Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

and the overwhelming response has been that:
[a] the "suppression" being discussed in the film is ID and
ID is not truly scientific inquiry to begin with.

:dizzy:

if they had come up with ANY other example, ANY example aside from ID, i could see where the theme would be suppression of scientific inquiry. but since they only have one case to present, and that single case is ID, we must also consider why there is only one case in the first place. hence the line of logic listed above.

 

Most of us do not need to spend money on this film to know that ID isn't science.

If you really want to learn about ID, do some research on the Discovery Institute. You'll find that it is principally backed by conservative Republican bureacrats instead of scientists.

Also, try to do some research on what the scientific method is. ID doesn't fit into that process. That's why you don't see peer-reviewed articles promoting it as a scientific theory. Remember the whole controversy involving cold fusion? The scientists Pons and Fleishman claimed they had discovered how to do it at some press conferences, but when it came time to reproduce their experiments, nobody could reproduce it. It was essentially a desperate attempt at trying to get more funding for their research. If they had tried to do it through a peer-reviewed paper first, they would have been called out immediately.

I know what some ID advocates are going to say: "What about Stephen C. Meyer's paper in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington!?" Yes, but that got published because Richard Sternberg circumvented peer-review procedures to get that in the journal. Oh, and BTW, a lot of ID people will claim that Sternberg lost his job at the Smithsonian over this (oh was that mentioned in Stein's movie?), but, um... he was never employed by the Smithsonian and still holds a volunteer position there! hahahaha

That's old news though. You don't need Ben Stein and a flashy movie to tell you about the facts.

 

You say that the subject of the film and post are about suppression of scientific inquiry. If that were the case, I would totally be on your side of this. All scientific ideas deserve to be heard. If the ideas are supported by the evidence, they deserve to be heard and explored further. The problem is intelligent design is not science. If the ID movement were approaching the study of our origins in a scientific way, then it would be a reasonable field of study. However, most of the time, ID folks just poke holes in evolution and call what they are doing science. As pyccku points out, the ID folks have created a false dichotomy: even if evolution is wrong, it doesn't mean ID is right. It's not like there are only two possible explanations out there for our origins.

"I personally believe. . . " I think that's an interesting way of putting it. You're free to believe that, but it doesn't mean that it's supported by the evidence.

This is one of the difficulties when talking about science and religion. In one area (religion) belief is very important, while in the other it is largely irrelevant.

So far, no one has made any case to me (or even tried to) that I need to see this film. No one has said that I could expect anything different than those clips I've seen online nor that they are making any claims other than the standard ID ones.

 

what did that have to do with my reply that you quoted?

if it's not science in the first place, you can't even go so far as to suggest that suppressing ID is suppressing scientific inquiry.

again, present me with a non-ID case of suppression and we will have a discussion.

 

From Scene 3 of Monty Python's Holy Grail:

DENNIS: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

ARTHUR: Be quiet!

DENNIS: Well, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!

ARTHUR: Shut up!

DENNIS: I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

ARTHUR: Shut up, will you? Shut up!

DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.

ARTHUR: Shut up!

DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!

DENNIS: Oh, what a give-away. Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about. Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?

Oh wait, just like ID, this is ficticious as well. Sorry.

 

You "believe" in evolution, except...um...the part about how life evolved?

 

This, however, is most certainly the Monty Python equivalent of ID "science":
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g&feature=related"]YouTube - She's a witch![/ame]

 

powerful quote, but nobody is trying to silence ID. it is simply not science and does not belong in the scientific field. if they were trying to fit themselves into the field of economics instead, it would be the equally preposterous.

conclusions come AFTER data analysis and never before. that is what defines science. ID comes with a set of conclusions before they even get started. i'm not running any more circles with you on this.

 

I didn't read this thread (except for the 1st page), but this is a GREAT show on the ID vs. evolution (or really the religion vs. science) debate -

NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | PBS

You can watch it all online for free.

 

Yes. There is data that supports it.

There is no persecution against ID. There is just no data that supports it. If you support ID you do it with no data and against incontrovertible data from many different disciplines.

 

Punctuated Equilibrium is science. Whether or not is correct is subject to scientific debate. This is something that can not be done with ID.

I think it is you who should look up the history of cold fusion. From Martin Fleischmann

Unable to guide their peers to consistent duplications of the experiment, the two previously respected scientists found themselves blasted as unprofessional, possibly incompetent, and perhaps even out to make a fast buck. Cold fusion, once heralded as the answer to global warming and the energy crisis, was labeled quackery and largely abandoned. The cold fusion announcement of Pons and Fleischman are often referred to as a "classic" example of what not to do as a scientist (especially the act of bypassing publication in peer-review journals to make media announcements).

There's a reason why these guys are covered in "science and ethics" classes in college. What they did was completely wrong.

To answer your last question: ID isn't being suppressed. The Discovery Institute and many conservatives want you to think it is and will present propoganda movies out there to you to make you think it is.

If you want to talk about scientific suppression, let's discuss how the Bush administration suppresses climate-change analysis from scientists like NASA's James Hansen.

 

Sure. Why? Because it was based on an interpretation of the fossil record (i.e. evidence). Is it right? Maybe. Maybe not. But it does make falsifiable predictions about what we should observe as we try to understand it further.

I like galaxee's point here, so I'll just use another example. Say that you were writing a paper on the behavior of monkeys in the wild. If you tried to publish that paper in a physics journal, it would be rejected; not because the paper was bad or not correct, but because it's not physics. The same could be said about ID: if you want to study ID in the context of theology, that's totally reasonable and perhaps it's an interesting field of study. It's just not science.

 

Do the ID supporters still believe that the earth is flat and that scientists are the anti-christ?
Do they still believe that the earth is the center of the universe?

It's one thing to believe in your religion or cult (same difference imo), but it's another to try to force it on others.

 

Just tangentially related to the topic but I wanted to share this beautiful image:



That anyone would find the idea of our shared ancestry with all living beings insulting is beyond me.

'Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear' by Daily Mail UK - RichardDawkins.net

 

^ Don't forget Oliver!