creationist literature, so when I finally took a course in evolutionary theory in graduate school I realized that I had been hoodwinked. What I discovered is a massive amount of evidence from multiple sciences—geology, paleontology, biogeography, zoology, botany, comparative anatomy, molecular biology, genetics and embryology—demonstrating that evolution happened."

[LSU]

Another interesting section from Shermer...

Quite often, people HERE claim Evolution and Darwin and such CANNOT be questioned. Unfortunately, they couldn't be further from wrong.

Questioning Darwinism
A final leitmotif running through Expelled is inscribed in chalk by Stein in repetitive lines on a classroom blackboard: "Do not question Darwinism." Anyone who thinks that scientists do not question Darwinism has never been to an evolutionary conference. At the World Summit on Evolution held in the Galapagos Islands during June 2005, for example, I witnessed a scientific theory rich in controversy and disputation. Paleontologist William Schopf of the University of California, Los Angeles, for instance, explained that "We know the overall sequence of life's origin, that the origin of life was early, microbial and unicellular, and that an RNA world preceded today's DNA–protein world." He openly admitted, however, "We do not know the precise environments of the early earth in which these events occurred; we do not know the exact chemistry of some of the important chemical reactions that led to life; and we do not have any knowledge of life in a pre-RNA world."

Stanford University biologist Joan Roughgarden declared that Darwin's theory of sexual selection (a specific type of natural selection) is wrong in its claim that females choose mates who are more attractive and well-armed. Calling neo-Darwinians "bullies," the University of Massachusetts Amherst biologist Lynn Margulis pronounced that "neo-Darwinism is dead" and, echoing Darwin, she said, "It was like confessing a murder when I discovered I was not a neo-Darwinist." Why? Because, Margulis explained, "Random changes in DNA alone do not lead to speciation. Symbiogenesis—the appearance of new behaviors, tissues, organs, organ systems, physiologies or species as a result of symbiont interaction—is the major source of evolutionary novelty in eukaryotes: animals, plants and fungi."

Finally, Cornell University evolutionary theorist William Provine (featured in Expelled) presented 11 problems with evolutionary theory, including: "Natural selection does not shape an adaptation or cause a gene to spread over a population or really do anything at all. It is instead the result of specific causes: hereditary changes, developmental causes, ecological causes and demography. Natural selection is the result of these causes, not a cause that is by itself. It is not a mechanism."

Despite this public questioning of Darwinism (and neo-Darwinism), which I reported on in Scientific American, Schopf, Roughgarden, Margulis and Provine have not been persecuted, shunned, fired or even Expelled. Why? Because they are doing science, not religion. It is perfectly okay to question Darwinism (or any other "-ism" in science), as long as there is a way to test your challenge. Intelligent design creationists, by contrast, have no interest in doing science at all. In the words of mathematician and philosopher William Dembski of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and a key witness in Stein's prosecution of evolution, from a 2000 speech at the National Religious Broadcasters convention in Anaheim, Calif.: "Intelligent design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God…. And if there's anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ as the free reign of the spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view."

When will people learn that Darwinian naturalism has nothing whatsoever to do with religious supernaturalism? By the very definitions of the words it is not possible for supernatural processes to be understood by a method designed strictly for analyzing natural causes. Unless God reaches into our world through natural and detectable means, he remains wholly outside the realm of science.

QED indeed.

[ryr8828]

Your failure to understand the difference, or at least recognize it is no surprise.

You can prove evolution?

You can prove random circumstances from nothingness resulting in creation?

That's great, I've been waiting for this for years.

[LSU]

You can prove evolution?

You can prove random circumstances from nothingness resulting in creation?

That's great, I've been waiting for this for years.



You know as well as I do I haven't claimed that, nor will I probably do it in my lifetime, so why you choose to pursue such a route of discussion is beyond me.

What you've commented on has nothing to do with what's been discussed here. Nowhere close.

[LSU]

You can prove evolution?

You can prove random circumstances from nothingness resulting in creation?

That's great, I've been waiting for this for years.



Oh, and this applies here, too.

Your failure to understand the difference, or at least recognize it is no surprise.

[ryr8828]

You know as well as I do I haven't claimed that, nor will I probably do it in my lifetime, so why you choose to pursue such a route of discussion is beyond me.

What you've commented on has nothing to do with what's been discussed here. Nowhere close.

You talked down to my post, now you claim different.

[domenick2x]

You can prove evolution?

You can prove random circumstances from nothingness resulting in creation?

That's great, I've been waiting for this for years.
Infinite monkeys, infinite typewriters.

Eventually, you get MacBeth. And he kills a bunch of people.

QED.

[LSU]

You talked down to my post, now you claim different.



No, I talked down to you. Not your post.

That's all I do, right? Talk down.

Never talk with, right?

Anyway, where did I claim different? I said what I said. Unless you're not following what I'm talking about in regards to your complaining about supporting certain theories and trouncing others.

That's where my comment comes into play. The recognition of "theory" versus "scientific theory."

Your failure to understand the difference, or at least recognize it is no surprise.

Holds true.

[ryr8828]

No, I talked down to you. Not your post.

That's all I do, right? Talk down.

Never talk with, right?

