CvEint2

[bigfilmhat]

You are really cute. But you shouldn't fall for this "intelligent" design non-sense, it's complete crap, astrology is closer to science than "intelligent" design.

There aren't any "alternate theories" for the origin or the progress of biological organisms. "Intelligent" Design isn't a theory, it isn't a field of study, it isn't science in any way shape or form, it is religious.

[jzuidema]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO, dont say your going for the 'missing links argument'? You wouldnt, would ya? We have TONS of socalled missing links....checkout human, tetrapod, horse and whale evolution for example. And students dont decide what theory is better, scientists with expertise do. Science is not done or debated in a classroom.....And I have never heard of gravitons being taught as an opposing view to einstein...Youre not properly explaining gravitons here, its a particle, not a theory for gravity...

[PunkChico27]

Awesome job! ;)

[NomadSoul76]

Now, shall we talk about Crocker? A teacher who broke the law by teaching creationism in a science class? Despite this violation she was allowed to finish her contract, the contract was simply not renewed. A fate that befalls many people, often for no punitive reason.

How is the connection between her support of ID and the failure to have her contract renewed established? And how do you get around her breaking the law in the mean time?

[Alternate2GOP]

"How is the connection between her support of ID and the failure to have her contract renewed established?"

If I have to explain it to you then you shouldn't even be commenting here in the first place.

"And how do you get around her breaking the law in the mean time?"

When did Crocker or anyone in the ID movement break the law?

[Alternate2GOP]

"The question remains, what was he expelled from? NOTHING."

So both the Smithsonian and NIH are "NOTHING." I'm willing to accept that claim, but for different reasons.

[Alternate2GOP]

.....these do not qualify as persecution?

[Alternate2GOP]

"If you want to play that game.. Caroline Crocker was also "expelled" from her job at an ID focused group."

What group was this?

"So the ID people are into persecution too, right?"

How so? Seems like you changed the subject from that last sentence.

"If by living hell, you mean they didn't like him.. then, well.. tough. Being disliked by your peers is NOT persecution."

Taking away keys to your own office, spying on you, spreading rumors for the sake of character assassination....

[biologezwei]

Wow. Quantum gravity and the theory of relativity are now taught in public schools and students can decide whether they accept them? I'm amazed. Instead, they should teach how to think scientifically. Hint: it involves a bit more than "designer produce CSI, therefore IC proves there is a designer" and it never involves equating two different concepts (CSI != IC). OTOH CSI is so poorly defined that that's probably an easy mistake to make.

[Alternate2GOP]

Comments like this make me wonder if maybe surpression can have a just cause behind it. Not saying it had no substance but come on...

[paulbluebell]

nice video! one thought, though: you said the Supreme Court ruled on ID, and said it wasn't science. however, it was actually only a federal district court in Pennsylvania.

[SaganAppreciationSoc]

No matter. The facts have nothing to do with "intelligent design". ID folks ignore facts when convenient.

[Alternate2GOP]

"ID folks ignore facts when convenient. "

Like when?

[NomadSoul76]

"ID folks ignore facts when convenient"

Like when they claimed that the whole list of people in the movie Expelled were.. well.. expelled. The first example in particular. Sternberg was expelled from nothing. He lost nothing. The only change in his status was the fact that *HE* chose to resign from the journal he had been editing BEFORE HE PUBLISHED THE ARTICLE.

Yet he's the very first example of people who were supposed to be suppressed by the evil darwinist conspiracy.

[Alternate2GOP]

"Like when they claimed that the whole list of people in the movie Expelled were.. well.. expelled."

Holy crap, Caroline Crocker still has here job???

"Sternberg was expelled from nothing. He lost nothing. The only change in his status was the fact that *HE* chose to resign from the journal he had been editing BEFORE HE PUBLISHED THE ARTICLE."

So what you're saying is that they never fired him, they just made his life a living hell? NPR had a good story on this...

[Alternate2GOP]

"Yet he's the very first example of people who were supposed to be suppressed by the evil darwinist conspiracy."

Oh yeah, what about everyone else in the movie (e.g., Gonzalez, Marks, or the various journalists who took crap just for giving balanced treatment in their reporting)?

