Thread: Expelled

He's baaaaack...

Hi mystic.

Ben Stein is better then this

*than*

How so? All signs point to Intelligent design... the universe through entropy actually prefers complexity which speaks volumes in itself...

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Ben Stein is better then this

I don't subscribe to the belief that we are just a "cosmic accident" so I think it will be interesting to watch, kudos to Ben Stein.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

All signs point to Intelligent design... the universe through entropy actually prefers complexity which speaks volumes in itself...

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Intelligent design is useful for explaining a concept we haven't fully understood yet. We try to simplify the creation of the universe by explaining it in terms we can comprehend, "somebody who can do anything made it".

There are scientific theories that explain quite well how the universe works, it's just to bad that you need a an education in advanced physics to make heads or tails out of them.

The universe is very complex, therefore it's no surprise that its workings are equally hard to grasp.

The only reason one would deny intelligent design is they themselves decide to take the leap of lack-of-faith not to see it. Most scientists eventually humble themselves into the realization that this world is simply too mysterious and too paradoxical to be just an ongoing explainable accident.

It would be the same as an orange denying it's orangeness... it's simply self-defeating to use your own rationale and logic to deny the moment and all it took to get there...If anything, we are the object that becomes the subject. Eventually destined to bite our own tail like the Ouroboros in my signature.

When all signs point to yes... saying no just isn't logical...

Intellegent design itself does not make me feel uncomfortable but i feel it is a proxy Issue merely to bring christianity into The classroom or i feel that is how it is being used by christians.

However my view would change if I could get a good idea How intellegent design would be applied in a clasrrom envorioment.

The one argument he put forth in this preview is the notion that some things appear to be made by an intelligent designer. This seems quite obviously flawed to me, because if we assume that the universe was created by an intelligent designer, then that means that we are by definition unable to observe anything which was NOT created by this designer. Since our notion of something 'seeming to be created by an intelligence' is clearly a relative one (you need to compare it to something which does NOT seem this way), then it is not applicable to our situation. You can't use a relative term to describe all of reality it is possible for us to experience.

What really pisses me off, though, is Stein's use of 'free speech' in this. It's not about 'free speech', this is science, not literature. Say whatever the f*** you want in fantasy and fiction, but when it comes to science, it's a harsh world. If your science is bullshit, be ready to have it criticized to hell and back.

Now, on that note, I personally strongly object to any sort of alienation because of an article containing 'unorthodox' ideas. However, I think Stein is misrepresenting what has happened here. The article didn't cause a stir because it was about an unusual idea, it caused a stir because it was inherently fallacious (like I explained above), and the guy who ran it in his magazine fell for it, publishing it as if it were legitimate.

There is no evidence to support intelligence design yet, and evolution is one of science's most successful theories. It is, for all intents and purposes, fact.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

How so? All signs point to Intelligent design... the universe through entropy actually prefers complexity which speaks volumes in itself...

Entropy is within the entire system. Locally, heat energy can be collected to make more 'useful' energy. The point is, any collection involves a net loss of useful energy in the entire system.

Not only is the earth, and even the solar system, not a closed system, but also your notions of 'complexity' do not necessarily correspond with the concept of 'useful energy', or 'energy which can be used to do work' - and THIS is what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is about.

Originally Posted by Jeff777

I don't subscribe to the belief that we are just a "cosmic accident" so I think it will be interesting to watch, kudos to Ben Stein.

It's not an 'accident' if it follows physical laws...

Originally Posted by thegnome54

There is no evidence to support intelligence design yet, and evolution is one of science's most successful theories. It is, for all intents and purposes, fact.

I would hardly jump off the ledge and claim there's no evidence to support intelligent design. You see a difference between evolution and intelligent design. I don't see how that's possible. Evolution is the universe's way of expressing intelligent design. It is the universe manifesting something better, stronger, more intelligent. Everything is the universe manifest. There is no distinction between objects. Including you, who are essentially questioning your own intent by questioning all the intelligence that brought you into being. Jumping to conclusions doesn't equal fact.

Again, by asserting opinion as fact, we come back to another version of 'I am right', and 'you are wrong'. I just don't see things that way. Those mindsets are the thing everyone has to realize, doesn't exist here. You are your own creator of what is and isn't. You choose what you want to see, and what you don't.

Seeing the bridges as opposed to walls, is naturally a much more open way to go about viewing the universe... It truly allows for anything. Which, I feel is the universal standpoint and the only one worthy of standing within.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Entropy is within the entire system. Locally, heat energy can be collected to make more 'useful' energy. The point is, any collection involves a net loss of useful energy in the entire system.

