Why would you consider ID support an identifying feature of the 'right'?

Then again, I guess political theory suggests that the right prefers indoctination over evaluation, if you think this graph is an accurate reflection of dichotomies
http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~garfinkm/Spectrum.gif

I'm cynical...

Whatever it is, it's getting the treatment it deserves.

Ben Stein's bullshit dissected. I prefer the first half of the video: it's spot on.

Dammit for some reason I can't see your graph

Nah, but I'd consider conservatism as an identifying feature of ID supporters. Of course there are exceptions, but it IS Ben Stein's movie, you know, the guy that wrote Nixon's speeches. And ID has been proven in court to be a smokescreen for the fundamentalist creationist movement.
So I guess draw your own conclusions, perhaps half of ID supporters are liberal...

Sorry guys, i really had no intention of turning this into a political debate.

I like Michael Moore's trash!:smile:

I agree, some of Michael Moore's stuff has some decent points or is funny, it isn't the random faith attacks used by conservatives.

Just because it's funny doesn't mean it's not a one-sided propaganda film.

Explaining how bad healthcare is in America is not one sided trash as much as truth.

I'm not so sure. That video made use of quite a few dishonest tricks (quotes given without context) as well as edits for emotional effect (frequent repetition of words or short phrases). Especially galling was the reference to "Gott Mit Uns," it was Godwin at its finest. The phrase was a holdover from the Thirty Years War for crying out loud and had been worn by the German army in the First World War. There was no need to stick that in there as a "gotcha!" piece of evidence showing a link between Nazism and Christianity (let's not get into that here) The Waffen SS, who were much better representatives of National Socialism, used the "Meine Ehre heißt Treue" buckle. Anyway that video was just a schlocky piece of propaganda, but I suppose sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. Still I think that we can do better than that.

On the plus side it was nice that they mentioned the Jewish fantasy that they are the planet's "Chosen People." This is probably one of the few arenas where you can attack that with little fear of the anti-Semite label. All the bitter atheists should move away from attacking the safe target of Christianity and start hitting the other groups of adults with imaginary friends. Maybe it would be a good idea to start with the Abrahamic roots of all this trouble...

Watch his two previous films. Or better yet: don't.

I didn't particularly like the second part for most of the reasons you outlined. As for Godwin, it's refuting a movie claiming that evolution leads to Nazism. I think it's fair game. Factor in Martin Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies and latent anti-Semitism and you've got a great path to the Holocaust. But naturally, Darwin should be left out.

By the way, the ADL had this to say.

Not really. I attend a private Christian school and I know a few unbiased people. They have just heard a different set of facts that mislead them toward ID.

Im not really an intelligent design person, but I dont really think we have a competent grasp of evolution. I believe some as-of-yet unknown medium assisted evolution, whether this is some gene, chemical, god, aliens, whatever. I dont care. Its just the principle that i dotn ebleive evolution happened in the way we think it happened.

Have you taken any evolutionary biology classes?

Clearly not.

Um, then you're an intelligent design person. A respectable opinion I think, but that is the sum of what the movement claims to believe (although in reality, ID is a trojan horse to get creationism into textbooks).

No, but we have an evolution textbook and Ive read the evolution chapters outside of class, and Ive read plenty of materiel by both creationists and evolutionists. I really resent most creationsit literature; most of it is manipulative and illogical.

No, not necessarily intelligent design. I would refer to it more as assisted mutation; not necessarily the product of a superior intelligence. Some philosopher came up with this same idea a long time ago; I believe he called it the Elan Vital, which is usually translated as life force. Google it for more info.

Thats very bigoted of you. See my answers above.

I stand by my previous statement entirely.

Could you provide us with any evidence for that "assisted mutation?" And please no irreducible complexity...

And I hope you understand that the fact that some philosophers came up with the same idea a long time ago is not an evidence for it.

No, you dont. I ahve read evolutionary books and websites, mainly the oens dedicated to busting creationsim.

Theres no evidence. Its an untesteble theory. I just like the idea thats all.
My problem with evolution is that genetics really doesnt support it. Mutations are extremely rare, since the mitosis (or meoisis, I cant rememebr which) process has safegaurds against it. When mutations occur, they are usually destructive, althogh it would be illogical to deny the possibility of a benificial mutation. I simply propose a mechanism that would bypass the safegaurds and allow rapidity in evolution, thus evolution would leap foreward rather than the proposed slow changing.

