The Colorado Independent - Latest Comments in Science Sunday: Intelligent Design Goes to the Movies

Re: Science Sunday: Intelligent Design Goes to the Movies

Markus — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:55:32 -0000

huh? My inner ear is an animal?

You don't even know how radioactive dating works, so why would you claim it doesn't go past 11k years?

Re: Science Sunday: Intelligent Design Goes to the Movies

MJ KNOXVILLE — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:21:35 -0000

RE: Weak Review Could not have said it better myself, THANK YOU!!!!

Re: Science Sunday: Intelligent Design Goes to the Movies

MJ KNOXVILLE — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:19:47 -0000

RE: No Idea I am so sorry, please allow me to rephrase, They, like you get DEFENSIVE and ANGRY. What about Tolerance???? I would also be willing to be you are either an Athiest or Agnostic. Whatever the case, the question of how life began is profound and deserves our attention. I would challenge you to study all the types of Evolution that exist (Cosmic, Chemical, Stellar and Planetary, Organic, Macro, and Micro). Study animals that defy Evolution such as the Giraffe, the common dog, the bombardier beetle, the beaver, the inner ear, the penguin.... look up the works of Jobe Martin. I think you will find it interesting. To your last point, there are valid professionals with PhD.'s addressing ID. I would challenge you to evolve your thinking just a little.

A couple of facts before I go:

1. The Geologic Time Table in your Science Book(s), has never been found in the order as listed.

2. Half life of Radioactive Dating only goes back to 11,000 years or so, the rest is, sadly taken by faith.

3. Ironically, the missing links are still missing. When it comes to a common ancestor to Man and Monkey, ALL of the supposed links have proven to be either fully man or fully monkey.

4. You my friend are a Great American, regardless of what you think. I respect your view, I would ask the same of you.

Re: Science Sunday: Intelligent Design Goes to the Movies

MJ Knoxville — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:57:35 -0000

RE: um no With all due respect, Evolution is still a theory. Since I am so uneducated, show me where they have observed or have seen one species evolve into another. If all the research we have is true, show me where any recent dating metheod has been proven to date past 11,000 years old. Most of the dating past that is SPECULATION, it may be scientific, but still speculation. Carbon 14 has proven over and over to be inaccurate on a vast many occasions.

I heard Eugenie Scott speak with in the past month addressing Intelligent Design. She made a huge deal about articles being peer reviewed. All the articles she discredited were for that reason only. She never once addressed the issues brought forth by Ken Hamm, Ken Hovind and others.

I do thank God each and every day that both you and I live in a free country where we can agree to disagree. I would hasten to add a close study of the Constitution would help you understand America's Christan underpinnings. I am proud of our Armed Men and Women who serve this country just as my father did years ago.

Plese advise, you should study the teachings of PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM, since you think I am so far off base.

Last Qestion: In your vast studies of Science, what does Science say about the beginning of life? Not Evolution but Science?

Re: Science Sunday: Intelligent Design Goes to the Movies

Camkay — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:09:21 -0000

circle the wagons The supporters of evolution have a circle he wagons metaliy any time some one tries to debate them on any point of their beleive system. You harass each and every point made by the oposition. You clearly esee the religous as the enemy and redicule any thing they say. You insist they make menton of your definion of evelotion. Christianity, in your viewpoint is nothing more han the opiate of the masses. You destain and outrighthatetred ofthe christian right borders on the disgusting When was the last time any oneshowed a documentarythat questions the views of evolutiionists? You sound frightenly like the christians before the scopes trial that refused to here any oposing viewpoint. True scientist should rejoice that a new debate could open up that would allow new interest in the sciences. poeple who ask questions ike these in this movie should bot be beaten down, but invited to debates Unless there is to much insecurity on the side of the devenders of evolution. I read with some interest that scientistin Russia had many amoung their members who accepetd the posiblty of intelligent design. I have no doubt that any scientist in america with similar beleive are quickly corected or drummed out of the scientific community.

Re: Science Sunday: Intelligent Design Goes to the Movies

bebee — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:08:04 -0000

goodwins law says you loose.

Re: Science Sunday: Intelligent Design Goes to the Movies

reneestephen — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:03:33 -0000

Yes they do

Yes they do. How do you think anti-biotic resistance came about?

Re: Science Sunday: Intelligent Design Goes to the Movies

bahl — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:01:38 -0000

Just throw this on the fire http://zeitgeistmovi...

