Richard Dawkins Believes in Intelligent Design??

[Buffgeek]

I was watching the Ben Stein Documentary "Expelled" and was shocked to hear Dawkins talk about the possibility of Intelligent design in the creation of life on earth as well as the possibility that was planted on earth through a more advanced Society.

I am really curious to get yours guys take on this film. It raises some really interesting questions and isnt promoting any specific religion rather its asking the question of why scientists are bieng blacklisted for using the possibility of ID in their research. Its frightening when we cannot question scientific theories....

This reminds me of the research done in the 60s from the American Heart Association resulting in the lowfat diet. Lowfat = high carbs, which dramatically raised the levels of obesity in this country over the past several decades. They still cannot agree if Cholesterol is bad and what its true effects are...

Scientiets are suppose to disprove theories until they cannot, not try to prove a theory for an agenda.


Guys like Hugo, 240, Ozmo I curious to get your take...

[liberalismo]

Ben Stein contorted what Dawkins said. Dawkins said that IF intelligent design were to turn out to be true, then it would likely be the result of some advanced alien civilization producing the seeds of life here on earth. This is "IF" intelligent design turned out to be true, and Dawkins explained that scenario. Ben Stein then turned what he said into him being in support of intelligent design.

Major spin.

[Joel_A]

To be a true scientist one cannot be absolutely sure about anything (meaning 100%).
He himself has said that on a scale of 1 to 7 (1 being sure there is a God and 7 being sure there is no God) he is a 6. He's pretty sure there are no pink fairies or unicorns but he cannot prove them.
What does that say about those 1's that are 100% sure there is a God but cannot come close to actually proving it?

[Buffgeek]

The whole point of the film in this case is any scientists that even mentions Intelligent Design is blacklisted. Its almost frightening. I am just curious if anyone else has seen the film and what their thoughts were.

[w8tlftr]

The whole point of the film in this case is any scientists that even mentions Intelligent Design is blacklisted. Its almost frightening. I am just curious if anyone else has seen the film and what their thoughts were.

If I'm channel surfing one day and it's on I'll watch it but I have no plans to rent the movie.

[Necrosis]

The whole point of the film in this case is any scientists that even mentions Intelligent Design is blacklisted. Its almost frightening. I am just curious if anyone else has seen the film and what their thoughts were.

no they are not, like who?

he misrepresented what dawkins meant, if you read some of his work you will understand this.

[The Luke]

The whole point of the film in this case is any scientists that even mentions Intelligent Design is blacklisted. Its almost frightening. I am just curious if anyone else has seen the film and what their thoughts were.

...to be fair to BuffGeek, for all practical purposes this is pretty much true.

But to be similarly fair to the scientific community, any serious consideration of any non-scientific hogwash is similarly frowned upon.

A scientist would be "discredited" (no accomplished scientist is ever seriously blacklisted) if he seriously proposed:
-telepathy
-ghosts
-an afterlife
-homeopathy
-Reiki or faith healing

..it's all bunkum... impossible, and only considered plausible by the misinformed.

In fact, even serious consideration of any religion is deemed delusional by hard science academics.


The Luke

[wavelength]

Quite obviously, Dawkins cannot answer the question of origin. His possible explanation of an alien species explains nothing since the same question must then be applied to those aliens and so on. However all of that entirely misses the point, and that's why Stein misses the point just as much as Dawkins.

[Necrosis]

Quite obviously, Dawkins cannot answer the question of origin. His possible explanation of an alien species explains nothing since the same question must then be applied to those aliens and so on. However all of that entirely misses the point, and that's why Stein misses the point just as much as Dawkins.

bing bang boom thats why we need a naturalistic mechanism for existence, any intelligence that is complex is improbable, we already know this, the more complex the more time and the more improbable.

[Necrosis]

...to be fair to BuffGeek, for all practical purposes this is pretty much true.

But to be similarly fair to the scientific community, any serious consideration of any non-scientific hogwash is similarly frowned upon.

