Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mike

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Recommended Posts

EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED

In 2008, the public schools restrict the freedom to express... Anyone? Anyone?... that intelligent design might be a consideration for... Anyone? Anyone? origin of? Life on earth? Which, anyone? Raises or lowers?... raises the panic of secular leaders, in an effort to calm the eccentric liberal biased fanaticals. Does it work? Anyone? Anyone know the effects? Anyone know what this is? Class? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone seen this before?

I think this is way over-due. I love the buzz. People are already in a frazzle about this film.

Will this film be allowed to be discussed in any public school?

Hahahaha!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Render unto Caesar that which is his. Render unto God that which is his." (Or something like that.) Creationism/Intelligent Design belongs in the church. If the kids won't go to church, that's the problem of the clergy. Unless you like "The Church is The State" regimes of Saudi Arabia, New Delhi, or Pyongyang. (Yes, Kim Jon-Il is a Stalinist God.) :soapbox:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No argument from me, I don't think it's necessary to "teach" or "proclaim" that life was created in biology class. No way, I believe in natural selection and evolution myself. This is logical. But I also agree that in an American classroom where we should foster the free-form thought process there is room to at least interject a "possibility" that the "absolute" origins and patterns of molecular cells begs to question a "design" factor. It's called hypothesis and it is this type of inquiring that lead us to the discovery of evolution. No?

So to what gain is there to suppress the freedom for educators to, at the very least, simply state that their own understanding of the current evidence at hand leads them to believe that design has an influence on the origins and progress of species?

For Gods sake, it's not like they are handing out bibles or preaching about Ala.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a hypothesis without any evidence, or data that could be tested.

Which means, that it doesn't belong in a science classroom.

That would be bad bad bad logic, and one of the great things a science class gives a student is a system of logic, even if the student can't remember any of the laws or equations ten years down the line, they should all be able to remember what the scientific method is, and how to look at things logically.

Intelligent design is like a father telling his young child that the lamp turns on because of 'magic'

furthermore, this de-sciencing of the public schools just serves as yet another blow to the student population. The public school system has faced enough budget cuts and overpopulation and curriculum dumb-downs,

there are no more music and arts (surely no one on this board will miss those!)

no decent food

no decent teachers

no literature

and now, they attempt to take away science

George Bush succeded in making the school system only care if you can read and add numbers together.

We must save our schools, and no, the answer does not lie in privatizing the system, that's a truly ridiculous notion that would kill the country.

If you were to privatize, it would either be a religous organization in control of your kids' minds and thoughts, or a corporate entity.

Now, if you wanna send your kid to a christian school... hooray good for you, but what if your kid doesn't want to, what if the child grows up and accepts agnosticism, or logic, or athiesm, or just wants to lead a secular life away from it all,

well guess what, there are going to be some problems, do you know how dangerous that stuff can be down the line to the psyche, how imbedded these notions of demons and hellfire and unicorns can be?

Every day is a struggle, and if I allow my brain to make the slightest connection to a religous notion, or a passage from 'La Bible' or any other christly notion, and take that connection to a real life event, I can spiral down into a delusional, disoriented dissociative state of such horrors you would never believe.

If we were to be taught by corporate interest... well when corporate interest was applied to music, we got, Brittany Spears!

I'm sure applying it to the schooling of children will yield equally excellent results!

So, in summation, the public school system must be kept public, and secular. For the good of the future.

oh and "Won't it be a great day when schools can afford everything they need, and the army has to hold a bake sale to build a new bomber"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are saying, if I understand, that there is in no way a spec of tolerance in science class to even "question" the "possibility" that there is some "design or order" (not religion, not a God) to the evolution of species?

Uh-huh, well its seems to me that even the "cause" of the big bang remains a mystery, was it "magic". NO?! Then where is science with my answer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intelligent design is creationism, and it implies a 'god' or 'creator' quite implicitly

I reccomend brushing up on your 'of people and pandas' history.

You're right that the cause of the big bang cannot be totally explained.

but this is a matter of evolution

not 'how the universe started'

but 'how life came to be the way it is on earth'

something we have a very detailed history of

earth forms, billions of years

water forms our caverns, comets impact the surface,

blah blahblah

early life, fossil histories, genetic markers, bacteria development, and so on and so on

There is not one, not one part of intelligent design based on any data of any sort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intelligent design is creationism,

That's an opinion. Not a fact.

