A War On Science: Intelligent Design

[The Lawspeaker]

m7-pLNFQONI
A War On Science: Intelligent Design

Broadcast (2006) Intelligent Design takes on Darwinism in a sleepy Pennsylvania town. One hundred and fifty years after the publication of On the Origin of Species, an unprecedented legal battle has gripped America over an illegal attempt to teach Intelligent Design, a theory that stipulates that nature is so complicated and existence so improbable that it cannot be accounted for by the processes of evolution. It is an essentially Creationist theory which claims a legitimate challenge to Evolution. As the world's media descended on a small U.S. town, even the President took an active interest.

The trial was Kitmiller et al vs. Dover District School in Harris, Pennsylvania. At stake was the question of how life began, and a group of highly educated scientists and professors fought to prove that the world was designed by God. The plaintiffs consisted largely of parents fighting for their kids' education. The Dover District School Board, an elected body of local notorieties, became the first in the USA to demand the teaching of the controversial theory of Intelligent Design.

Since the Dover School Board's fateful decision, the town has become the battleground for the latest skirmish in the war between religion and secularism. A War on Science asks: Is the argument of the prosecution merely Creationism in disguise? Has science been committing fraud on a massive scale?

[BeerBaron]

How does anyone even still believe in a magical sky daddy?

[The Lawspeaker]

How does anyone even still believe in a magical sky daddy?
Plenty of people still do and in America they want to force it on the kids. I think that's very dangerous.

[Efim45]

Shut up nigger cunts.

[The Lawspeaker]

Shut up nigger cunts.
Oi. I am not a nigger but I damn well am a cunt and I am not going to shut up for you. :cool:

[Lady Vengeance]

"Intelligent design"...who the fuck actually believes in that.

This girl is an atheist. Even describing myself as “an atheist” feels pretty weird, it’s a word for those dolts who actually take the religion issue seriously. My view, a typical view in Sweden, is that serious religiousness on the part of anyone born in the First World is a sign of retardism.


Shut up nigger cunts.
Love you too, sweetie pie.

[The Lawspeaker]

I believe that there is something out there but we simply don't know what it is and until he/she/it has either revealed itself or has it's existence proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by science I am not going to take religious people very seriously.

Some people believe in sky daddy.. children believe in Sinterklaas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinterklaas). At least I can understand it from children.. since they are children.

[Smaland]

m7-pLNFQONI

When I tried to play the video, I received the following message: "This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated due to multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement ..."

If it is available from another source, please re-post the video so that we may view it.

[Eldritch]

When I tried to play the video, I received the following message: "This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated due to multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement ..."

If it is available from another source, please re-post the video so that we may view it.

Yes, same here.


Shut up nigger cunts.

Excuse me ?!?

[The Lawspeaker]

Damn... a good documentary gone. :(

[BeerBaron]

Shut up nigger cunts.

Well how very christian of you to say so:rolleyes:

[Eldritch]

http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1171733477l/117047.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blind_Watchmaker)

(click image)

[Smaland]

We look at the universe around us, and we realize immediately that no human could possibly have created it. But just because we can't, it doesn't follow that there isn't Someone else who can, and did.

[BeerBaron]

We look at the universe around us, and we realize immediately that no human could possibly have created it. But just because we can't, it doesn't follow that there isn't Someone else who can, and did.

Just because humans can't create a universe ( but we are trying look up the large hardon particle collider) doesn't lend any credibility what so ever to the existence of a magical sky daddy.

:lightbul: "god did it" has been humanities number one excuse for the things we don't completely understand throughout our history. It needs to stop, its insulting

[GeistFaust]

I believe in the universe from Planck's perspective. Evolution is the result of an unconscious stimulus which simaltaneously produced matter. There are multiple universes and parallel time lines where the evolution of material substances is similar to the process that is experienced on earth. In essence space is the connecting gel which coaelsces time with itself and there are "multiple" representations of space and almost an infinite amount of representations that correspond to this "space".

