Kk so i know the movie wasn't specifically about 'religion vs. skepticism',but imo 'science vs. intelligent design' comes pretty close.If the mods want to move it to a more appropriate forum(which i doubt there is) then they can do so.Anyway,i just wanted to know what those of you who saw the movie thought of it.Do you think that kind of discrimination is really happening?Have you experienced it first-hand?If you take a side,which one is it?

Kk so i know the movie wasn't specifically about 'religion vs. skepticism',but imo 'science vs. intelligent design' comes pretty close.If the mods want to move it to a more appropriate forum(which i doubt there is) then they can do so.Anyway,i just wanted to know what those of you who saw the movie thought of it.Do you think that kind of discrimination is really happening?Have you experienced it first-hand?If you take a side,which one is it?

i find sceince to be dong a real good job of trying to understand the world, i like that it allows room to self correct and that it revises as new data comes through... I fail to see this as a side thing.. religion deals in superstition science deals in understanding the world....i see no reason they can't coexist and really they do... to deem otherwise i would have to question the motives of any relgion taht claimed id as valid sceince.......perhaps its religions way for those that are beleivers to sort of be a one stop shop type of gig, get your god and science all in the same place ...... 'shrigs'

In all honesty i have not known one person in my years on the planet that ascribed to ID and exclude sceince, Um is really the only place i have seen an attempt to crete arguments based on superstition.......

The problem is the proponents of ID try to prove their idea by attacking evolution.
ID however is not scientific in its approach or in its ideals. They can no co-exist when one is an attack on the other.

matt isn't there a evolutionary posit for any beleif system... i have know plenty of religious folks who also beleif in evolution we have them on um as a matter of fact....... that is what I was saying...I was not aware there was any id argument that could counter evolution, its basically not what science would deal in correct????..sort of like there is no 'sound' argument that can counter the health benefits of a vegan lifestyle...or that he earth is not round or that smoking is good for you....

Sorry my misunderstanding...... However I could make a great anti-vegan arguments.

I'll be waiting lol...

Give me short time (I believe I will start with taste bud torture though )

Sorry my misunderstanding...... However I could make a great anti-vegan arguments.

Only one of the three or four people they focus on who felt they were somehow punished for supporting ID actually has any ground to stand on.

Guillermo Gonzalez, the astronomer from Iowa State that didn't get tenure.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=54...9ntBg&hl=en

^^^ enough said

What's WMAP???Srry if that's a stupid question.

The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe

Of course any teacher who teaches ID should be expelled, just like any maths teacher that says that 1+1=3 should be expelled.

What's next?
Expelled: No 1+1=3 Allowed
Expelled: No Flying Spaghetti Monster Allowed
Expelled: No Alchemy Allowed
Expelled: No Astrology Allowed
Expelled: No Expelled Movies Allowed

I think the concept of ID should be presented along with Evolution.What if evolution was suddenly not allowed???As i said before,all hell would break lose.

I think the concept of ID should be presented along with Evolution.What if evolution was suddenly not allowed???As i said before,all hell would break lose.

I think the concept of ID should be presented along with Evolution.What if evolution was suddenly not allowed???As i said before,all hell would break lose.

I think the concept of ID should be presented along with Evolution.What if evolution was suddenly not allowed???As i said before,all hell would break lose.

Would you feel comfortable if they taught witchdoctor cures alongside proper medicine in med schools, just to see both sides of the argument?

Reading the case for the defence, it seems like they had some good reasons to deny him tenure, regardless of his position on ID.

Of course it shouldn't. Evolution has over 100 years of study and an avalanche of evidence.

ID has.... nothing. There is no reason it should be taught at all, ever. Having a very small bunch of christians saying "well, evolution doesn't fit with the bible and in any case, I don't understand it" does not mean we should start teaching any ridiculous crack-pot superstition-based idea that falls from the sky.

No chance.

Wow I had no idea they stole all that stuff.Weird.Idk about the reviews though,that could just be the media trying to kill ID (jk)

Anyway,despite the supposed 'brainwashing conspiracies',I think it had a few good points.There really shouldn't be any reason that ID isn't at least mentioned in schools,even as a side note,i mean c'mon.If the table was turned and suddenly evolution was no longer allowed,all hell would break lose.I think students should be able to see both sides of the argument.
Remember,this isn't about religion.