[NomadSoul76]

"Oh yeah, what about everyone else in the movie"

Gonzalez failed to earn his tenure, it's as simple as that. He failed to bring in adequate grant money, his publication rate dropped off once he swallowed the ID pill.. basically his performance was inadequate.

The worst that happened to Marks was that he had to put a disclaimer on his website. Yes, that was truly awful..

Do you really need more? The things that you have been told about these people are not the truth.

[gdunntm]

gonzalez's record was 2nd in his department, furthermore to receive tenure at IOWA you need 15 published articles. He had over 30.

[NomadSoul76]

His record was second in what?

And as to the article count.. you're including papers he published before he ever came to Iowa State. That's a common trick used to try to cover up his lack of performance. If you look at his entire record you can see that his publication rate dropped off considerably once he went to Iowa State.

[Alternate2GOP]

"His record was second in what?"

I would think astronomy...

"And as to the article count.. you're including papers he published before he ever came to Iowa State. That's a common trick used to try to cover up his lack of performance."

How is this a trick? It's his whole entire record before and after he came to Iowa, and of course all the papers are from BEFORE he received any form of tenure.

[gdunntm]

thanks I didnt think I needed to say astronomy and he had 31 papers since 2001 (the year he came to ISU

[NomadSoul76]

""His record was second in what?"

I would think astronomy..."

What you think is not the issue.

"How is this a trick? It's his whole entire record before and after he came to Iowa, and of course all the papers are from BEFORE he received any form of tenure."

No it is NOT. The question at the heart of the tenure decision is his performance at the university that is contemplating granting him tenure. What he did for other universities has no bearing on the issue.

[gdunntm]

thats completely false, many times in employment any boss looks at previous work experience. Both the work at the University and previous work are considered.

[Alternate2GOP]

"What you think is not the issue."

So he wasn't specializing in astronomy?

"No it is NOT. The question at the heart of the tenure decision is his performance at the university that is contemplating granting him tenure. What he did for other universities has no bearing on the issue."

Why not?

[Alternate2GOP]

"If you look at his entire record you can see that his publication rate dropped off considerably once he went to Iowa State."

Right, that's because instead of spending his entire time publishing papers he also co-authored an astronomy book called, "Observational Astronomy" used internationally by Universities and was also peer-reviewed by Cambridge university press.

[gdunntm]

he was 2nd among the rankings in his department. At IOWA state they rank the astronomers based on their performance, he basically outperformed those above him who had tenure, yet he was denied it. Interesting, as for your other claim he had 31 articles published since 2001 which was the year he joined IOWA. That's double the requirement for tenure, you should look at Michael Shermers Fact free attack on expelled. Its on the discovery institutes website

[NomadSoul76]

"he was 2nd among the rankings in his department. At IOWA state they rank the astronomers based on their performance, he basically outperformed those above him"

And where did you get those numbers? Who provided this ranking? Cite your sources, it's the first rule of scientific work. You have to learn this, you can't just make stuff up and claim it's true.

[gdunntm]

"And where did you get those numbers? Who provided this ranking? Cite your sources, it's the first rule of scientific work." You say I need to do this yet I havent seen you cite one source to back up any of your claims. In addition, either you didnt see it or you ignored my source at the end of the comment "Michael Shermers Fact Free Attack on Expelled, a response by Casey Luskin" Its on the DI's webiste.

[Alternate2GOP]

We should be asking you the same thing.

[gdunntm]

Oh and as for your math on his article count. He has over 60 articles published over 30 of them came when he was at IOWA

[NomadSoul76]

"Oh and as for your math on his article count. He has over 60 articles published over 30 of them came when he was at IOWA "

Where were these articles published? Seeing as I've already been given a reference to an article in which an ID propoganda site praised his performance, I won't be surprised to find that most of these articles were published in ID sites rather than scientific journals.

[gdunntm]

"I've already been given a reference to an article in which an ID propoganda praised his performance" If he had over 15 articles (which he did) (Michael Shermers fact free attack on expelled) just siting the source again for you he met the requirement, a scientist who supports ID has just as much authority as one who doesnt.