Anyway, where did I claim different? I said what I said. Unless you're not following what I'm talking about in regards to your complaining about supporting certain theories and trouncing others.

That's where my comment comes into play. The recognition of "theory" versus "scientific theory."



Holds true.

Got Arrogance?

[LSU]

Got Arrogance?



No.

Aggornce.

Apparently.


But at least I can have a discussion. And not just list talking points.

ThePartisanTalkingPoint

Has a much better ring to it.

[swordfish]

Your failure to understand the difference, or at least recognize it is no surprise.

I'm a little confused. What makes evolutionary theory a law and what makes intelligent design rubbish? Neither can be proven or disproven. You can say that there are different kinds of birds and therefore they must have genetically changed over time, but there is no proof. Just like intelligent design. The difference is that they teach evolution as truth. Remind me who and when it was proven a law.

I guess its OK to teach Big Bang theory, since it was proven and all.....

[LSU]

I'm a little confused. What makes evolutionary theory a law and what makes intelligent design rubbish? Neither can be proven or disproven. You can say that there are different kinds of birds and therefore they must have genetically changed over time, but there is no proof. Just like intelligent design. The difference is that they teach evolution as truth. Remind me who and when it was proven a law.

I guess its OK to teach Big Bang theory, since it was proven and all.....


First, tell me someone, anyone, that teaches Evolution as law. Or even that it's the concrete truth. I'd like to tell them how wrong they are.

Second, the same applies to you as does to Ryr in this instance. You don't realize the difference, which is why I linked the "theory" thread. The three links in the first post discuss "theory" versus "scientific theory" not to be confused with "law".

As for why creation and id shouldn't be taught in science class, it goes back to what I said early in the thread. Science can be hypothesized AND tested.

ID or creation relies on a designer or creator, likely supernatural. How do you test for the supernatural? You can hypothesize it for sure. But you can't test for it. However, if you'd like to make the claim that you CAN test for it, then you make the claim that God can be proven or disproven.

Have at it if you'd like.

[swordfish]

First, tell me someone, anyone, that teaches Evolution as law. Or even that it's the concrete truth. I'd like to tell them how wrong they are.

Second, the same applies to you as does to Ryr in this instance. You don't realize the difference, which is why I linked the "theory" thread. The three links in the first post discuss "theory" versus "scientific theory" not to be confused with "law".

As for why creation and id shouldn't be taught in science class, it goes back to what I said early in the thread. Science can be hypothesized AND tested.

ID or creation relies on a designer or creator, likely supernatural. How do you test for the supernatural? You can hypothesize it for sure. But you can't test for it. However, if you'd like to make the claim that you CAN test for it, then you make the claim that God can be proven or disproven.

Have at it if you'd like.

So your saying that evolution is not taught as fact?

[LSU]

So your saying that evolution is not taught as fact?



I don't know, is that what I said?

First, tell me someone, anyone, that teaches Evolution as law. Or even that it's the concrete truth. I'd like to tell them how wrong they are.

[LSU]

So your saying that evolution is not taught as fact?



In my opinion, the way it should be taught is as a biological theory that has stood the test of roughly 150 years of scientific rigor. Large amounts of data from various sciences support the theory. However, it is still considered a scientific theory, which is less certain than a law, but more certain than a hypothesis.

And then continue on teaching the theory.


Which I understand is not done correctly in schools. As evidenced by the large number of people here and elsewhere that really have no fucking clue about it. And those that think they have a fucking clue about it (that is, people that argue both for and against it have some pretty bad interpretations and supposed knowledge of it).

[Ed Who?]

In case you forgot the difference between "scientific theory" and an any old idea "theory".

http://www.thepartisanpatriot.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56&highlight=scientific+theory

So a teacher is only allowed to speculate about the order of the universe as long as it doesn't discuss a singular being responsible for said order.

Yet another reason why state-sponsored schools are a horrible, horrible idea.

[Ed Who?]

I don't know, is that what I said?

If the only viable theory preached in schools is evolution, you are essentially stating to those being taught that it's the only scenario.

[LSU]

So a teacher is only allowed to speculate about the order of the universe as long as it doesn't discuss a singular being responsible for said order.

Yet another reason why state-sponsored schools are a horrible, horrible idea.




Talk about a gross misinterpretation or exaggeration.

A teacher can speculate anything he or she wants. But do teachers teach speculation? Or rather, should they?

And, as I've said (which apparently doesn't matter because I have to keep repeating it) if any school wants to have a class that teaches creation or ID or compares/contrasts those two things against evolution, go for it. But don't put it in the science class because neither are based in science (for an explanation, see previous posts, or just make me explain it again for the umpteenth time).

[LSU]

If the only viable theory preached in schools is evolution, you are essentially stating to those being taught that it's the only scenario.



Uhhh, no I'm not.

I'm open to any scientific theory being taught in any biology class. So long as it fits the criteria of a scientific theory. Whether it opposes evolution or anything.

[ryr8828]

In my opinion, the way it should be taught is as a biological theory that has stood the test of roughly 150 years of scientific rigor. Large amounts of data from various sciences support the theory. However, it is still considered a scientific theory, which is less certain than a law, but more certain than a hypothesis.