P.S. Can anyone else here come up with a better argument then Dawkins did???Srsly.I know someone here can do better.

Of course it shouldn't. Evolution has over 100 years of study and an avalanche of evidence.

ID has.... nothing. There is no reason it should be taught at all, ever. Having a very small bunch of christians saying "well, evolution doesn't fit with the bible and in any case, I don't understand it" does not mean we should start teaching any ridiculous crack-pot superstition-based idea that falls from the sky.

No chance.

Ooooh, Expelled!
I HATE this movie. I love ripping it into tiny little pieces, and burning the pieces.

That aside, Here's basicallly every review of Expelled from non-biased source.(Albeit a few atheists, but...)
Oh. That's right. Are they ALL NEGATIVE. The Times, the Globe, Scientific America.

http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/resources

Oh. And lets make a count of all the illegal/unethical stuff the producers have done.
1. Stolen music from the beatles.
Thank God Yoko Ono is suing. She wants to even get it out of theaters!
2. Trick people into giving interviews.
Many like Richard Dawkins were tricked into giving interviews, as they weren't told the ACTUAL movie premise
3. Stolen Copyrighted video from PBS.
4. Stolen Copyrighted video from Harvard.
5. When the killers asked for their music to be removed from the movie, as they weren't originally told what it was about, they were refused.
6. Stolen Copyrighted video from XVIVO.


Ughh. Not very pretty, is it?



NY Time's review:
http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/movie...html?ref=movies

Boston Globe's Review:
http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2008/04/19/no_intel ligence_allowed_in_expelled/
6 Things in Expelled they don't want you to know about:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doe snt-want-you-to-know&sc=rss
Scientific America's Review:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled
Expelled Exposed:
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
The REAL Expelled:(those who have been 'expelled' for teaching Evolution)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0br1b-cJa5E
Expelled found guilty of copyright infringement:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2008/US/301_expelled_p roducers_accused_of__4_9_2008.asp
Expelled infringes on MORE copyrights:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/the_sleaze_is_gro wing.php

Did I mention that many interviees received an email, with a FAKE name for the movie, and hints that the movie wasn't Creationist Propaganda?
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/b...terview-tactics

Did I mention that those making Expelled have made Politicians sit through it, and are paying schools to make mandatory field trips?
Sounds like Creationist Brainwashing to me.

All of the 'Expelled' situations are very overexaggerated nonsense.
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth


All in all, Expelled is a complete and total FLOP. As the NY Times said:
"One of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” is a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry."

I only hope the brainwashing isn't too widespread.

Cheers,
SQLServer

MATTSHARK ID has no science behind it and the people behind the idea of ID have religious not scientific motives. ID is a attack on good science and nothing more.

They didn't give him tenure because he wasn't being published in peer reviewed journals, and he wasn't being published because he was working on a book on ID, and one is not going to be published writing about ID.

It is impossible to get papers published in peer reviewed scientific journals espousing the idea of Intelligent Design. This is because Intelligent Design is without evidence and completely unscientific. You're equally unable to get papers published within these journals on the Earth being flat or the habitat of Chocolate Hula-hooping Pixies living on Mars.

Recently, however, there have been several intelligent design peer-reviewed articles and studies published. A good number of these have been published in lesser-known or less prestigious circles, and quite a few have been published by overtly pro-design groups. Still, intelligent design peer-reviewed work is beginning to appear in more respected and established publications. A recent example, published in the "Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington," caused a controversy that demonstrated considerable hypocrisy.

The article is titled "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories." The conclusion of the article, in brief, is that design explains things that natural selection cannot. Proceedings is a peer-reviewed publication. According to the then-editor, the three reviewers were all faculty members of respected universities and research institutions. The editor also stated that, while the reviewers did not agree with the conclusions, they found nothing scientifically invalid in the reasoning.

Many in the scientific community have made a plea for rational thinking, saying that no theory should be beyond questioning and any logical arguments must be considered. These pleas have mostly fallen on deaf ears.