And, like all sciences, evolution is riddled with errors, such as the piltdown man and the "evolving horses" timeline, which is shown differently ine evry museum and contaisn blatently non-equine animals. But I take these mistakes in stride - people are stupid and likely to make errors. Scientists are no exeption.
Not to mention the various socially destructive effects of evolution, such as providing the framework of racism. However, this is obviosuly not proof against the science, just what i consider an ethical flaw in the philosophy.

I obviously know that just because soem philosopher said it doesnt make it true. Im just pointing out that someone besides me thinks this. All of thsi si my ownb material and thought though.

You just believe in it because you like the idea? Well, I think it would have been cool if pink unicoorns populated Jupiter, so, can I believe so??


The rarity of mutations and all that is exactly why evoolution happens over a very, very long span of time. And why do you just want to make it more rapid? Earth had plenty of time for life to evolve.


And what's the flaw with evolution? An error in a timeline is not a flaw in the theory that organisms gradually evolved. And "people are stupid and like to make errors?" Who the hell likes to make errors? And even if one makes an error, it's not always because he's stupid.

Allow me to repeat myself: clearly not.

If you use the (cubic/six-sided) dice analogy, it's not like rolling fifteen die until all land on six; it's like removing any sixes you get from the other die every roll (assuming there are any in a given roll), and doing so until all the top faces are sixes. Singular traits don't just drop out until all traits match the desired outcome; they are 'selected' by means of darwinism over time to produce the evolutionarily desired outcome.

Evolution riddled with errors? Like creationism, huh? Except that there is fossil records, logic, evidence of mutation, and clear evidence of natural selection, while for creationism (and any form it may possess, such as your own) there isn't jack shit. The only "errors" in evolution are the lack of some sub-species and species, but that's because not all remains are fossilized, and so logically, it is very likely that entire species will never be discovered.

Ben Stein comes from the world of politics. The way he presents his positions in the media might bear little or no resemblance to his real views. I always thought he was a shyster.

I know. I didnt say it was a flaw with evolution. Its just a comment that nothign is perfect and science tends to upheave itself. 500 years ago we thought the earth was flat. People make mistakes. As evidenced by the fact that I accidentlaly said "like to make mistakes" instead of "likely."


edit: Oops sorry Im new to editing these and my replies are in the quote box. Sorry.

Your obviously a very illogical person if you think what im talking about is creationism in any sense of the word. I didnt even propose supernatural casues; I said it may have been. I dont care what it may ahve been. The theory is that soemthign did, not anythign in particular because I lack the resources to figure out what that somethign may or may not have been. And the fossil record si the clearest and msot prominent evidence for evolution; theres now ay to deny it logically.
The real difference ehre is our philosophical beleifs; I beleive that everyoen and everythign will amkek errors and I should think through what I believe makes sense on my own. You clearly beleive whatever is accepted by everyoen else (at least on this issue). Thats not necessarily a bad thing. Its an opinion. Im tired of arguing with you.

Yeah, I'm sure every geneticists will agree with you on that.

Evolution and genetics were merged during the modern synthesis.

Speaking of people making errors, it seems you're one of the best at your craft of error-making. Between your constant logical and grammatical errors, I'd say you trump most people on these forums without the slightest doubt.

And what you're proposing is creationism; you're saying that a force foreign to evolution eases, accelerates, or drives the process. That's just another brand, and one which many sects of Christianity have themselves picked up in the face of evolution's scientific confirmation.

It's not Creationism. Creationism/Intelligent Design says that something came and created humans and/or purposely altered evolution. He's saying that something (radioactivity, volatile chemicals from... somewhere, etc) inadvertently mutated certain organisms and thus altered the evolutionary pattern. His stance, while unprovable, is perfectly logical. It's a theory, just like the Big Bang is a theory, or the dinosaurs dying because of a meteor crashing into Earth is a theory.

The radioactivity thing is a part of evolution. The higher the radiation levels, as long as they're not lethal, the higher the mutation rate. What could have caused evolution if not radiation and accidents during cell reproduction? Maybe little green guys in space ships or magical sky daddies, but neither are logical nor have any supporting evidence.

I believe quantum physics have backed up the Big Bang and expanded it into the "11 dimensions & String Theory" sciences. A meteor crashing and killing the dinosaurs isn't exactly theory either, it's now widely accepted as scientifically proven with the KT boundry and the massive crater in Mexico. Unless he has evidence to support the "theory" that radiation or chemicals caused evolutionary mutations, it's not even remotely valid.