I see intelligent design in all sorts of things, exactly how does this translate into "must be God, of a God then" Nonsense. This is the fear driven into everyone, everywhere. This is the same nonsensical logic of oppression of evolution teaching brought about in the early part of the century, "if you teach evolution it will erase God". And it hasn't. One who believes in God can believe in evolution, simple. One who does not believe in God can believe there is a "natural design" to many things. A bees hive, a spider web, genetic code, DNA, the water cycle on earth, spawning fish... whatever, just exactly how does agreeing with a design to these thing suddenly create such a stir in the secularistic scientific community? What are they afraid of finding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The intelligent design text books that were sent to classrooms, and started this whole riduculous 'intelligent design' debate, were written by creationists, and the original version had a passage which stated that the universe was created by a 'creator' hmmm... sounds like creationism

in fact,

there in the text, there is a passage where there's a typo, and you can see that the word creationsim was simply replaced with intelligent design.

which is why I once again, ask you to brush up on your history of the case of 'people and pandas'

in your own personal view of what 'intelligent design' might be, you may not see it as creationism... that's fine

but, what the 'scientists' and text book writers who have made intelligent design define it as, is certainly creationism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Intelligent design" is about as educational in a science classroom as "ebonics" is in a English course. I'm sure one could "teach" about both, but there's no redeeming educational value in the contexts that I placed them in. I suppose in the most liberal sense, this constitutes suppression of speech, but intelligent design is just stupid, so it's not something that gets me up in arms the same way the troglodytes in kansas want to dismiss evolution.

The thought process behind science is to help explain how things took/take place, not the reasoning behind their existence. Example: There are symmetrical and asymmetrical atomic compounds. This is the truth. Science doesn't seek to explain why they're "designed" that way; that's a philosophical question. It only explains how they came to be in the shape that they are through repeated experiments that yield the same result. You can't do that with intelligent design. Therefore, it isn't science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here... Check this out!

Nature of the constants

Modern science as practiced since René Descartes is reductionist, meaning that it attempts to discover the most fundamental objects and rules governing the observable behavior of the universe. In descriptions of the physical universe, fundamental rules take the form of laws (usually equations relating physical quantities and properties) involving physical constants, while the fundamental objects are elementary particles with constant mass, charge, and other physical properties. This reductionism is a pragmatic approach that obtains results and is not a philosophical position on ontology. The nature of these constants is a much debated topic in physics and metaphysics (see string theory).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The intelligent design text books that were sent to classrooms, and started this whole riduculous 'intelligent design' debate, were written by creationists, and the original version had a passage which stated that the universe was created by a 'creator' hmmm... sounds like creationism

in fact,

there in the text, there is a passage where there's a typo, and you can see that the word creationsim was simply replaced with intelligent design.

which is why I once again, ask you to brush up on your history of the case of 'people and pandas'

in your own personal view of what 'intelligent design' might be, you may not see it as creationism... that's fine

but, what the 'scientists' and text book writers who have made intelligent design define it as, is certainly creationism.

I agree, but, and here's a big but, check out all the fence walkers and all the naysayers who finally "realized" after study and preponderance of information they analyzed then came to the conclusion that there may very well be truth to this hypothesis, and through time "became" Christians. How does this get explained? This is the charging opposition. I'm all for finding the truth even if it's something I don't choose to believe in or subscribe to. Because regardless of acceptance, truth remains truth!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't really matter anyway, the world will turn regardless. But, I love that folks like Ben Stein are taking this on. Kids are getting smart these days. Tired of being force feed secular fundamentalist science on a stick, not given the "freedom" to examine the evidence at hand objectively! Fuggin' great job Ben, I hope you make a shite load of money in the process!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahaha. Just wait until you try to pinpoint the exact location AND momentum of an electron

nuclear and quantum physics is terribly interesting :thumbsup:

just to imagine that everything we know as natural doesn't apply there... electrons can "tunnel" through "walls", or what you mentioned, the fact that you can only estimate the location OR the momentum of a particle, but not both

and one of my favourites: the fact that the mere observation of an experiment distorts the results... (see Schrödinger's cat)

:thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In agreement to that point, to believe in something 100 percent and never open your mind to another possibility is foolish, to accept anything as certainty is dangerous.

I mean, I certainly have delved into my 'spiritual side' on more than one occaision, I won't deny that there is something profound in just the ability to think, to be, to achieve sentience, and this soul, this realization of being, is surely more than just cells communicating furiously in my brain.... or maybe that is it.