[NomadSoul76]

The thing that's interesting is that his performance started dropping off when he started working on intelligent design. It would seem that intelligent design is an unproductive subject to work in.

[Alternate2GOP]

"The thing that's interesting is that his performance started dropping off when he started working on intelligent design."

His progress NEVER dropped off. He only had a shortage of papers when he started going to Iowa when he co-authored an internationally used, peer-reviewed book on astronomy which was later adopted by his own department, how can you claim things started "dropping off" when he went to Iowa?

[NomadSoul76]

"His progress NEVER dropped off. He only had a shortage of papers when he started going to Iowa when he co-authored an internationally used, peer-reviewed book on astronomy which was later adopted by his own department, how can you claim things started "dropping off" when he went to Iowa?"

So tell me, is the primary factor used in tenure decisions whether one has made a textbook?

You're trying to dodge the issue. Iowa State is a research driven institute. His research was inadequate.

[Alternate2GOP]

"It would seem that intelligent design is an unproductive subject to work in."

Then why did his questions regarding the significance of the earth's location lead to a whole new factor for astro-biological research (the galactic habitable zone)?

[gdunntm]

Unproductive subject to work in, If it was really that unproductive there wouldnt be such a controversy over this issue. The day scientists totally forget about ID is the day it fails, and with the amount of knowledge being gained from it, thats not happening anytime soon

[NomadSoul76]

"Unproductive subject to work in, If it was really that unproductive there wouldnt be such a controversy over this issue"

The only controversy exists within the public, not the experts.

"and with the amount of knowledge being gained from it, thats not happening anytime soon"

Name a single useful piece of information gained from the study of ID. Go ahead. What have we learned from it, what has it accomplished?

[gdunntm]

"The only controversy exists within the public, not the experts." I wont judge as I try not to but either you're being willfully ignorant or you dont realize that you are wrong on this fact. My source for this one is the list "A scientific dissent from darwinism" In 2001 it started off with 100 signatures who at the very least see SOME problems in evolution (that doesn't mean they reject it but they might) that list now has over 700 scientists.

[biologezwei]

Look up "project steve". Then you might realize how utterly pathetic that list of yours is. Or look up the AAAS statement regarding evolution (AAAS serves some 262 affiliated societies and academies of science, serving 10 million individuals). Or look up "Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences" to find out what they think. Or just count how many biologists are on your list.

[gdunntm]

"Look up "project steve". Then you might realize how utterly pathetic that list of yours is." My claim is not that the ID proponents claims have the majority of the support in the scienitific community. So when you call my list patehtic you fail to realize that there are clearly people on both sides of this issue. It used to be the minority oppinion that the sun was in the center and that the planets revolved around it and that hypothesis turned out to be sucessful.

[biologezwei]

".. you fail to realize that there are clearly people on both sides of this issue." Oh, I know that there are people on both sides of the issue. Scientist on the one side and creationists on the other. Do you accept that the cause of AIDS is HIV infection? Some people deny that incl. Peter Duesberg, a scientist. There're still people who believe in a flat earth! That doesn't justify that Duesberg's conspiracy theories are taught in schools or a flat earth is presented as an "alternative" view.

[gdunntm]

." Oh, I know that there are people on both sides of the issue. Scientist on the one side and creationists on the other. " First of all lets distinguish ID from creationism, creationism invokes the supernatural ID clearly does not. Onto your next point due to the fact the dissent from darwin list is growing as it has fro 2001-2007 there is evidence to show that a growing number of credible scientists really do find scienitifc flaw with evoluiton and support ID unlike the idea of a flat earth.

[biologezwei]

ID doesn't invoke the supernatural? Then explain to me which natural entity could over billions of years introduce new species or new genes or whatever (IDists never say what he/she/it allegedly did) into life on earth. Or could've designed the whole universe.