Not only is the earth, and even the solar system, not a closed system, but also your notions of 'complexity' do not necessarily correspond with the concept of 'useful energy', or 'energy which can be used to do work' - and THIS is what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is about.


It's not an 'accident' if it follows physical laws...

The physical laws are the intent of the universe. It's just a matter of viewing the word intent. I didn't claim who or what intended the universe because that's impossible to imagine. However, it's equally absurdist to jump to other side by assuming that the laws scientists observe were just a randomized set of 1's and 0's created after the big bang without any intent at all. Afterall, it intended you. Have some faith in yourself.

If anything, science should do nothing but affirm intelligent design because they are using intelligence to observe the design of the universe. Something that clearly can't be done without intelligence. However, along the way it somehow got twisted into a agnostic approach instead.

The observer is integral to that which it's observing. Without the observer the observed simply ceases to be, yet here we are... so an observer must've always been present since the beginning. Who or what that observer is/was? I have no clue. Perhaps the LHC will crash some protons together and be able to shed some light on it. Pardon the pun.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

I would hardly jump off the ledge and claim there's no evidence to support intelligent design.

Then find me some.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

You see a difference between evolution and intelligent design.

I can see that evolution and ID could coexist, if ID was used as an explanation for abiogenesis. However, Stein is clearly presenting ID as a religious-tinted alternative to evolution, citing 'Darwinism' as the perceived opposite and enemy of ID.

I found this documentary fascinating...entitled "The Privileged Planet" How unique are we afterall? What are the odds of us or earth being how it is today? Watch the vids.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Then find me some.

The proof is in the theories and laws scientists themselves create, find, and follow. An employee at McDonalds could never begin to understand the ultimate intent that brought us here. Only someone with intelligence.

Let me repost what I said since I find it a pretty valid argument...

Originally Posted by SolSkye

If anything, science should do nothing but affirm intelligent design because they are using intelligence to observe the design of the universe. Something that clearly can't be done without intelligence. However, along the way it somehow got twisted into a agnostic approach instead.

Why the need to twist back to a conclusion of a randomized ongoing accident? That model doesn't do anything positive for anyone. It gives no hope or purpose to anyone or anything. It's impractical, and is essentially a cold, bleak outlook of life which is ultimately cynical and equally useless...

Originally Posted by thegnome54

I can see that evolution and ID could coexist, if ID was used as an explanation for abiogenesis. However, Stein is clearly presenting ID as a religious-tinted alternative to evolution, citing 'Darwinism' as the perceived opposite and enemy of ID.

I don't think he's trying to argue that 'Darwinism' is an enemy, so much as, the cold randomness aspect of evolution's conclusion being a flawed one that shouldn't be taught as fact...

Trying to be fair in a theory by taking out the observer in the observation, is impossible and self-defeating. The scientist observing it, is the proof of intent.

And, while I don't think we should teach creationism. I do agree with his valid point. Why not any intelligent design? Under whose authority can we draw that conclusion, especially considering intelligence is used to observe the design?

Wouldn't you consider yourself intelligent gnome? You, and everyone, are basically the intent of that which you observe. If you want evidence for intelligent design, just look in the mirror. If you don't see it, you're unfortunately just being self-loathing or following a concept spoon-fed to you by others you respect with an equally bleak outlook on life...

Originally Posted by SolSkye

If anything, science should do nothing but affirm intelligent design because they are using intelligence to observe the design of the universe. Something that clearly can't be done without intelligence. However, along the way it somehow got twisted into a agnostic approach instead.

No.

Intelligence is a mechanism we have evolved in order to cope with reality. The fact that intelligence works to understand reality so well reflects an evolutionary process, not some higher-level of intelligence similar to ours behind the universe's existence. Don't you see how near-sighted and skewed this conclusion is? "Humans understand the world, therefore the world must have been made by something like humans, but much bigger, nicer, and, of course, invisible". It's like freaking geocentricism all over again.

The null hypothesis in this situation is clearly not ID, because ID itself requires additional explanation to account for the existence of the "I". ID is not an explanation, it's a deferral.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

That model doesn't do anything positive for anyone. Gives no hope or purpose to anyone or anything. It's essentially a cold, bleak outlook of life which is ultimately cynical and equally useless...

