EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed - Science Under Attack

Why can't we just teach science as defined by scientists in the science classroom?!

Because the creationists don't want us to?

There has been so much made of the Darwin=Hitler theme lately, this was inevitable:Hitler is Darwin’s Illegitimate Son by Lady Hope!

The majority of the population doesn't think, or can't think, having not been given the tools to do so in school.The nonsense that the creationists are pushing is designed to sound good, as all good propaganda must: "they're both theories," "teach the controversy," "critical thinking," the latest "Academic Freedom Act," and all the rest. It is in reality an effort to force their narrow fundamentalist beliefs into the school systems.Expelled is just another effort in the same direction. The propaganda techniques used in that film would make Goebbels proud.Those of use who are scientists realize that the creationist arguments don't stand up to scientific scrutiny, but most folks out there aren't as critical.Creation "science" and its illegitimate stepchild, Intelligent Design, are "designed" to sneak religion back into schools, from which they were banned by the U.S. Supreme Court decades ago. Neither of these endeavors has any relation to science--they are in fact diametrically opposed to science. And if they get their way they will destroy science and impose a theocracy; as the Wedge Document phrased it, "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." There is no way to impose that fundamentalist dogma on science except through a theocracy.Thanks, but no thanks. We finished with the Dark Ages a few centuries ago, and after The Enlightenment we no longer have to kowtow to the various shamans and their particular gods and demons.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Sternberg didn't get half the kicking around he deserved.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Nonsense, all the way around.1) This fellow published creationist propaganda in a science journal, in direct violation of his duties as an editor and as someone who was supposed to be following and promoting the scientific method. Instead of acting as a scientist, he allowed to be published an article that was creationist propaganda (as that is what ID is). Its about the same as peeing in church if you want a gross analogy.2) Discrimination is something all of us do every day, as a necessary part of our lives. In this particular case, scientists follow the scientific method and discriminate against the many endeavors that do not follow the scientific method; witchcraft and astrology, for example. Your use of the term, most often used in social contexts such as race relations, is entirely inappropriate in this context. He wasn't discriminated against as much as he paid the price for totally inappropriate actions and dereliction of his duties.3) After "peeing in church" he had the nerve to whine about being "kicked around." He should have been drummed out of science entirely, as his actions were deliberately anti-science.4) Ones personal beliefs are not the issue. Ones actions are. He screwed up big time, and then whined when he got caught. I have no sympathy. And I'll repeat: he didn't get half the kicking around he deserved.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

As has been pointed out, ID is not science. It does not follow the scientific method. Its conclusion is assumed from the beginning, and no amount of evidence will be allowed to change that. Seems to me that's the antithesis of science. You don't see astrology published in the astronomy journals, do you? The lid was blown off the ID movement years ago when the Wedge Document leaked out from the Dishonesty Institute. For example, one very telling passage:

We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

Now, does that sound like science to you? Or fundamentalist religion masquerading as science?And didn't we have "science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" once before? (I think they called it the Dark Ages.)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

ID is not similar to the science that archaeologists and historians employ! (I'm an archaeologist, so I have some familiarity with the subject.)ID starts with a conclusion, sciences do not. Sciences are free to follow the data wherever they lead, ID is not. Sciences follow the scientific method, ID does not. You are making a simple, fundamental mistake here. The fact that science investigates astrology does not make astrology a science! It makes science a science.And science can investigate ID and its claims just as it has astrology. This does not make ID a science.Its lack of adherence to the scientific method is what prohibits ID from being a science. You miss the entire point of the Dishonesty Institute quotation. They are stating flat out, in this internal fund-raising prospectus, that they intend to destroy science as it is practiced and to replace it with a "science" that follows their narrow religious belief. Certainly that would not be a science free to follow the data wherever it leads, now would it? It would be a "science" that adhered to dogma, and came up with the proper answers no matter where the data leads. (It would take a theocracy to enforce this mandate, but that little fact doesn't seem to bother those folks; I assume they figure they would be in charge and it would be their particular narrow view that would be mandated.) Wrong again! ID was cooked up after the Edwards v. Aguillard decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in an effort to sneak religion back into the schools. It is based on dogma, not science. It is not a religion in itself as much as a tool to masquerade religion as science."Darwinism" (a term used almost exclusively by fundamentalists who are out to destroy the theory of evolution) is based on empirical evidence and the scientific method. It is not a belief system except in the minds of fundamentalists who are out to destroy it.If new data were to emerge science would have to follow it wherever it led. That is the hallmark and strength of science. ID could not follow new evidence wherever it led, as its conclusion is fixed in advance. That is part of why ID is not, and cannot be, a science.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This is one of the things that creationists just can't seem to grasp.Archaeopterx is a transitional! It shares traits with critters on both sides of that transition. Different scientists may have different ideas of how those traits should be evaluated and weighed, leading some to classify it differently than others. That doesn't change a thing, nor does that discredit the fossil--as much as creationists would like to do so.See the following:

quote:

---

Much has been made in pseudoscientific circles about the position of Archae within the evolutionary scheme of things. The usual "argument" put forward is that Archae cannot be a transitional fossil between birds and dinosaurs because it is a bird. This simplistic line belies the fact that, whilst Archae is indeed classified as a bird, it has been done so on the strength of 4 main characters - 2 of which are not unique to birds. This classification ignores the fact that Archae has numerous characters which are unique, unique in that they are not possessed by birds. Archae's avian affinities are allowable on the strength of the following 4 main characters:

​

...

​

It can be seen that Archae possesses many more characters which are present in dinosaurs and not in birds, than it does characters which are present in birds but not in dinosaurs. This is why Archae is a true transitional species, because it shares some characters which are diagnostic of one group whilst still retaining characters diagnostic of its ancestral group. Anyone who claims that Archae is 100% bird is wrong. Anyone who claims that Archae's skeleton is even predominantly bird- like is wrong. Anyone who claims Archae has a "totally birdlike" skull is wrong.

​

(see the rest of this long and detailed article for the particulars)

​

All About Archaeopteryx

---

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You forfeit any semblance of a rational argument when you call evolution a "religion" and fossils "icons."Try again, leaving out the nonsense, if you want a response.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

ID, as it is being pushed in the US, descends straight from fundamentalist religion. Case in point: the Discovery Institute, the chief proponent of ID in the US.ID starts with the conclusion that there is a designer, but tries to hide the actual identity that virtually all practitioners accept--the Christian deity. They have to hide that to pretend ID is science and to try and sneak back into the schools. It could. Here are a couple of definitions that may help:

Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.

​

Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.

Note that the theory of evolution does not fall under these definitions.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Wouldn't this more properly be studied under Theology than some branch of science?One definition of Theology is:

Theology is the study and commentary on the existence and attributes of a god or gods, and of how that god or those gods relate to the world and, especially, to human existence and religious thought...

That is exactly what you are describing.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Dembski and the folks at the Discovery Institute are not pushing ID because it is a science, and because it follows the scientific method. They have no interest in following the data where it leads, as it leads in directions contrary to what they believe.They are pushing ID because they think they can fool some folks, particularly in school boards and state legislatures, into accepting ID as science--when everyone else clearly knows it is not. It is creation "science" lite, dropping references to deities in favor of the thinly disguised Christian deity, now known as "The Designer" for convenience in putting across their deception.The correspondence between creation "science" being tossed out of schools by Edwards v. Aguillard and the rise of the ID movement is pretty hard to ignore, don't you think? Especially as both are pushed by pretty much the same crowd, eh?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Your post #390 was almost entirely a criticism of "Darwinism" (whatever that is).You briefly mentioned ID in terms of "it would have predicted..."But there is no body of science or scientific study making up ID. Nor does it, in practice, follow the scientific method. In fact, ID is rarely seen anywhere where it is not associated with religion, or pushed by religious activists.Look at Dembski's courses in ID at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminaryhttp://www.designinference.com/teaching/teaching.htm

AP410 This is the undegrad course. You have three things to do: (1) take the final exam (worth 40% of your grade); (2) write a 3,000-word essay on the theological significance of intelligent design (worth 40% of your grade); (3) provide at least 10 posts defending ID that you’ve made on “hostile” websites, the posts totalling 2,000 words, along with the URLs (i.e., web links) to each post (worth 20% of your grade).

​

AP510 This is the masters course. You have four things to do: (1) take the final exam (worth 30% of your grade); (2) write a 1,500- to 2,000-word critical review of Francis Collins’s The Language of God -- for instructions, see below (20% of your grade); (3) write a 3,000-word essay on the theological significance of intelligent design (worth 30% of your grade); (4) provide at least 10 posts defending ID that you’ve made on “hostile” websites, the posts totalling 3,000 words, along with the URLs (i.e., web links) to each post (worth 20% of your grade).

​

AP810 This is the D.Min. course. You have four things to do: (1) take the final exam (worth 30% of your grade); (2) write a 1,500- to 2,000-word critical review of Francis Collins’s The Language of God -- for instructions, see below (20% of your grade); (3) write a 3,000-word essay on the theological significance of intelligent design (worth 30% of your grade); (4) develop a Sunday-school lesson plan based on the book Understanding Intelligent Design (worth 20% of your grade).

Do you see any science in there anywhere?Sorry, ID is religion lite, everyone knows it, and there is no way to put the cat back in the bag.They'll just have to think of some other way to disguise their religion so they can get back into the schools; this one didn't work any better than creation "science" did.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.