Intelligent design peer-reviewed publications are difficult to find. However, they do exist and are gradually becoming more common. The resistance should not be mistaken, however. When controversial new ideas are put forward in science, the intellectual community tends to react with anger and stubbornness, regardless of the quality of the research. This is known as "opposition to new paradigms." As with other controversies, this opposition has been fed by political fires. Evolutionists are quick to label those who produce intelligent design peer-reviewed literature as "creationists," "religious nuts," or "pretend scientists." The fact that intelligent design uses entirely natural and secular arguments does nothing to deter evolutionists from using these labels. This type of rhetoric causes scientists and laymen alike to form opinions about the intelligent design movement long before they know anything about it.

There is definitely a witch hunt in academia. The above statement though is not wholly truthful.





http://www.allaboutscience.org/intelligent...eviewed-faq.htm

There is definitely a witch hunt in academia. The above statement though is not wholly truthful.





http://www.allaboutscience.org/intelligent...eviewed-faq.htm

There is definitely a witch hunt in academia. The above statement though is not wholly truthful.

Intelligent design in biology has been supported by several peer-reviewed journals and books. As of December 2005, intelligent design supporters offer, in support of this claim, the following articles:

* Axe, D. D., 2000. Extreme functional sensitivity to conservative amino acid changes on enzyme exteriors. Journal of Molecular Biology 301: 585-595.
* Behe, M. J. and D. W. Snoke. 2004. Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues. Protein Science 13: 2651-2664.
* Chiu, D. K. Y. and T. H. Lui. 2002. Integrated use of multiple interdependent patterns for biomolecular sequence analysis. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems 4(3): 766-775.
* Denton, M. J. and J. C. Marshall. 2001. The laws of form revisited. Nature 410: 417.
* Denton, M. J., J. C. Marshall and M. Legge. 2002. The protein folds as Platonic forms: New support for the pre-Darwinian conception of evolution by natural law. Journal of Theoretical Biology 219: 325-342.
* Lönnig, W.-E. 2004. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity. In: V. Parisi, V. de Fonzo and F. Aluffi-Pentini, eds. Dynamical Genetics, 101-119. Research Signpost.
* Lönnig, W.-E. and H. Saedler. 2002. Chromosome rearrangements and transposable elements. Annual Review of Genetics 36: 389-410.
* Meyer, Stephen. 2004. The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117: 213-239.
* Wells, Jonathan. 2005. Do centrioles generate a polar ejection force? Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98: 37-62.


and books (Discovery Institute 2005):

* Behe, Michael. 1996. Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: The Free Press.
* Campbell, John Angus and Stephen C. Meyer. 2003. Darwinism, Design, and Public Education. Michigan State University Press.
* Denton, Michael. 1985. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Adler and Adler.
* Dembski, W. A. 1998. The Design Inference: Eliminating chance through small probabilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
* Dembski, William. 2002. No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot be Purchased without Intelligence. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
* Gonzalez, Guillermo and Jay W. Richards. 2004. The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery. Regnery Publishing.
* Minnich, Scott and Stephen C. Meyer. 2004. Genetic analysis of coordinate flagellar and type III regulatory circuits. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design and Nature, Rhodes, Greece, ed. M. W. Collins and C. A. Brebbia, WIT Press.
* Thaxton, Charles B., Walter L. Bradley and Roger L. Olsen. 1984. The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories. Philosophical Library. (4th ed., Lewis and Stanley, 1992).


The journal Progress in Information, Complexity and Design (PCID) is also peer-reviewed.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html

Yes, I read the rest of the link and understood it. There are still a few scientist who have discovered something in ID to have the above peer reviewed material published. Rest assured in the future the debate will be less carried on among those with political aspirations (such as the Discovery Institute) and more within the scientific community itself.

Yes, I read the rest of the link and understood it. There are still a few scientist who have discovered something in ID to have the above peer reviewed material published. Rest assured in the future the debate will be less carried on among those with political aspirations (such as the Discovery Institute) and more within the scientific community itself.

It's not a witch hunt. It's a carefully orchestrated piece of political propaganda.

I think the concept of ID should be presented along with Evolution.What if evolution was suddenly not allowed???As i said before,all hell would break lose.

Total agreement there and I can only hope the a better venue is introduced. Most of the people, not all, engaged within this debate could care less about science and either just want to defend or attack God. Intelligent Design has more work to be done surely and those scientist who wish to continue that work should do so without political aspiration or detraction.

There is no debate. Intelligent Design is not a Science, it has been declared "a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory” within a court of Law.