That's a blatant appeal to emotion. It doesn't matter if it's 'cold', or 'bleak', because as far as we can tell, it's also 'TRUE'. AIDs is 'cold' and 'bleak'. That doesn't mean we should give up investigating AIDs and pretend it doesn't exist in order to make people feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

And, while I don't think we should teach creationism. I do agree with his valid point. Why not any intelligent design? Under whose authority can we draw that conclusion, especially considering intelligence is used to observe the design?

ID IS creationism. The textbook "Of Pandas and People" literally replaced the words 'creation' and 'creationism' with 'intelligent design' for their final draft, in reaction to recent legislation against creationism being taught in schools. This was a central piece of evidence in the Dover trials which helped prove that ID was really just a poorly masked version of creationism, an attempt to sneak religious bullshit into public science classrooms.

They even improperly deleted "creationists" in one instant, leading to the infamous
"cdesign proponentsists"
What the hell more evidence do you want? ID is bullshit, at its roots. It's a pseudoscience.

Something that promotes the human condition is hardly something I'd call religious... What's wrong with a model of reality that promotes self?

I'm sorry, but using the human condition to marginalize itself is a completely skewed and contradictory way of going about looking at the world, not to mention altogether ass-backwards...

The observer simply CANNOT discount the observer from the observation. Once you do the observation is without any meaning or purpose, and really ceases to be of any importance, if not cease to be at all. And something without purpose is pointless and useless... impractical if you will

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Something that promotes the human condition is hardly something I'd call religious... What's wrong with a model of reality that promotes self?

I'm sorry, but using the human condition to marginalize the human condition is a completely skewed and contradictory way of going about looking at the world, not to mention altogether ass-backwards...

I'm not really sure what part of my response you're responding to.

Would you mind quoting a sentence or two so I can be sure? Sorry, it's always hard to follow non-linear discussions on forums

I don't see where I've advocated "discounting the observer from the observation", either.

Reserve judgement, regarding Ben Stein and the movie, until after you've viewed it.

I don't follow linear thought processes well. I read the intent of what is written and respond. It flows much better than choppy text, which is sliced and diced and broken in thought.

You mentioned multiple times in the previous post how ID is bullshit, or ID isn't important. When that's all there is. I simply say, that view of looking at the world, and ultimately yourself, isn't a healthy or productive one... for anyone. It's a self-loathing cynical model of life. Something that life itself doesn't affirm, because life has obviously continued thus far.

I'm sure, that thanks to the seeds of agnosticism that were planted in the minds of the masses by the modern era we live in, will teach us a lesson in humility in the coming years, though. A world without spirit simply isn't a world worth living in which is showing through the bleak future of our industrializing minds. We will see in the coming years, how the current mindset of agnosticism is actually the Thanatos urge, behind the wheel of our collective minds. Once we go off the cliff, those people that survive should wise up, though.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

I don't follow linear thought processes well. I read the intent of what is written and respond. It flows much better than choppy text, which is sliced and diced and broken in thought.

You mentioned multiple times in the previous post how ID is bullshit, or ID isn't important. When that's all there is. I simply say, that view of looking at the world, and ultimately yourself, isn't a healthy or productive one... for anyone. It's a self-loathing cynical model of life. Something that life itself doesn't affirm, because life has obviously continued thus far.

I'm sure, that thanks to the seeds of agnosticism that were planted in the minds of the masses by the modern era we live in, will teach us a lesson in humility in the coming years, though. A world without spirit simply isn't a world worth living in which is showing through the bleak future of our industrializing minds. We will see in the coming years, how the current mindset of agnosticism is actually the Thanatos urge, behind the wheel of our collective minds. Once we go off the cliff, those people that survive should wise up, though.

I know the post is not directed at me but i will try my stab at it. How about it?

I dont like the ID approach, saying that world is to difficult to understand and thus there must be a creator. I know im simplifying it but bear with me. Science is there to question things and it operates on proof, if you tell me bigfoot is real i need absoloute quantafiable proof that bigfoot is real. If you give me some abmiguous photos and some pictures of rather large foot prints and you say see thats Bigfoot! and i will say to you bring proof, bring me some hair, bring me a living specimen.

The idea of god or a creator does not fit well into the spectrum of science. You tell me this is so complicated look at it how can it possibly be like this without a creator which is the equivilant of a person giving me large foot prints and telling me that is absoloute proof of bigfoot. Thats not enough evidence to suggest to me there is a creator in the mix.

Im sorry for the rant i know its hard to understand.. ignore this if you want.

Originally Posted by Jeff777

Reserve judgement, regarding Ben Stein and the movie, until after you've viewed it.

cdesign proponentsists
Creationism is not science.
Intelligent Design is creationism.
Intelligent Design is not science.