Re: Science Sunday: Intelligent Design Goes to the Movies

DeusExDawkins — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 11:36:55 -0000

weak review This movie isn't about evolution vs. ID. It is about censorship and suppression. Something that any 18-22 year old who has sat through a college course at ANY American university can attest to. The state of suppression of ideas in American universities today is the same state that Germany was in when Nazism took over. Interesting...

Re: Science Sunday: Intelligent Design Goes to the Movies

gradyp — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:35:06 -0000

Redefining terms is a sign of a weak argument... This article defines ID as "... various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact ..."
This is a faulty definition of ID, which is, in fact, a simple statement that there are indications of intelligent, intentional design apparent in the world we see around us, and that the more we dicover through science, the more that underlying design becomes apparent. The definition given above is more correctly a definition of Creationism. ID does not state that there was no evolutionary process, but merely that that process appears to have been guided with particular goals in mind - where Darwinism / NeoDarwinism states that there can be no goal - that "Evolution is descent with modification", but that modification is *entirely* random and purposeless.

This article also states that the goal of this film is to present Creationism in a positive light - where the stated goal of the producers is very specifically to shed light on the fact that some highly qualified scientists are being discriminated against solely or primarily on the basis of their support for ID. The purpose of the film is not to make a case for ID, thus it is not surprising that it does a merely superficial job of presenting ID's claims.

As an interesting aside - humans have been observing bacteria for over 6 million generations, yet we have never seen a single case of evolution actually creating a new species of bacteria - wonder why all those transitional forms have escaped our notice???

Re: Science Sunday: Intelligent Design Goes to the Movies

Eshto — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:49:04 -0000

Um... no. Did you get your information from one of those weird Christian Chick tracts that the street preachers pass out? Because it pretty much sounds like you did.

You're wrong about pretty much everything you wrote. Evolution does an excellent job of explaining a great number of things in biology. If it didn't, it wouldn't still be the predominant biological theory. Unlike religious dogma, scientific evidence is peer reviewed and tested, and theories are refined or discarded if they are demonstrated to contain errors.

There are multiple ways to date rocks, transitional fossils have been found and they "hold up", and scientists don't believe evolution based on "faith", they believe it because it is supported by overwhelming evidence. In contrast, there is absolutely no objective evidence for a god or other intelligent, supernatural creator.

I would also like to see these "experts" who told you that evolution has stopped completely, or that it happens so fast you don't notice. What the hell?!? You are either very confused or you made those up completely.

Evolution is sometimes too slow to observe since changes can take several generations to occur, but it is not necessarily so, and evolution has been observed in laboratories.

Evolution is NOT a theory about the beginning of life! And it makes no claim about whether life was created at "random". So your questions regarding that matter are completely off topic.

And finally, what is an "absolute"? What are you talking about?

It sounds like you know very little about evolution. I would encourage you to learn a bit about it before attempting to voice opinions on it. Wikipedia has a great introductory article on the subject, I would suggest you start there:

http://en.wikipedia....

And here is a list of common misconceptions about evolution:

http://en.wikipedia....

And I assume you live in the United States? If so, you shouldn't thank "God" that you live in a free country, since freedom and self-governance are not religious concepts, they are found nowhere in the Bible; rather they were values from the secular enlightenment, on which our nation was founded.

You should be thanking the people who founded this nation and had the wisdom to establish a secular constitution that guarantees individual liberties including the freedom to worship as you choose, and you should also be thanking the people who have fought and died over the years to maintain those freedoms.

Re: Science Sunday: Intelligent Design Goes to the Movies

Eshto — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:21:45 -0000

You have no idea what you're talking about. Scientists don't get "nervous" about it, they get annoyed and concerned that the right wing is constantly trying to pass off pseudoscience as real science, especially in public schools. Aside from Ben Stein, the ID movement is quite obviously a right wing Christian movement which begs questions about religious freedom and tolerance. Do you think these generally Christian ID proponents would react favorably if you suggested the "creator" might not be the Judeo-Christian deity Yahweh, but rather Allah, the god of Muslims? If you do then you are naive to say the least.

"How did life begin" is not by any means a "basic" question, it is a deeply profound and challenging one, and currently nobody has the answer. Lacking an answer to a question doesn't mean you should make one up. Evolution doesn't have anything to do with the origin of life, but regardless, it is a far larger "stretch" for you to assume that just because you don't know how life began it should be attributed to the will of a mythological being.

And contrary to your claim, both sides are not equal, they don't both have "valid" people doing "research". There is no such thing as a "professional" in intelligent design, because it isn't a valid field of study to begin with, and there is no "research" because ID inherently produces absolutely no testable evidence, falsifiable claims or practical applications.