A scientist would be "discredited" (no accomplished scientist is ever seriously blacklisted) if he seriously proposed:
-telepathy
-ghosts
-an afterlife
-homeopathy
-Reiki or faith healing

..it's all bunkum... impossible, and only considered plausible by the misinformed.

In fact, even serious consideration of any religion is deemed delusional by hard science academics.


The Luke

ummm

reiki is not even close to faith healing, ruber sheldrake is an accomplished scientist and has some pretty unique studies on telepathy.Homeotoxicolog y is used in medicine already, i agree homeopathy is pretty ridiculous but there are some studies showing an effect.

Not to digress i just dont think anyone is blacklisted unless they lie and side step the scientific method, anything can be studied as long as it uses proper methodology.

[Buffgeek]

ummm

reiki is not even close to faith healing, ruber sheldrake is an accomplished scientist and has some pretty unique studies on telepathy.Homeotoxicolog y is used in medicine already, i agree homeopathy is pretty ridiculous but there are some studies showing an effect.

Not to digress i just dont think anyone is blacklisted unless they lie and side step the scientific method, anything can be studied as long as it uses proper methodology.

Yes but anyone who doesnt follow Darwin as absolute gospel in the scientific community if treated like a cancer. The point of the movie was to show that in the scientific community they is a large move to crush anyone who even mentions the possibility of Intelligent design and anyone who critisizes the merits of Darwinism as absolute truth.

The simple fact of the matter is no scientist living today or in the past knows how exactly life was created. Our understanding of a simple cell is 1000 times greater than Darwins time, so to say you know exactly for certain a certain theory is truth seems to go competely against the scientific method.

Evolution is still a "Theory" yet its bieng treated as a scientific law like gravity....  That seems insane considering there are still so many unanswered questions. I dont want religion interferring with science, I want every avenue available to our scientists for discovery. This backlash that is happening behind closed doors in the scientific community seems like its in communist China rather than the USA.

[liberalismo]

The whole point of the film in this case is any scientists that even mentions Intelligent Design is blacklisted. Its almost frightening. I am just curious if anyone else has seen the film and what their thoughts were.

It's bullshit though. Plenty of scientists, including professors of mine, have discussed intelligent design in less than critical terms. The only professors kicked out are those who try to argue for intelligent design when they are supposed to be teaching science.

[liberalismo]

Quite obviously, Dawkins cannot answer the question of origin. His possible explanation of an alien species explains nothing since the same question must then be applied to those aliens and so on. However all of that entirely misses the point, and that's why Stein misses the point just as much as Dawkins.

Dawkins JUST said that "IF", and "IF" being emphasized here, intelligent design had any viability then it would be in the form of Aliens seeding life on earth, but as you say, that just defers the main point of the origin of life in general, which is absolutely and positively Darwinian natural selection.

[liberalismo]

ummm

reiki is not even close to faith healing, ruber sheldrake is an accomplished scientist and has some pretty unique studies on telepathy.Homeotoxicolog y is used in medicine already, i agree homeopathy is pretty ridiculous but there are some studies showing an effect.

Not to digress i just dont think anyone is blacklisted unless they lie and side step the scientific method, anything can be studied as long as it uses proper methodology.

There have certainly been some studies here and there on mumbo-jumbo bullshit like Reiki, Psychics, Hoemopathy, Accupuncture, etc.

However, no studies done in peer reviewed and credible journals and done by reputable scientists in verifiable and reputable ways have been reproduced or accepted by many people. The reason is because there are far too many reasons why some studies show positive effects which don't include the things being true or reality and so many studies, under closer examination, have been shown to be flawed in one way or another.

Many reputable scientists have examined mumbo-jumbo things like this and haven't been blacklisted though. Only if they are deceptive or commit fraud are they "blacklisted", if the term can be used.