And then continue on teaching the theory.


Which I understand is not done correctly in schools. As evidenced by the large number of people here and elsewhere that really have no fucking clue about it. And those that think they have a fucking clue about it (that is, people that argue both for and against it have some pretty bad interpretations and supposed knowledge of it).

I have a clue. My tax dollars can go to teach your theory because "it's backed up by science", even though it isn't proven.

My tax dollars cannot go to teach my "theory" because "it can't be backed up by science".

Two viewpoints, neither proven to all, one taught and one not taught.

I understand it perfectly. None of your circular scientific mumbo jumbo will change the facts.

Is evolution proven or not? Is the big bang proven or not? It is taught as fact, whether you want to admit it or not. Taught with my tax dollars going to liberal leaning teachers and professors.

I believe that this is supposedly the entire point of the movie.

[LSU]

I have a clue. My tax dollars can go to teach your theory because "it's backed up by science", even though it isn't proven.

My tax dollars cannot go to teach my "theory" because "it can't be backed up by science".

Two viewpoints, neither proven to all, one taught and one not taught.

I understand it perfectly. None of your circular scientific mumbo jumbo will change the facts.

Is evolution proven or not? Is the big bang proven or not? It is taught as fact, whether you want to admit it or not. Taught with my tax dollars going to liberal leaning teachers and professors.

I believe that this is supposedly the entire point of the movie.


Boy, you sure do like to pick and choose words, don't you.

ONCE AGAIN, if a school system deems it necessary to teach a class on ID and/or creationism, good for them. More education is better than less education. But it's not a science if it's based on a supernatural designer or creator.

But it really wouldn't serve your purpose to actually take in what I'm saying and think about it. No, down with the evil scientist, down with him, I say!

Blah blah blah.

[ryr8828]

Boy, you sure do like to pick and choose words, don't you.

ONCE AGAIN, if a school system deems it necessary to teach a class on ID and/or creationism, good for them. More education is better than less education. But it's not a science if it's based on a supernatural designer or creator.

But it really wouldn't serve your purpose to actually take in what I'm saying and think about it. No, down with the evil scientist, down with him, I say!

Blah blah blah.

I have no problem with Ed Who.

[LSU]

I have no problem with Ed Who.



Oh, right.


Down with the scientist that called a cunt a cunt!

That better?

[swordfish]

In my opinion, the way it should be taught is as a biological theory that has stood the test of roughly 150 years of scientific rigor. Large amounts of data from various sciences support the theory. However, it is still considered a scientific theory, which is less certain than a law, but more certain than a hypothesis.

And then continue on teaching the theory.


Which I understand is not done correctly in schools. As evidenced by the large number of people here and elsewhere that really have no fucking clue about it. And those that think they have a fucking clue about it (that is, people that argue both for and against it have some pretty bad interpretations and supposed knowledge of it).

I understand evolutionary theory. Why is one unprovable theory any better than another? If you try to argue against Evolution you get called everything from ignorant to a religious zealot.
For more than 150 years they taught people that the world was flat. It was a hypothesis. It was proven wrong. What is so hard to understand. College teaches evolution as truth, not hypothesis. I only said law because that is the way they go about it. Evolution is taught like gravity.

And again we obviously don't know anything about it because we don't blindly believe everything the government teaches. There is no way to prove the Big Bang, yet its shoveled down our throats at every opportunity. If you can give any evidence to species that link, or even to anything more than conjecture I'm open for discussion. What people think or believe does not matter in the least.

[LSU]

I understand evolutionary theory. Why is one unprovable theory any better than another? If you try to argue against Evolution you get called everything from ignorant to a religious zealot.
For more than 150 years they taught people that the world was flat. It was a hypothesis. It was proven wrong. What is so hard to understand. College teaches evolution as truth, not hypothesis. I only said law because that is the way they go about it. Evolution is taught like gravity.

And again we obviously don't know anything about it because we don't blindly believe everything the government teaches. There is no way to prove the Big Bang, yet its shoveled down our throats at every opportunity. If you can give any evidence to species that link, or even to anything more than conjecture I'm open for discussion. What people think or believe does not matter in the least.


1) People that argue against evolution are not automatically called ignorant or a religious zealot. Now, if you argue against evolution using religious reasons, then maybe they would be. But as evidenced by Shermer's article linked in this thread (which I'm sure everyone took the time to read), people in science today question evolution or parts of it and are not ostracized...mainly because they're using science and testable hypotheses to counter it. Not faith.

2) I said nothing about anything being provable or unprovable. I am talking about it being "testable". A big difference.

3) "Science" did not teach 150 years that the Earth was flat. That conclusion was not based on science, that is that it wasn't based on scientific testing. It was an assumption. Science is what proved it wrong.

4) I have been in college, am still in college, and will probably be around college for a long time. I've never had a class that taught evolution as a law. Always as a theory.

5) I can and have given loads of examples of support for evolution. I don't care enough about what you or anyone here believes or doesn't believe, so I'm not going to spend the time scouring the net for links and stuff that you may or may not believe. And I don't say that to be dismissive. I'm not here to convince or unconvince you. I'm here to say my piece. That's all. You can choose to accept or reject. That's it.