/discussion

Originally Posted by SolSkye

I don't follow linear thought processes well. I read the intent of what is written and respond. It flows much better than choppy text, which is sliced and diced and broken in thought.

That was my nice way of saying that I didn't feel like you had actually understood what I was saying, and were just making general statements.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

You mentioned multiple times in the previous post how ID is bullshit, or ID isn't important. When that's all there is. I simply say, that view of looking at the world, and ultimately yourself, isn't a healthy or productive one... for anyone. It's a self-loathing cynical model of life. Something that life itself doesn't affirm, because life has obviously continued thus far.

Again, I don't feel like you actually processed my last post. ID is bullshit because it's just a cheap way of trying to make creationism a viable subject for science classrooms. Also, 'self-loathing cynical' doesn't matter. Truth does, and the only way to get close to truth which we know to work is science. Refer to my AIDs example earlier.

I don't know how you can't see the beauty of life without having to have a ghost in the machine. You call it 'cold', 'bleak'... I don't think you actually grasp the beauty of it all, the wonder involved with the mechanical interactions themselves, and all of the processes leading to the evolution of sentient life forms. It's much more beautiful and warm than saying "God did it".

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

- Charles Darwin

Two words...

Flagella motor.

/discussion

Originally Posted by thegnome54

I don't know how you can't see the beauty of life without having to have a ghost in the machine. You call it 'cold', 'bleak'... I don't think you actually grasp the beauty of it all, the wonder involved with the mechanical interactions themselves, and all of the processes leading to the evolution of sentient life forms. It's much more beautiful and warm than saying "God did it".

I don't think a 'God' did it, so much as, it was and continually is an ongoing process of intelligent intention. We are an obvious part of that process. Which is also undeniably intelligent.

I don't think someone atop a throne is making the rules, but the very essence of reality is intelligence and intent. So intelligent design isn't saying a person in the human sense of the word created reality but that which is ingrained into our very essence, is what is the base form of reality... I am no more 'God' than a grain of sand is. But I look at 'God' as the intended moment and everything in it.

There is no way to deny this without denying yourself.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

I don't think a 'God' did it, so much as, it was and continually is an ongoing process of intelligent intention. We are an obvious part of that process. Which is also undeniably intelligent.

I don't think someone atop a throne is making the rules, but the very essence of reality is intelligence and intent. So intelligent design isn't saying a person in the human sense of the word created reality but that which is ingrained into our very essence, is what is the base form of reality... I am no more 'God' than a grain of sand is. But I look at 'God' as the intended moment and everything in it.

There is no way to deny this without denying yourself.

Intellegent intention? The intellegent intention had to come from a being, a god if you like. If you dont beleive its gods intellegent intention shaping the universe then what in heavens name is it that is shaping the universe according to yoru beleif?

How can you expect your theory to be taught in school when it is largely intangable and subjective from person to person?

I dont see how this idea can be applied to a school setting. I can see how yoru theory would work in a church or place of worship where that kind of shit flies but in a school? What is your real intention for supporting intellegent design?

My intention for supporting intelligent design is for one to walk with acceptance, pride, faith, and belief in yourself, and your creation as the self-aware universe. You were spawned of the universe which somehow spawned itself. AIDS, starvation, deforestation, and all the other macro and microscopic problems of the world are just an equations way of attempting to balance itself out. Without the Ying, no Yang...and vice versa. Certainly, not a valid reason to deny intent. The darkness found without also resides within. We all have our skeletons we try and cope with and better ourselves from, just as the universe does. I can accept responsibility for all the ills of the world, because they are simply manifestations of the universe's perfecting it's own plight and imperfections. Just as the beholder themselves attempts to perfect their own plight and imperfections.

Inevitably, you'll never be able to truly escape yourself, though. No matter how many times you multiply, subdivide, round off, and carry the integer. The end result of whatever you perceive is simply a mirrored version of your true self.

The micro and macro are representations of themselves...


And, while it's extremely fascinating to read scientists theories into how the nature of the universe came into being, it will never explain why it spawned itself. And a 'how' always comes after a 'why'... an intent. The observer and observation cannot have a how without a why.

Simply writing it off, saying there is no why because you haven't delved deep enough into understanding yourself to find out the why, just doesn't cut it.

Any way you look at reality, the ID can't never be rounded off as an anomaly. It's completely self-defeating, and shows that one is without true intent or purpose to be able to do so.