[liberalismo]

Yes but anyone who doesnt follow Darwin as absolute gospel in the scientific community if treated like a cancer. The point of the movie was to show that in the scientific community they is a large move to crush anyone who even mentions the possibility of Intelligent design and anyone who critisizes the merits of Darwinism as absolute truth.

The simple fact of the matter is no scientist living today or in the past knows how exactly life was created. Our understanding of a simple cell is 1000 times greater than Darwins time, so to say you know exactly for certain a certain theory is truth seems to go competely against the scientific method.

Evolution is still a "Theory" yet its bieng treated as a scientific law like gravity....  That seems insane considering there are still so many unanswered questions. I dont want religion interferring with science, I want every avenue available to our scientists for discovery. This backlash that is happening behind closed doors in the scientific community seems like its in communist China rather than the USA.

I don't know how many times it has been posted on this board and the religion board, but EVOLUTION IS NOT A THEORY!!!!

Using purely scientific terms, a "theory" doesn't mean what you think anyway. A Theory is just a framework which scientists work with which include facts and make predictions.

"Evolution" itself, I.E. life evolving via natural selection is a 'FACT'. It has been shown to be true millions of times in the past 150 years that anyone doubting it is truly an idiot.

The common phrase "theory of evolution" is just a framework associated with evolution and includes many details and facts and makes accurate predictions about what will be discovered, etc.


You really need to learn Scientific lingo before going around saying dumb bullshit like "Evolution is still just a theory", as if theories somehow become facts in science. They don't.


http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

http://ola4.aacc.edu/jsfreeman/TheoryandLaw.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

[Necrosis]

There have certainly been some studies here and there on mumbo-jumbo bullshit like Reiki, Psychics, Hoemopathy, Accupuncture, etc.

However, no studies done in peer reviewed and credible journals and done by reputable scientists in verifiable and reputable ways have been reproduced or accepted by many people. The reason is because there are far too many reasons why some studies show positive effects which don't include the things being true or reality and so many studies, under closer examination, have been shown to be flawed in one way or another.

Many reputable scientists have examined mumbo-jumbo things like this and haven't been blacklisted though. Only if they are deceptive or commit fraud are they "blacklisted", if the term can be used.

accupuncture if studied properly could show benefits. There are studies showing accupuncture works for pain relief via endogenous opiate activity and is blocked by naltrexone. There is insufficient data on alot of the material, homeopathy is bunk imo, homotoxicology is effective and there are many studies showing its effectiveness. There is also evidence of homeopathy workign on cell lines, although the study did not intend that. Reiki is non sense, accupuncture certainly not, but i dont think it is chi, it has physical effects which makes sense since needles are being inserted at particular points of the body, i have studied accupuncture and asian medicine and i doubt anything energetic exists, it is simply pharmacological. My med school back home has a department for accupuncture now because of demand.

your last sentence is exactly what i was getting at.

[Necrosis]

Yes but anyone who doesnt follow Darwin as absolute gospel in the scientific community if treated like a cancer. The point of the movie was to show that in the scientific community they is a large move to crush anyone who even mentions the possibility of Intelligent design and anyone who critisizes the merits of Darwinism as absolute truth.

The simple fact of the matter is no scientist living today or in the past knows how exactly life was created. Our understanding of a simple cell is 1000 times greater than Darwins time, so to say you know exactly for certain a certain theory is truth seems to go competely against the scientific method.

Evolution is still a "Theory" yet its bieng treated as a scientific law like gravity....  That seems insane considering there are still so many unanswered questions. I dont want religion interferring with science, I want every avenue available to our scientists for discovery. This backlash that is happening behind closed doors in the scientific community seems like its in communist China rather than the USA.

evolution is just as factual as gravity, both are theories, are you unaware of this? Creation of life is not evoution, that is abiogenesis why does everyone make this fatal error. It is either you dont know what evolution entails or you do and are flat out lying.

there is no backlash, the movie is bunk garbage with the lowest rating on rotten tomatoes ever, everyone lied in the movie about their blacklisting and dismissals. Who exactly was blacklisted, and what relevant research were they blacklisted for.