[swordfish]

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

Evolution is often said to be both theory and fact.

The point of this statement is to differentiate the concept of the "fact of evolution", namely the observed changes in populations of organisms over time, with the "theory of evolution",

So here it states that evolution is a fact because there are some different species. I don't know any study that was done to prove this. The subject is clearly "cloudy" at best. There is also an agenda. Also remember I never said that species do not evolve. In fact I have been a supporter of evolution for awhile. I however will not swallow the random generation theory. The theories say that our universe is going more and more into chaos. Does this seem to be factual. Do you notice more organization over time or less. Does evolution make any sense in that perspective. More order or less? The scientific community should make up their minds.

[LSU]

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

Evolution is often said to be both theory and fact.

The point of this statement is to differentiate the concept of the "fact of evolution", namely the observed changes in populations of organisms over time, with the "theory of evolution",

So here it states that evolution is a fact because there are some different species. I don't know any study that was done to prove this. The subject is clearly "cloudy" at best. There is also an agenda. Also remember I never said that species do not evolve. In fact I have been a supporter of evolution for awhile. I however will not swallow the random generation theory. The theories say that our universe is going more and more into chaos. Does this seem to be factual. Do you notice more organization over time or less. Does evolution make any sense in that perspective. More order or less? The scientific community should make up their minds.


Perhaps for your fact-finding missions, you should consider sources a little more solid than "wikipedia".

Hell, for all I know, Jiddy wrote that entry.

[Vegas]

Perhaps for your fact-finding missions, you should consider sources a little more solid than "wikipedia".

Hell, for all I know, Jiddy wrote that entry.

Not a chance jiddy wrote that. It would have included something about the bad real estate market.

[swordfish]

Perhaps for your fact-finding missions, you should consider sources a little more solid than "wikipedia".

Hell, for all I know, Jiddy wrote that entry.

So in your mind evolution is never taught as fact.

Interesting.

Get out some partner.

[LSU]

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

Evolution is often said to be both theory and fact.

The point of this statement is to differentiate the concept of the "fact of evolution", namely the observed changes in populations of organisms over time, with the "theory of evolution",

So here it states that evolution is a fact because there are some different species. I don't know any study that was done to prove this. The subject is clearly "cloudy" at best. There is also an agenda. Also remember I never said that species do not evolve. In fact I have been a supporter of evolution for awhile. I however will not swallow the random generation theory. The theories say that our universe is going more and more into chaos. Does this seem to be factual. Do you notice more organization over time or less. Does evolution make any sense in that perspective. More order or less? The scientific community should make up their minds.

Now, on to your questions.

Random generation may not have occurred. But evolution is more than just random generation. Evolution could've still occurred without random generation.

A law, not a theory, says the universe is going more into chaos. I don't deny that. However, it's a "general trend" towards disorder. Not that everything is falling apart. It speaks more to energy, and in anything no conversion of energy to mass (or anything else) is 100% efficient. Evolution most certainly can make sense in that respect. As a species would evolve, it would like require more energy to sustain itself right? So it would require more food, and where does the food come from? The food eaten and digested provides some energy, but the energy in the food is not 100% converted, a lot of it is lost. That's still a general trend towards disorder (the waste products from the food still contain energy, or energy was used in obtaining that energy, either through digestion - muscles - or chemical digestion - enzymes using energy).

[swordfish]

Now, on to your questions.

Random generation may not have occurred. But evolution is more than just random generation. Evolution could've still occurred without random generation.

A law, not a theory, says the universe is going more into chaos. I don't deny that. However, it's a "general trend" towards disorder. Not that everything is falling apart. It speaks more to energy, and in anything no conversion of energy to mass (or anything else) is 100% efficient. Evolution most certainly can make sense in that respect. As a species would evolve, it would like require more energy to sustain itself right? So it would require more food, and where does the food come from? The food eaten and digested provides some energy, but the energy in the food is not 100% converted, a lot of it is lost. That's still a general trend towards disorder (the waste products from the food still contain energy, or energy was used in obtaining that energy, either through digestion - muscles - or chemical digestion - enzymes using energy).

Can I remind you that matter is not created or destroyed only transformed. Where is the loss of energy occurring. Do mushrooms eat shit? Do stars collapse, gain mass as a black hole, then explode starting the process all over again? Or is everything lost.

[LSU]

So in your mind evolution is never taught as fact.

Interesting.

Get out some partner.


I can only respond to what I encounter, can I not?

Nowhere did I say evolution is NEVER taught as fact. I'm sure somewhere (perhaps a lot of places) it is. And it's wrong to not teach it as a theory (assuming the proper definition of a scientific theory accompanies it).

So, when I encounter someone (which I have not) teaching it like that, I will be sure to give them my opinion on doing so.

Can't really do too much about it, other than try to get on places (like this maybe) to try to set a few things straight.

But then I just get into a quagmire like this.

[LSU]

Can I remind you that matter is not created or destroyed only transformed. Where is the loss of energy occurring. Do mushrooms eat shit? Do stars collapse, gain mass as a black hole, then explode starting the process all over again? Or is everything lost.


No need to remind me of that, I already know it.