It's just that, Intelligent design is a horse dookie, it was made up by christians for christians, and all the texts and so forth have a christian agenda

-see 'wedge document'

Sure, you can believe that something larger than the human race, be it a deity, or some distant trans-univeral highly evolved space-species, but those ponderings are for a philosophy class, or a comparitive religions course, not a science class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a lesson in all this: not everything can be known with certainty... and that is a truth :beatnik:

BEN STEIN :rockon:

touché and science does not veer from the truth, fear the truth or sneer the truth, it seeks the "ultimate" truth regardless of controversy! That's why I love science it is unbiased, people are biased based on believe or agenda, but true science considers everything to it's logical conclusion. Narrow minds stop searching in order to puff-up their shallow illusions, rest in content with results that serve their prejudice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Render unto Caesar that which is his. Render unto God that which is his." (Or something like that.) Creationism/Intelligent Design belongs in the church. If the kids won't go to church, that's the problem of the clergy. Unless you like "The Church is The State" regimes of Saudi Arabia, New Delhi, or Pyongyang. (Yes, Kim Jon-Il is a Stalinist God.) :soapbox:

Oi... hang on a minute! I just noticed New Delhi there. Church is state? Really? :P :crazy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nuclear and quantum physics is terribly interesting :thumbsup:

just to imagine that everything we know as natural doesn't apply there... electrons can "tunnel" through "walls", or what you mentioned, the fact that you can only estimate the location OR the momentum of a particle, but not both

and one of my favourites: the fact that the mere observation of an experiment distorts the results... (see Schrödinger's cat)

:thumbsup:

When I start to think about it, it all gets crazy. I don't have the need to believe in an invisible big man in the sky to see everything around me is already fantastic as it exists. Think about phrases like "particle-wave" and "probability cloud" when used to describe the electron's behaviour and location. You see a person's hand; then you come closer and see the fingers; then you come closer and you see "fingerprints;" then you come closer and you see smaller structures made up of specific cells (these are "alive" as well); then you look at the cellular structures; then you look at the larger proteins and amino acids; then you look at their respective compounds and elements; now you're closer to atoms; you get to an atom; now you got subatomic particles - particle-waves, probability clouds. You know how much empty space there is in that hand? Yet, compress aaaaaall that energy and space, and you got a solid hand. Add to the fact that every atom and subatomic particle in that hand have existed since - and before - the time of the Big Bang... and they will ALWAYS exist. To think in terms of "design" and "designer" lowers/dumbs everything down to the human mind. I suppose it is a human trait to have everything explained and answered. If we could talk to light and electricity we could probably get closer to the answers that we seek.

I dare anyone to go ahead and try :beatnik:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that the subject of "lack of design or designer" needs to be defended is the most interesting to me.

This thread should have been left dead and unresponsive if their is not a shred of doubt to the scientific certainty ID is a farce and a myth. eh?

Some people are afraid to even consider it. That's the bottom line.

Think about it. It's a compelling concept. And if it warrants no merit it will die in discussion with a echo of silence in any place including a school science class. Why can't this theory in it's (so-called) ultimate weakness be summarily tested, challenged and then discarded.

There are a number of scientists who are uncovering support for intelligent design. There is a growing list of rational top scientists who, whether or not they believe in God, are willing to admit the compelling evidence of an intelligent designer. Yet, those who oppose teaching intelligent design either dismiss evidence that supports it, or incorrectly claim that evolution and the big bang have airtight proof, and are therefore absolute. As the debate over teaching intelligent design in public schools continues, some questions will be answered. Will all possible explanations be considered, or only those that don't offend someone? Will the separation of church and state be warped to promote atheism, or upheld to defend an open and honest system of education? All About Science

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the fact that this exact same conversation amongst the exact same people took place about 3 years ago... If I remember correctly we kept going backwards and forwards and eventually just abandoned the subject. Although back then I don't think you accepted intelligent design, it was all about creation. Maybe in a few years time evolution will convince you as well??

As a scientist I probably should feel obligated to explain evolution. The simplest example of evolution happening within our lifespan is that of bacteria. Ever heard of MRSA? that's evolution, you start with staphylococcus aureus, you treat it with antibiotics but only kill about 99% of the colony, then the 1% evolves resistance and multiplies. you try treating it with another antibiotic and the same thing happens. SO we have MRSA, VRSA etc.

Obviously someone is now going to say that bacteria aren't the same as humans but it is the simplest example of evolution that anyone can understand.

and that's the end of the biology lesson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...