[wavelength]

Dawkins JUST said that "IF", and "IF" being emphasized here, intelligent design had any viability then it would be in the form of Aliens seeding life on earth, but as you say, that just defers the main point of the origin of life in general, which is absolutely and positively Darwinian natural selection.

As I said, they are both missing the point, which is that any scientific theory (or "law") can always only talk about scientific aspects of the world.

[Necrosis]

As I said, they are both missing the point, which is that any scientific theory (or "law") can always only talk about scientific aspects of the world.

AKA reality

[wavelength]

AKA reality

Nopes, has nothing to do with it. A pure scientist is not interested in reality and can say nothing about it.
If he does -> pseudo philosopher = Dawkins.

[Buffgeek]

I don't know how many times it has been posted on this board and the religion board, but EVOLUTION IS NOT A THEORY!!!!

Using purely scientific terms, a "theory" doesn't mean what you think anyway. A Theory is just a framework which scientists work with which include facts and make predictions.

"Evolution" itself, I.E. life evolving via natural selection is a 'FACT'. It has been shown to be true millions of times in the past 150 years that anyone doubting it is truly an idiot.

The common phrase "theory of evolution" is just a framework associated with evolution and includes many details and facts and makes accurate predictions about what will be discovered, etc.


You really need to learn Scientific lingo before going around saying dumb bullshit like "Evolution is still just a theory", as if theories somehow become facts in science. They don't.


http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

http://ola4.aacc.edu/jsfreeman/TheoryandLaw.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

I understand a species can "evolve" in that small changes in its adatability to its environment, but correct me if I am wrong, scientists cannot prove/disprove that all live was evolved from a single celled organism can they? They certainly do not know how that first cell was created.

Last I checked there was a fairly large gap in life forms that fill in the transitional gaps in the evolution of many many species, so the theory of evolution is applied to bridge that gap. We are talking about huge spans of time here. This seems to me almost as much a shot in the dark as blind funementialist christianity.

If all of these transitional forms existed why have we not found them? New species are always popping up in the fossil records with no close links to previous life forms in older rocks in the same region.  Fossil records dont seem to support these transitional changes.


My point in all this is if we do not have all these answers then why discredit anyone who disagrees with this theory.

If they can find scientific proof of a signature within a cell shoudlnt that be celebrated?

[Necrosis]

I understand a species can "evolve" in that small changes in its adatability to its environment, but correct me if I am wrong, scientists cannot prove/disprove that all live was evolved from a single celled organism can they? They certainly do not know how that first cell was created.

Last I checked there was a fairly large gap in life forms that fill in the transitional gaps in the evolution of many many species, so the theory of evolution is applied to bridge that gap. We are talking about huge spans of time here. This seems to me almost as much a shot in the dark as blind funementialist christianity.

If all of these transitional forms existed why have we not found them? New species are always popping up in the fossil records with no close links to previous life forms in older rocks in the same region.  Fossil records dont seem to support these transitional changes.


My point in all this is if we do not have all these answers then why discredit anyone who disagrees with this theory.

If they can find scientific proof of a signature within a cell shoudlnt that be celebrated?

ok so its number one then you know nothing of evolution. every fossil is a transitional fossil it is slow and graduated.

it has more support then any other theory in history based on amounts of evidence and different fields converging on the same conclusions.

the first cell formation is abiogenesis, dont repeat this fallacy again it has been corrected.

there are no gaps like you say there are, we have witnessed formation of new species also.

greatest theory in modern history.

[Buffgeek]

ok so its number one then you know nothing of evolution. every fossil is a transitional fossil it is slow and graduated.

it has more support then any other theory in history based on amounts of evidence and different fields converging on the same conclusions.

the first cell formation is abiogenesis, dont repeat this fallacy again it has been corrected.

there are no gaps like you say there are, we have witnessed formation of new species also.

greatest theory in modern history.