I never said matter is created. Loss of energy occurs when you eat a hot dog with X number of calories and poop out Y number of calories. That's energy lost. Throw in the amount of body heat you lose for no good reason. That's energy lost. And any ATP required for your digestive enzymes to do their duty to make the energy a usable form for you to use.

A whole bunch of energy is lost.

Photosynthesis, at best estimates, is only 30% efficient. The rest of that energy gets lost (or goes somewhere else).

[swordfish]

No need to remind me of that, I already know it.

I never said matter is created. Loss of energy occurs when you eat a hot dog with X number of calories and poop out Y number of calories. That's energy lost. Throw in the amount of body heat you lose for no good reason. That's energy lost. And any ATP required for your digestive enzymes to do their duty to make the energy a usable form for you to use.

A whole bunch of energy is lost.

Photosynthesis, at best estimates, is only 30% efficient. The rest of that energy gets lost (or goes somewhere else).

The poop feeds bacteria or shrooms. Body heat increases the overall temperature of the planet. The energy cannot be lost only transformed. If E=mc^2 and matter cannot be lost then it shows that Energy cannot be lost as well. Just because the energy is not being used with 100% efficiency does not mean it does not affect the environment somewhere else. Light that is not absorbed by plants is absorbed by concrete and produces heat. In the chaos theory world that energy would be destroying everything and turning it back into elementary particles. Instead evolution is seemingly creating lifeforms that are better equipped to survive with less energy. Does this mean that evolutionary theory contradicts chaos theory. Possibly.

[Roy Munson]

Boy, you sure do like to pick and choose words, don't you.

ONCE AGAIN, if a school system deems it necessary to teach a class on ID and/or creationism, good for them. More education is better than less education. But it's not a science if it's based on a supernatural designer or creator.

But it really wouldn't serve your purpose to actually take in what I'm saying and think about it. No, down with the evil scientist, down with him, I say!

Blah blah blah.
Witch... Witch... Witch...


*grabs burning stake*

[LSU]

The poop feeds bacteria or shrooms. Body heat increases the overall temperature of the planet. The energy cannot be lost only transformed. If E=mc^2 and matter cannot be lost then it shows that Energy cannot be lost as well. Just because the energy is not being used with 100% efficiency does not mean it does not affect the environment somewhere else. Light that is not absorbed by plants is absorbed by concrete and produces heat. In the chaos theory world that energy would be destroying everything and turning it back into elementary particles. Instead evolution is seemingly creating lifeforms that are better equipped to survive with less energy. Does this mean that evolutionary theory contradicts chaos theory. Possibly.

What you've said to begin with is no different than what I've said (or intended to say).

Wait now, are you talking about chaos theory or the 2nd law of thermodynamics and entropy?

I'm not that familiar with the chaos theory.

[LSU]

The poop feeds bacteria or shrooms. Body heat increases the overall temperature of the planet. The energy cannot be lost only transformed. If E=mc^2 and matter cannot be lost then it shows that Energy cannot be lost as well. Just because the energy is not being used with 100% efficiency does not mean it does not affect the environment somewhere else. Light that is not absorbed by plants is absorbed by concrete and produces heat. In the chaos theory world that energy would be destroying everything and turning it back into elementary particles. Instead evolution is seemingly creating lifeforms that are better equipped to survive with less energy. Does this mean that evolutionary theory contradicts chaos theory. Possibly.


I disagree wholeheartedly with this statement.

Compare the energy consumption of any bird or mammal (warm blooded) against that of a reptile or lower.

The energy consumption for "higher" organisms blows the rest out of the water.

Look at what is happening to the Earth in our need for food and survival. The Earth is much different than it was 100, 1000, 10,000, years ago.

To me, entropy for sure. Perhaps chaos, too. I don't know for sure.

[domenick2x]

I have a clue. My tax dollars can go to teach your theory because "it's backed up by science", even though it isn't proven.

My tax dollars cannot go to teach my "theory" because "it can't be backed up by science".

Two viewpoints, neither proven to all, one taught and one not taught.

I understand it perfectly. None of your circular scientific mumbo jumbo will change the facts.

Is evolution proven or not? Is the big bang proven or not? It is taught as fact, whether you want to admit it or not. Taught with my tax dollars going to liberal leaning teachers and professors.

I believe that this is supposedly the entire point of the movie.
The gist is that ID doesn't belong in science.

Add it to the curriculum.

I'm currently in favor of more classes and fewer study halls. Make the classes interesting, maybe some of the kids will learn something.


Maybe no child will be left behind that way.

[swordfish]

I disagree wholeheartedly with this statement.

Compare the energy consumption of any bird or mammal (warm blooded) against that of a reptile or lower.

The energy consumption for "higher" organisms blows the rest out of the water.

Look at what is happening to the Earth in our need for food and survival. The Earth is much different than it was 100, 1000, 10,000, years ago.

To me, entropy for sure. Perhaps chaos, too. I don't know for sure.

The problem with food and survival has to do with raw numbers, not with energy consumption. There are many more people now than there were in any of those time periods. More people means less resources to share per person.