Evolution, by and large, is not spurred on by radiation or chemicals. It's spurred on by environmental changes and adaptations of all plants, animals, etc., to be able live in those new environments. Now, I'm not saying that it's impossible that radiation or chemicals (say, in the environment) couldn't have played a part, but by and large, environment plays the key role in turning evolution's gears.

Case in point: Ancient hominids species began standing upright because forested areas gave way to grasslands. They were no longer so easily protected by trees and now had to evolve into upright animals to see over the tall grasses to spot predators and the like.

You're forgetting that mutations are random, but that evolution "selects" which mutations will survive to become part of the genetic norm for a species. Mutations are brought about from cosmic radiation and cellular mishaps.

One of the big mistakes creationism commits is the idea that a mindless process such as evolution has a goal or that it strives to achieve something, humans perhaps. No it doesn't.

The same goes for this "life force" or whatever it is. That's just assigning a purpose on something that has none. Tree-hugging hippie crap at its best, I say, and probably something a pot-smoker might find very profound at some point.

Mutations, either by radiation, chemistry, bad luck or anything, create new genetic variation, and while most new alleles are certainly useless or outright detrimental, and get pruned in the process, occasionally some of them turn out to be good modifications. There's no need for any mysticism, it's all randomness combined with a mindless, more or less statistical sieves that weed out the bad and leave the good stuff, the sieves including the environment, competition from other species and the members of the same species, and a lot of little details; also, the other genes in the same individual. It really is as simple as that, but the consequences are mind-boggling, and much more awesome than some "intelligent designer", a "creator" or an unnecessary "life force" that people seem to need as an explanation in the face of real marvels.

Well said and correct. It's the same as the cosmos - I find it boring to think that a magical figure wagged his finger and conjured the universe. It is much more majestic to understand that it was a natural process.

What is more majestic doesn't matter. What matters is what actually happened, and fortunately for you, it was a natural process.

Yes, I am aware of my constant grammatical errors - I type very fast and dont have the time to go back and change it.

And my arguments arent illogical from the perspective of what I have read. People's logic is based on what they know/think they know. I think I know the facts. I probably dont. You probably dont either. Thats life. I make a logical conclusion based on what I have heard with a little random guessing that COULD explain somethign but probamly doesnt. Just like the Oort Cloud, which as I ahve stated, is accepted dont he grounds that it makes sense but doesnt have any proof.

And, again, its not cretaionism. Creationism is the belief that some power created the world. It COULD be intelligent design, but not necessarily, as I made no opinion as to what this force is, because I dont have one.

I propose that a.) mustations occurred due to the unknown driving force and where than b.) picked out through the force of natural selectiona as it relates to c.) the changing enviroment. Its not that far off from what you said.

The translation as "life force" is inaccurate. When the philosopher said that, he was talking about a enigmatic force that he said drove matter to diversify and evolve. He does not even claim it to be supernatural, as supernatural would defy the purpose (how can something be natural if ti arose supernaturally?).
An intelligent Designer is just the way people reconcile creationism and evolution. It helps people hold on to there faith without breaking any logical rules, which is fine by me.

Yeah, evolution isn't perfect. Many mutations are the "wrong kind of adaption," if you will. Scientists have discovered very ancient, long-extinct "failed" species of hominid with features of more advanced species(sorry I don't have any specifics on hand for you). The said feature was then absent from the fossil record and the next immediately-following species, but then reappeared in a new species on down the line. It's evidence of the randomness of evolution--the trial and error way that it works.

There is vastly more evidence of successful evolutionary traits simply because they were "successful." It's probably the reason evolution was/is seen as a straight line of advancement by some. Successful mutations lasted long enough to leave more in the fossil record. It would seem that, the smaller an organism is, and the faster it reproduces, the more likely it's mutations are to be successful or the less likely we are to witness failed mutations. We have fossil evidence of "failed" hominid mutations. However, viruses and insects and the like reproduce so quickly, and can change so fast, we don't really see a "failed" flu virus, or "failed" cockroach.


I think the Giant Panda is a funny animal in that, I think if there are laws to nature, the Giant Panda is one that is supposed to become extinct. It's a large bear-like animal that evolved to hunt and eat meat. Yet they live their lives eating foraging and eating bamboo. They either need to mutate into an animal made to be a herbivore, or they need to be allowed to simply die off. They look like a failed evolutionary creature that's kept partially successful because of human intervention--and perhaps the fact that they simply haven't been allowed the necessary time to drop into extinction.


I don't believe I've ever heard "cosmic radiation" has a role in evolution. I won't deny that it could, but I haven't heard that before. Where did you get that?