[gdunntm]

First of all who/what the designer is isn't the point of the ID theory. It's about detecting signs of intelligents (CSI) in nature. That's like saying evolution has to explain the origin of life which evolutionists hate when they are accused of that. As for your other question Francis Crick suggested the possiblity that life was seeded onto earth by an extra terrestrial being.  PERSONALLY(and I'm not afraid to say it) I think it was God. But look at David Berlinski, he's an agnostic

[biologezwei]

ID doesn't say that it's only about where the first life came from. If it were, it wouldn't conflict with evolution theory. ID says that a designer constantly interfered (again, what natural entity could've done that?). But it doesn't say to what extend. Did he introduce single mutations, genes (into individuals or all members of a population?), or whole new species? How do they want to calculate information introduced by a designer if they do not even say what he allegedly did?

[biologezwei]

I've yet to see any objective calculation of "CSI" for a real biological system. Maybe you can point me to one? The only thing I see them doing is calculating the odds of card games.

Re "because the DI wants a variety of oppinions" LOL. I'd say it's so weak in order to get any scientists at all to sign it. I looked up two randomly choosen "biology" profs from that list. One was working in cardiovascular pathology (Ely), the other didn't have a single article and got no google hits (M. Flowers)

[biologezwei]

Maybe you should apply some critical thinking and fact checking to that list. You know the point in critical thinking is that you should apply it to your own position, too.

[gdunntm]

again, what natural entity could've done "that?)." Did you read my last comment? ID is about detecting signs of intelligence (CSI) in nature. As to your question, Francis Crick believed that an extra terrestrial being may have seeded life here. David Berlinski, an agnostic (although not an ID supporter) believes that the mechanism of evolution falls short. You cant tell somethings designed without knowing who/what the designer is.

[biologezwei]

Re list: "really do find scienitifc flaw with evoluiton and support ID." No, they don't. The statement reads:"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." ID isn't mentioned. The statement is so weak, I could've signed it. There's more to evolution than RM+NS and I'm always for examining evidence. BTW have you counted the biologists yet?

[gdunntm]

The reason that statement is "so weak" as you claim is because the DI wants a variety of oppinions and when you say have I counted the bilogists, you also have to count the chemists and biochemists whose work is heavily involved with evolution. So no I haven't counted a list thats over 700 signatures long. Oh and don't forget the scientists involved with genetics (which are also on the list) as that is also involved with studying the design of different species.

[NomadSoul76]

The reason we're having this discussion is because ID has completely failed to function as a scientific theory. Therefore it's religiously motivated promoters are seeking to bypass the scientific process and to go straight to indoctrinating children. That is why there is this "controversy".

[Alternate2GOP]

Glad there's someone who actually sought the truth on this one. Look for a friend invite.

[Alternate2GOP]

"Gonzalez failed to earn his tenure, it's as simple as that."

He was DENIED tenure. Now let's see what other talking points you've copied from ExpelledExposed.....

"He failed to bring in adequate grant money,"

How much would that have been and how much did he bring in?

"his publication rate dropped off once he swallowed the ID pill.."

What was the pub. rate before and what was the rate after?

[gdunntm]

lol expelled exposed, that site is pathetic I have a question for you though I realize that Sternberg was definitly persecuted but what was the truth about him resigning six months before the Meyer articles. Expelled Exposed says that but I dont believe them after they said he snuck the article through the backdoor with the BSW's own president admitted wasnt true.

[NomadSoul76]

"I realize that Sternberg was definitly persecuted but what was the truth about him resigning six months before the Meyer articles"

Yes, what is the truth about it? Where shall you go to determine it? The people that told you that he was kicked out of his office and told to hand in his keys, when the truth was that he had only been moved to a different office and that his keys had been replaced by a keycard system?

They lie to you and you run back for more.

[Alternate2GOP]

According to an article entitled "ISU astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez's stellar publication record outshines colleagues" he had more than twice what you needed to gain tenure.

The only reason his publishing rate dropped off was because (surprise!) he co-authored an astronomy text book entitled, "Observational Astronomy" So why was he denied tenure again?

[NomadSoul76]

"According to an article entitled "ISU astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez's stellar publication record outshines colleagues" he had more than twice what you needed to gain tenure."

Where as this article published?  Cite your sources.

[Alternate2GOP]

"The worst that happened to Marks was that he had to put a disclaimer on his website. Yes, that was truly awful.."

Correction: they shut down his website and forced him to return grant money.

"Do you really need more? The things that you have been told about these people are not the truth."