Here's examples of my point on energy. Lets say you take the classic Darwin one. There is a bird living on an island. You only have so many worms to eat. One little bird is born with a longer beak(genetic mutation? perhaps). Now this bird is fantastic at sipping nectar out of plants, or at pecking bugs out of logs. He doesn't need to use the pool of resources that his friends are using. He has freed up a whole new system of energy. This also pertains to humans over time. We used to burn wood to stay alive, it evolved from that to coal, to natural gas or electricity. We have adapted to a new pool of resources that we had no prior knowledge of. You can argue that the longer beak makes the bird weigh more and hence it takes more bugs to stay alive.(Just like you can say it takes more energy for us to survive, to which I would argue that our caloric intake has decreased over time due to less manual labor) Has the bird taken more energy from the system or simply used it more efficiently(Instead of rotting bugs feeding bacteria they feed a higher life form) This points to an increase in structure. Is it possible that life is like tax dollars. The more it circulates the more revenue it creates?

Look at the jungle. Why is there so much life in the jungle, but not in the desert. There is plenty of energy(light) in the desert.

I don't agree that energy is lost. It pretty much goes against everything I learned in physics. The energy is just placed into another form to be used by something else. The more sophisticated a life form is the easier it can use different forms of energy and or live in different environments. This makes it possible for the creature to consume/create new forms of energy. When the creature cannot adapt it dies off.

[domenick2x]

First, tell me someone, anyone, that teaches Evolution as law. Or even that it's the concrete truth. I'd like to tell them how wrong they are.

Second, the same applies to you as does to Ryr in this instance. You don't realize the difference, which is why I linked the "theory" thread. The three links in the first post discuss "theory" versus "scientific theory" not to be confused with "law".

As for why creation and id shouldn't be taught in science class, it goes back to what I said early in the thread. Science can be hypothesized AND tested.

ID or creation relies on a designer or creator, likely supernatural. How do you test for the supernatural? You can hypothesize it for sure. But you can't test for it. However, if you'd like to make the claim that you CAN test for it, then you make the claim that God can be proven or disproven.

Have at it if you'd like.

"When there's something strange
In your neighborhood
Who you gonna call?"

[LSU]

The problem with food and survival has to do with raw numbers, not with energy consumption. There are many more people now than there were in any of those time periods. More people means less resources to share per person.

Here's examples of my point on energy. Lets say you take the classic Darwin one. There is a bird living on an island. You only have so many worms to eat. One little bird is born with a longer beak(genetic mutation? perhaps). Now this bird is fantastic at sipping nectar out of plants, or at pecking bugs out of logs. He doesn't need to use the pool of resources that his friends are using. He has freed up a whole new system of energy. This also pertains to humans over time. We used to burn wood to stay alive, it evolved from that to coal, to natural gas or electricity. We have adapted to a new pool of resources that we had no prior knowledge of. You can argue that the longer beak makes the bird weigh more and hence it takes more bugs to stay alive.(Just like you can say it takes more energy for us to survive, to which I would argue that our caloric intake has decreased over time due to less manual labor) Has the bird taken more energy from the system or simply used it more efficiently(Instead of rotting bugs feeding bacteria they feed a higher life form) This points to an increase in structure. Is it possible that life is like tax dollars. The more it circulates the more revenue it creates?

The comment about the beak being larger and taking more energy to carry...how much more energy? 1/10 of a calorie more? That could be relatively insignificant. As for caloric intake decreasing in humans over time... kinda hard to support that with all the potbellies around. I would argue caloric intake has increased. Ideally it wouldn't, but the world isn't "ideal". Back to the worms and bugs...there really isn't a limited supply as long as they can reproduce equal to or faster than they are being eaten. And if they can't, the go extinct (at least in that particular area) or at least very rare. And if any higher organism (bird) is dependent on them for food, their forage is severely reduced and they, too get to low numbers.

The more life circulates, the more it needs to breakdown its environment to live. As long as the sun stays shining and plants can grow, there will always be primary production. The sun is the energy source, once that's gone, life only has so much time left on this planet.

Look at the jungle. Why is there so much life in the jungle, but not in the desert. There is plenty of energy(light) in the desert.

I don't agree that energy is lost. It pretty much goes against everything I learned in physics. The energy is just placed into another form to be used by something else. The more sophisticated a life form is the easier it can use different forms of energy and or live in different environments. This makes it possible for the creature to consume/create new forms of energy. When the creature cannot adapt it dies off.

There's more to life than light energy. Other nutrients and minerals are required. And water. Not a lot of that in the desert.

And when I say "energy is lost" I don't mean it's gone to never be seen again. But in terms of "you" or something acquiring energy, the energy it takes to obtain the energy is a drain on the overall resources of the organism. If it lives in an area where food items are abundant, it can replenish that easily. Some of the energy that heats the ground when plants can't harness it escapes to the atmosphere and into space. Then it's no good to us. As far as I know, it's not recycled back to our sun, it goes off into the coldness of space.

[LSU]

The gist is that ID doesn't belong in science.

Add it to the curriculum.

I'm currently in favor of more classes and fewer study halls. Make the classes interesting, maybe some of the kids will learn something.


Maybe no child will be left behind that way.