Re: Science Sunday: Intelligent Design Goes to the Movies

Eshto — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:02:25 -0000

I agree Whether you agree with Moore's interpretation of facts, he was still trying to follow them, and certainly he was on to something because we now know the Bush administration knew about the coming Al Qaeda attacks, manipulated intelligence, conflated Al Qaeda with Iraq, lied to Congress, etc. Moore perceived injustice and was trying to shed light on the situation. On the other hand, right wing propaganda tends to perceive challenges to their supposedly god-given authority, to silence people and cover up information.

I would also add that ALL documentaries carry the burden of their creators' viewpoints and biases, but only some of them wear their subjectivity on the sleeve.

Re: Science Sunday: Intelligent Design Goes to the Movies

Eshto — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 08:53:57 -0000

Yup From what I read of Dawkins' interview, that was actually his point, he was asked by Stein what might be a possible scenario for ID. But he was going to present the alien idea as a storytelling device, then knock it down to show that even under that hypothetical circumstance, ID would ultimately fail to explain where the aliens came from. From there he was going to reiterate the point that ID doesn't and can't explain anything, period.

But according to Dawkins, Stein and friends edited around what he was saying to make it look like Dawkins simply claimed we were all created by space aliens, and apparently they spliced in 1950's sci-fi film footage to make him look really stupid.

Re: Science Sunday: Intelligent Design Goes to the Movies

Eshto — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 08:47:19 -0000

Actually, yeah, he does Moore does make documentaries, although he doesn't hide his point of view. They are meant to be persuasive, therefore of course they are edited to make the point he wants to make. But while his movies are clearly editorialized, he feels his opinions are supported by the facts.

Whether you agree with him or not, I think what the above poster was getting at is that Moore is trying to do the right thing, and he makes sense of the facts the best he can; whereas the religious right's efforts are often calculated, they knowingly distort information and lie, and their goal is to control other people and silence dissent.

I agree there is a fundamental difference.

I also think that if you fail to see some truth in Moore's Fahrenheit 911 film, then it's not his propaganda you should be worrying about, it's the Bush administration's. But then again you admit to not even watching the whole film, so...

Re: Science Sunday: Intelligent Design Goes to the Movies

Ian Wilson — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 09:14:05 -0000

Left or Rght vs. True or Not Impatience and confusion of religio/political positions with truth seems to be popping up in the above. Remember please that truth eventually means "observable" we need patience to relax our desire for answers. Scientific positions in controversial realms are unseemly when impatient.

I find that religion and politics lack the patience or the tools to detect, confirm and understand observations. Impatience is to be expected of religionists and politicians they must have adherents now. Neither the political left or right nor the faithful religionists have consistent claims on truthfulness or the reliance on reason. They deal with models of reality that share a disdain for truth, justice or reason.

Paine's comment about -arguing when the use and authority of reason are unappreciated as equivalent to administering medicine to the dead - works today. Our crises today all seem to be predicated on that same lack of appreciation and the demand that action be taken without regard to consequence or the key to morality... individual harm.

Re: Science Sunday: Intelligent Design Goes to the Movies

rrichnow — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 05:51:44 -0000

Point made with an exclamation. I watched the trailer and felt for the first time someone is giving me a voice after being overwhelmed with the prejudicial voices against intelligent design to which I subscribe purely based upon science. Anyone studying science with evolution as the origin of all species are in complete denial of the definition of science and what science is. Evolution as the origin of all species MUST leave science and embark into science fiction with full inner delusions. This review demonstrates the absolute ignorance and arrogance to which I refer with the appeal to the mob mentality like bullies do in school when they want to make fun of those who are truly right and virtuous while they themselves are wrong and in need of the mob to support their position so they play to them rather than to the subject of the debate, because they couldn't care less about discovering if they are right or wrong, they just want to be right whoever gets hurt or in their way. This review proved what this movie claims about how others are trying to shut up and ridicule those of us who see clearly enough to realize that intelligent design is the absolutely only way anything could have been made. You made that part of the movie's point with an exclamation!

Re: Science Sunday: Intelligent Design Goes to the Movies

read it! — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:46:54 -0000

its called a dictonary

Some asshole wrote this. "DNA, Evolution is intelligent "

I cant believe I have to actually post this.

"Intelligence is an umbrella term used to describe a property of the mind that encompasses many related abilities, such as the capacities to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn."

WHERE DOES IT SAY RANDOM GENETIC MUTATION DUE TO ENVIROMENTAL CHANGES!?!?!?!?!?!

People, learn how to use a dictionary before you use a word.