I should be asking/telling you the same thing...

[NomadSoul76]

"Correction: they shut down his website and forced him to return grant money. "

Yes, because he was unwilling to add the disclaimer. Rather than work with them, he moved the website off to a third party provider. I'll remind you that until this point, the university was hosting it. Despite it hosting his own private content that they weren't associated with.

[NomadSoul76]

"ID folks ignore facts when convenient"

Or take the concept of irreducible complexity. Every example given of something that was supposed to be irreducible has been demonstrated to be reducible. Yet somehow the same false examples keep being used.

Why do you suppose that is?

[Alternate2GOP]

"Or take the concept of irreducible complexity. Every example given of something that was supposed to be irreducible has been demonstrated to be reducible."

You're not talking about Ken Miller's straw man are you?

"Yet somehow the same false examples keep being used."

Despite the fact that people have pointed out to Miller that it's the SYSTEM that irreducible and not the parts, he still uses that same argument....

[NomadSoul76]

"Despite the fact that people have pointed out to Miller that it's the SYSTEM that irreducible and not the parts, he still uses that same argument...."

Hehe. Oh really? You mean like the clotting system? Woops, that one is reducible too..

What system are you referring to?

The bacterial flagellum was not a straw man, it was a genuine example that is STILL used today, despite being known to be reducible.

[Alternate2GOP]

"Hehe. Oh really? You mean like the clotting system? Woops, that one is reducible too.."

You can reduce it to fewer steps in vertebrate land animals without getting things like hemophilia??? I'd like to know more.

"The bacterial flagellum was not a straw man, it was a genuine example that is STILL used today, despite being known to be reducible."

So you can build it piece by piece while having each part added in the step retain it's original function? Please, do tell.

[NomadSoul76]

"You can reduce it to fewer steps in vertebrate land animals without getting things like hemophilia"

Since when does irreducible complexity require that it stay within vertebrate land animals? Seems to me you know that aquatic vertebrates are known to have clotting systems that lack parts of the supposedly reducible system, so you're trying to artificially restrict the concept.

You're lying. You know that your side has been caught lying. But you're trying to escape rather than own up to it.

[gdunntm]

The Flagellum is NOT reducible, Behe's claim is that the system cant work if its reduced. (If the flagellums reduced it cant work, thats true) Millers leap of faith is that maybe overtime everything came together to form the flagellum. That's a very improbable specified complexity problem.

[Alternate2GOP]

"Why do you suppose that is?"

See my comment just prior to this.

[NomadSoul76]

"ID folks ignore facts when convenient. "

Oh, one more example.. in this video it is claimed that no missing links have been found, ever.

El wrongo.

Would you like any more examples, or is this enough to demonstrate the manner with which ID proponents handle the facts?

[hornylink]

"ID folks ignore facts when convenient. "

Ooh, ooh, I got one. Vestigial organs and appendages, such as wings in flightless birds and the appendix in humans.

[Alternate2GOP]

"Ooh, ooh, I got one. Vestigial organs and appendages, such as wings in flightless birds and the appendix in humans. "

What does this have to do with ID?

[NomadSoul76]

"What does this have to do with ID? "

Well let's think about it.. ID says that life today was designed. Your arguments about IC systems is based upon the idea that the systems we see today can only perform the function that we see today.

So how do you explain systems that both lose their function, and that pick up a new one (the human appendix in particular)?

[Alternate2GOP]

"Oh, one more example.. in this video it is claimed that no missing links have been found, ever."

What ID proponent said this?

"Would you like any more examples, or is this enough to demonstrate the manner with which ID proponents handle the facts?"

I think all this is a good example of how YOU handle the facts (poorly).

[NomadSoul76]

""Oh, one more example.. in this video it is claimed that no missing links have been found, ever."

What ID proponent said this?"

THE GIRL WHO POSTED THE VIDEO THAT THAT WE ARE POSTING COMMENTS UNDER. Remember, as I said, "in this video"? You REALLY don't let the facts bother you, do you?

"I think all this is a good example of how YOU handle the facts (poorly). "

You sure you don't want to take that back?

[NaoTio]

Nice video. I wonder if it will be enough to win the contest?