The alternative is "I'm a taxpayer. Why should I entrust a public school teacher to teach my children about religion and morals and the like. That's my job at home and church of which I choose, not the government's job."

Oh, but wait. I'm the evil evolutionist. I have to be against religion, morals, God, apple pie, and America. Silly me for not conforming.

[Roy Munson]

The alternative is "I'm a taxpayer. Why should I entrust a public school teacher to teach my children about religion and morals and the like. That's my job at home and church of which I choose, not the government's job."

Oh, but wait. I'm the evil evolutionist. I have to be against religion, morals, God, apple pie, and America. Silly me for not conforming.
You also hate children, old people and dogs...

[LSU]

You also hate children, old people and dogs...


Don't forget kittens. Cute cuddly soft purring kittens. Fuck them.

[Roy Munson]

Don't forget kittens. Cute cuddly soft purring kittens. Fuck them.
now you've done it, you're off my christmas card list.

[domenick2x]

Some of the energy that heats the ground when plants can't harness it escapes to the atmosphere and into space. Then it's no good to us. As far as I know, it's not recycled back to our sun, it goes off into the coldness of space.

Exactly correct. It usually ends up bumping into a dust cloud somewhere along the line.

[ryr8828]

Oh, right.


Down with the scientist that called a cunt a cunt!

That better?

I guess that means you're on board with the McCain campaign.

[Jiddy78]

I can only respond to what I encounter, can I not?

Nowhere did I say evolution is NEVER taught as fact. I'm sure somewhere (perhaps a lot of places) it is. And it's wrong to not teach it as a theory (assuming the proper definition of a scientific theory accompanies it).

So, when I encounter someone (which I have not) teaching it like that, I will be sure to give them my opinion on doing so.

Can't really do too much about it, other than try to get on places (like this maybe) to try to set a few things straight.

But then I just get into a quagmire like this.

How about this:

Teachers are Babylonians too...They are not to be trusted. Therefore, rescinding something that can be bastardized on my dime is the proper thing to do.

Therefore full prohibition of both religion and evolution in state schools is the answer IMO. At minimum, at pre-college level.

[LSU]

How about this:

Teachers are Babylonians too...They are not to be trusted. Therefore, rescinding something that can be bastardized on my dime is the proper thing to do.

Therefore full prohibition of both religion and evolution in state schools is the answer IMO. At minimum, at pre-college level.


Really, evolution is hardly covered in any biology class pre-college, and even once you're in college, intro bio classes don't really get into it.

I didn't really fully understand evolution until my senior year (2nd) of college when I took an evolution class. And even then, going into it, I thought it would be more about learning what supports evolution. It wasn't. It was learning how people study evolution. Some theories, some work with computers to look at phylogenetics, and that sort of stuff. First day of class, the professor came out and said basically that evolution is a fundamental part of biology and this wasn't going to be an evolution vs creation discussion. Even if you didn't think evolution happens, for the class you assume it does.

I doubt many creationists were taking the class anyways. Back then, ID hadn't yet been formulated.

But essentially, from what I remember from HS and lower level college classes was that first the scientific method was covered (introducing hypotheses), then differences in hypotheses, theories, and laws (and this was pretty much any science class, not just biology). So when the theory of evolution was brought up, simply by it being called a theory, the student should know in what context to take it. Of course, kids don't pay attention or relate such things, and assume that if it's being taught, it's being taught as the stone cold hard truth. Teachers may also not know what they're talking about, either, because I'd bet most of them have little background in actual evolution. So it's a big clusterfuck circle that starts.

Of course, most textbooks are pretty good at describing evolution as theory. But most students (and probably some teachers) neglect to really pay attention to a book.

Anyway, the concept of evolution, I believe, has to be brought up in HS biology. Too much of evolution is interspersed throughout biology. So you need a basic understanding of it to be able to get other concepts. You can't just have kids walking into Bio 101 in college and having never heard of a fairly important theory in the field.

[LSU]

I guess that means you're on board with the McCain campaign.


I don't believe I've ever said much in the way of "negative" towards McCain. In fact, I believe I was throwing some support his way back when you were salivating over another actor in the race.

[Jiddy78]

Really, evolution is hardly covered in any biology class pre-college, and even once you're in college, intro bio classes don't really get into it.

I didn't really fully understand evolution until my senior year (2nd) of college when I took an evolution class. And even then, going into it, I thought it would be more about learning what supports evolution. It wasn't. It was learning how people study evolution. Some theories, some work with computers to look at phylogenetics, and that sort of stuff. First day of class, the professor came out and said basically that evolution is a fundamental part of biology and this wasn't going to be an evolution vs creation discussion. Even if you didn't think evolution happens, for the class you assume it does.

I doubt many creationists were taking the class anyways. Back then, ID hadn't yet been formulated.

But essentially, from what I remember from HS and lower level college classes was that first the scientific method was covered (introducing hypotheses), then differences in hypotheses, theories, and laws (and this was pretty much any science class, not just biology). So when the theory of evolution was brought up, simply by it being called a theory, the student should know in what context to take it. Of course, kids don't pay attention or relate such things, and assume that if it's being taught, it's being taught as the stone cold hard truth. Teachers may also not know what they're talking about, either, because I'd bet most of them have little background in actual evolution. So it's a big clusterfuck circle that starts.