Look I am not a scientist. I just know that while this is our most solid understanding of our origins, we have so much more to learn. There is still a great deal we do not understand. It is not my intention to disprove evolutiono or even say is has no validity as that would be foolish. The whole point of my post is that it seems very frighting that in the United States that we can not deviate from a theory however grounded without serious remifications. To me this seems like an academic thought police state. Provided there is scientific basis for these types of research, I dont understand why there needs to be such hatred towards these scientists.

Also please dont tell me what to say/not say again. Read what I said. I said "correct me if I am wrong, scientists cannot prove/disprove that all live was evolved from a single celled organism can they?"

I then stated "They certainly do not know how that first cell was created."

Isnt abiogenesis the development of life from nonliving matter? That is a bit different from my previous statement in which i asked if scientists could prove that all life evoled from a single celled organism. 

My last comment was alluding to abiogenesis and the fact that there is no answer yet to how this process happened.

The only reason I even mentioned it in this respect is that I thought that Darwin referenced the possibility of the first cell bieng created by a lighting strike in a pool of muddy water and all life forms coming from that culimnation of that...

[liberalismo]

accupuncture if studied properly could show benefits. There are studies showing accupuncture works for pain relief via endogenous opiate activity and is blocked by naltrexone. There is insufficient data on alot of the material, homeopathy is bunk imo, homotoxicology is effective and there are many studies showing its effectiveness. There is also evidence of homeopathy workign on cell lines, although the study did not intend that. Reiki is non sense, accupuncture certainly not, but i dont think it is chi, it has physical effects which makes sense since needles are being inserted at particular points of the body, i have studied accupuncture and asian medicine and i doubt anything energetic exists, it is simply pharmacological. My med school back home has a department for accupuncture now because of demand.

your last sentence is exactly what i was getting at.

Acupuncture doesn't work. Sticking needles into one's skin relieves pain. There is a difference. Acupuncture is a discipline based on, as you say, energy fields and chi and what not, and these things don't exist. Human "bio-fields" exist, but aren't the "chi" as described by ancient Chinese, biofields exist in non-living things such as dead plants, and there is no correlation between the pain relief of sticking needles into one's skin and the biofields.

It works because of how the brain perceives pain and injury. A needle won't cause any real pain, but the brain will perceive injury and will release endorphins.

[liberalismo]

I understand a species can "evolve" in that small changes in its adatability to its environment, but correct me if I am wrong, scientists cannot prove/disprove that all live was evolved from a single celled organism can they? They certainly do not know how that first cell was created.

Wrong. Scientists have proven this already at least 120 years ago, and today is is absolutely positively hard fact. Dozens of fields of biological study prove common descent of all life on earth. There are things, such as in gene retro viruses, that can't be explained unless common descent is a fact.

Last I checked there was a fairly large gap in life forms that fill in the transitional gaps in the evolution of many many species, so the theory of evolution is applied to bridge that gap. We are talking about huge spans of time here. This seems to me almost as much a shot in the dark as blind funementialist christianity.

No. Any transitional fossils prove evolution. Gaps will always exist because the fossil record will never be complete.

If all of these transitional forms existed why have we not found them? New species are always popping up in the fossil records with no close links to previous life forms in older rocks in the same region.  Fossil records dont seem to support these transitional changes.

Google it. There are THOUSANDS of transitional fossils. New species will ALWAYS pop up without any known immediate ancestors or descendants, this is how the fossil record grows. Gradually scientists find their ancestors and descendants, but sometimes they don't and whole branches of evolutionary tree are missing because they just never fossilized. Big chunks. But we still know that evolution is true because there is a tree, even if a branch is missing.

My point in all this is if we do not have all these answers then why discredit anyone who disagrees with this theory.

If they can find scientific proof of a signature within a cell shoudlnt that be celebrated?

We have those answers.