Re: Science Sunday: Intelligent Design Goes to the Movies

David — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 04:41:30 -0000

Question Folks, might I ask about this point:

"Evolution happens by way of natural selection, which is absolutely, positively not random or by chance. Genetic mutation may be random (then again maybe not) but natural selection is the dominant force by which creatures continue to exist to procreate, and thus "evolve."

I think the issue may be the big bang rather than evolution itself. Did the big bang happen by natural selection? Or was it chance? What was there before and how did it come about? These are the things that are not being addressed and when they are - 'chance' is given as the reason. That's the point.

What is the explanation for the big bang and the beginning if not chance?

Re: Science Sunday: Intelligent Design Goes to the Movies

Mike — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 22:16:32 -0000

Get your facts straight, please? I wonder when this author took his couple of Genetics classes? He says, "Something like 80 percent of the genetic material in a strand of DNA is not used for anything." It was once believed that 95% was junk, then they found out that this "Junk DNA" actually had some purpose, and then the percentage was lowered to 80%. Now the number is much closer to 5% then 80%, and I suspect they will find that the rest of the so called junk DNA plays an important role as well.

A few genetics classes, does not an expert make.

Re: Science Sunday: Intelligent Design Goes to the Movies

Dave — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:09:39 -0000

... "This is exactly ID's hypothesis: Some superintelligence planted life on earth. IDers prefer that the "intelligence" be the God of Abraham, but there's nothing in the hypothesis to rule out visitors from another galaxy."

Yes, but that doesn't answer the question of how life in that other galaxy began. It has to be a supernatural entity. Intelligent Design is creationism wearing a new hat.

Re: Science Sunday: Intelligent Design Goes to the Movies

Torbj — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 06:16:45 -0000

On "junk DNA" and definitions Great review, with interesting perspectives on ID creationist propaganda tactics and strategies.

I realize that there are some broad-brush technical descriptions in the review that might get a low grade on a college biology test, but I wanted to keep these explanations short.

And that you did. But I would like to pitch in with those who feel that the result on some points gives a tendentious picture. It AFAIU is geared to yesterdays popularizations.

IANAB, but T. Ryan Gregory, "an evolutionary biologist specializing in genome size evolution", describes the concept of junk DNA and why non-coding DNA it isn't the same as non-functional DNA. He remarks:

It should come as no surprise (and indeed, it probably does not) that new roles are being discovered for non-coding DNA and that some of yesterday's buzzwords -- including "junk DNA" -- are destined for the dustbin.

Also, the definition of evolution is, I believe, a description of selectionist theory. AFAIU one can only describe the majority of genetic changes as deleterious if one outdefine the changes that are near neutral as nonessential for selection. I believe genetic analysis finds that the vast majority of changes are near neutral.

It is perhaps better to make a neutral definition (without specifying mechanisms) of the natural process, and let the current theory fill in the details, in analogy to the scientific process. (Study objective phenomena, make current theory.)

One minimal definition of the evolutionary process is:

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

One can predict from population genetics that genes eventually becomes fixated in some balance for the above process, and that is indeed observed. And some main mechanisms for that would be:

- Variation independent of organism need, selection for reproductive success.

- Near neutral gene drift.

Re: Science Sunday: Intelligent Design Goes to the Movies

mbaty — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 14:33:23 -0000

Junk in the trunk I think it's a bit premature to call any of the DNA "junk" even if we don't know what it does. But don't you love arguing about things that aren't mutually exclusive and acting like they are?

Re: Science Sunday: Intelligent Design Goes to the Movies

Random — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 07:19:37 -0000

Michael Moore The Pile

I hope you're kidding! Michael Moore doesn't make documentaries. What he produces are twisted, distorted pieces of propaganda just as this film appears to be. "Bowling for Columbine"'s very title is a lie. My room mate hired "Fahrenheit", and I couldn't watch beyond the first half hour. No only was it rather dull and trite, but it was so obviously edited to make the point he wanted to make, regardless of honesty, that I can't see how anyone ever released it, let alone took it seriously!

Re: Science Sunday: Intelligent Design Goes to the Movies

imrational — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 20:49:09 -0000

Tacking "Expelled" in the theaters! I approached my local theater who is showing Expelled, and asked them...

"If I made a rebuttal film, would you be willing to show it either before or after Expelled?"

They've agreed! Granted, my film is going to be simple and shot with a home-video camera and edited on my laptop... but still, I think this is a great opportunity to expose some of the lies and deceit that Stein uses in his film.

I highly encourage other readers to try a similar tactic. I will make my film freely available when done. Use mine, or create your own! I think that theater owners will welcome the chance to try something like this.

http://www.youtube.c...