Of course, most textbooks are pretty good at describing evolution as theory. But most students (and probably some teachers) neglect to really pay attention to a book.

Anyway, the concept of evolution, I believe, has to be brought up in HS biology. Too much of evolution is interspersed throughout biology. So you need a basic understanding of it to be able to get other concepts. You can't just have kids walking into Bio 101 in college and having never heard of a fairly important theory in the field.

Why? Now...I took accounting in high school and that is how I found my calling...BUT...There were a sh*t ton that I went to college with that didn't...and I'm sure most of them turned out just fine.

[LSU]

Why? Now...I took accounting in high school and that is how I found my calling...BUT...There were a sh*t ton that I went to college with that didn't...and I'm sure most of them turned out just fine.



I'm speaking for those that intend to go into a biology field, not the general populace.

Even so, your example doesn't quite match up. There are no high school "evolution" classes. Just biology classes that briefly bring it up.

So we're not talking about a class, per se, but rather a particular subject within that class.

[Jiddy78]

I'm speaking for those that intend to go into a biology field, not the general populace.

Even so, your example doesn't quite match up. There are no high school "evolution" classes. Just biology classes that briefly bring it up.

So we're not talking about a class, per se, but rather a particular subject within that class.

That's what I'm getting at...Don't bring it up in grammar/high school levels...It is presented minimally in the first place...Seems like a fair compromise to me. College level students are IMO old enough to understand the difference between theory/fact and/or distinguish between what they feel their belief is...and if not, a crash course of education and experience is appropriate at that time.

[LSU]

That's what I'm getting at...Don't bring it up in grammar/high school levels...It is presented minimally in the first place...Seems like a fair compromise to me. College level students are IMO old enough to understand the difference between theory/fact and/or distinguish between what they feel their belief is...and if not, a crash course of education and experience is appropriate at that time.



I don't agree. Evolution is pretty important in biology. To not at least mention it to give the kids an idea of what it means would be like not teaching kids how to balance a checkbook in an accounting class.

I don't remember being taught evolution in grammar school. I may have, but I don't remember it. In fact, I don't even really remember it until my senior year of HS in AP Bio. I'm sure it was mentioned in 9th grade bio, but I don't remember it from there.

And again, in any science class, the difference of hypothesis/theory/law is taught. So by the time they get to a bio class teaching evolution (correctly), whether or not they understand the difference should be irrelevant. If they don't know that by then, you can hardly blame the theory for the kids not learning.

I'm not saying anyone goes out of their way to get in depth. But teach it as it's simplest form: change in allele frequency over time. Common ancestry. Stuff like that.

It's obvious it's not indoctrinating kids to automatically believe that it's established law as evidenced by the number of people still questioning it.

I think the fair compromise is to allow it to be taught, but expect it to be taught correctly. Just outright eliminating it from public schools doesn't seem to be a compromise at all.

[domenick2x]

Religious zealots don't believe in compromise. Dominate or subvert.

See: Iraq.

QED

[LSU]

Religious zealots don't believe in compromise. Dominate or subvert.

See: Iraq.

QED


Compromise shows weakness. There's no room in religion for humility.

[hannitykillspuppies]

I have a clue. My tax dollars can go to teach your theory because "it's backed up by science", even though it isn't proven.

My tax dollars cannot go to teach my "theory" because "it can't be backed up by science".

Two viewpoints, neither proven to all, one taught and one not taught.

I understand it perfectly. None of your circular scientific mumbo jumbo will change the facts.

Is evolution proven or not? Is the big bang proven or not? It is taught as fact, whether you want to admit it or not. Taught with my tax dollars going to liberal leaning teachers and professors.

I believe that this is supposedly the entire point of the movie.why do you send your kids there if you don't like what is being taught?

[ryr8828]

why do you send your kids there if you don't like what is being taught?

My kids are grown and have kids of their own, dingleberry.

My tax dollars are still going to the schools so I still have a say.

[hannitykillspuppies]

My kids are grown and have kids of their own, dingleberry.

My tax dollars are still going to the schools so I still have a say.

not really.

[ryr8828]

not really.

You're right, I guess that's why everytime someone runs for the school board they contact me personally and worry my balls off about it.

[hannitykillspuppies]

You're right, I guess that's why everytime someone runs for the school board they contact me personally and worry my balls off about it.
yet you can't get the liberal teachers that you complain about in the schools governed by said school board out of the schools.

maybe they're just calling to humor you?

[LSU]

yet you can't get the liberal teachers that you complain about in the schools governed by said school board out of the schools.

maybe they're just calling to humor you?



Unintentional humor most likely.

[ryr8828]

yet you can't get the liberal teachers that you complain about in the schools governed by said school board out of the schools.

maybe they're just calling to humor you?

I only live in one school district. There are thousands, and then there are colleges.
I'm concerned for all the youth of this country, not only my own. I'm also concerned with how my tax dollars are spent.

[domenick2x]

I only live in one school district. There are thousands, and then there are colleges.
I'm concerned for all the youth of this country, not only my own. I'm also concerned with how my tax dollars are spent.
Can't we just give them all guns?