[GeistFaust]

The process of creation was most likely very subtle and nuanced to our minds but we are probably "perceiving" its course in our ordinary day to day actions. The human capacity to create attempts to coalsce itself with the universal energy which is responsible for creation. They work in a corresponding harmony with each other but the development of existence has much to do with man made forces as it does for some "external" energy force.

[Nameless Son]

The watchmaker argument is actually kind of interesting to me. If you look at a watch you see it must have had a maker, because it is too complex to have arisen from completely random natural processes. By analogy, life on earth must have a maker because it too is very complex. That's how the argument generally goes. It's the best argument for the existence of God I've ever heard.

The watch actually was made by natural process (though they aren't random - nature never is). We like to set ourselves apart from natural, but the physical world would make no sense if we did this. Physics relies on the causal closure of the physical world of which our bodies are a part, and relies too on the close correlation (if not identity) of our minds to our brains. Therefore everything we think and perceive is a process of the natural world.

But of course we still make the watch. That fact is simply compatible with the fact that the watch is made by natural process. But then why do we set ourselves apart from nature? Why do we recognize the physical system that is the body as intelligent but not a physical system like a weather system? Evolution can give us one kind of explanation, but this leaves us a little unsatisfied. We must love, hate, etc. in order to survive in the Darwinian sense, and to attribute these emotions to people we must first attribute intent to them. They intended to steal, they intended the only best, etc.. And this intension gives us the license to be angry at someone, or love someone. Try to imagine being angry at a determinant physical system that does not have the power of intention i.e. free will.

So if we have evolved to believe each other minded, with intent, and free willed (this isn't to say we do this falsely - remember, compatiblism), then perhaps we have evolved to believe that physical systems much larger than ourselves are minded, and have intent and free will.

To say that the gods (did you really think I was a christian?) are just in our heads or just "subjective" is a cheap excuse. Is every other human I see not minded and free willed just because they are a determinant physical system? No, because the ability to attribute minds (or "souls") is evolved into us and we need it every day of our lives to get by.

(The million dollar explanation is the one that can be more satisfying than the evolutionary one I've just given.)

[Eldritch]

The watchmaker argument is actually kind of interesting to me. If you look at a watch you see it must have had a maker, because it is too complex to have arisen from completely random natural processes.

....

Actually the watch is, indirectly, a result of natural processes -- not "random" ones, but ones with no specific goal.

[Nameless Son]

Actually the watch is, indirectly, a result of natural processes -- not "random" ones, but ones with no specific goal.

I agree, though I think it's direct not indirect. I was just stating the argument as it usually is. I don't agree with it stated that way, but I think it's part of the way there to a good argument for god(s).

[Austin]

If the interests of white Europeans go against the latest scientific and or political/ideological findings or theories then those scientists/politicians can just have fatal accidents as far as I'm concerned.

Ideology is always second to ones people and culture or should be in my eyes. This is what I loathe about the sycophantic-white-anti-white-progressive in all forms. They will and do gladly sell out their own people and cultural establishments which provided them the foundation for their conclusions all so they can keep in line with their adopted ideology whatever that may be.

I would put it to any white European very bluntly, were white European populations more numerically healthy and prosperous culturally when they were religious or secular? I don't think the answer is very hard at all. Secularism is fun but doesn't achieve sustainable populations and culture, on the contrary, it has a proven record of destroying both.

[antonio]

Religions, soft approachs to them, are crucial on progress and social health. In fact they were crucial during men early-stages, they raised him from bestial states, that's for sure. There're should be a point in all of those.:cool:

[BeerBaron]

Religions, soft approachs to them, are crucial on progress and social health. In fact they were crucial during men early-stages, they raised him from bestial states, that's for sure. There're should be a point in all of those.:cool:

I really don't think thats true. Athiest or non-religious dominated nations are the most peaceful, the scandinavian countries, japan. While the religiously dominated nations are the most violent, islamic countries, even the USA.