| Author |
 Topic  |
|
GHcool 
"Forever a curious character."
|
 Posted - 01/12/2008 : 20:34:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
I'm not sure how or if the movie is going to reconcile the biology with the theology. IMDb links to a trailer that looks like it is less about the science than about academic freedom. My feeling is that academic freedom is only a valuable concept if the standards of research are high. Academic freedom means that one is allowed to publish and speak about whatever conclusions the evidence leads one to. If the conclusions one reaches is not supported by the evidence, then it becomes quackery and the university is free to treat it as such.
Absolutely. From what I know of debate, the best argument for Intelligent Design has so far been to pick something in nature perfectly designed for it's purpose and say "Look at this- it performs it's job so well and is so perfectly constructed, there is no way it could have possibly happened by fluke". (Of course, anything can happen by fluke given a long enough timeline. If you throw enough variations/ genetic mutations on a theme at a wall, something's got to stick eventually)
However, in the trailer on the official site (not sure if it's the same one you saw, but it's a good few minutes long), there appeared to be some scientists who claimed to have DNA evidence in favour of Intelligent Design. I'd really love to hear that evidence (if only so I can pick holes in it) and it looked like this, if not the primary focus, might be detailed a bit more in the film.
On the subject of quackery, it's a shame we can't have quack-only schools for folks who believe in such (IMO) twaddle to send their kids to and then leave everyone else to regular fact-based schools, rather than trying to accommodate every belief into all schools. Afterwards, see which graduates get decent jobs and which don't. Evolution at work again!
Actually, we do have schools that teach religion in science's clothing. Check out the website of the Institute of Creation Research in Dallas, Texas. Its a mystery to me what one would do with a masters degree in creationism. It won't help a person to become a member of the clergy nor will it help a person to become a scientific researcher, teacher, professor, or expert at any institution other than the Institute of Creation Research. |
 |
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 01/12/2008 : 22:16:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
Actually, we do have schools that teach religion in science's clothing. Check out the website of the Institute of Creation Research in Dallas, Texas. Its a mystery to me what one would do with a masters degree in creationism. It won't help a person to become a member of the clergy nor will it help a person to become a scientific researcher, teacher, professor, or expert at any institution other than the Institute of Creation Research.
Good Lord! Still, I presume many past graduates have gone on to rewarding jobs in the fast food preparation and serving industry  |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 01/12/2008 : 23:19:51
|
Typically, "creationism" is a label used to denote people who don't believe in evolution, and I'd be wary of using the term as synonymous with "intelligent design," although of course there is some overlap. Intelligent design are those who believe that the ecosystem is such a complex, ordered and well-functioning system that it couldn't have come about through the machinations of a chaotic, random universe.
I find it an interesting philosophical position, something worth debating at least, but it's not science. Not good science, not bad science, not science. It's philosophy. There is no good reason for scientists to be even discussing it.
As for "Iron Man," I simply don't see what looks so bad about it, although granted I'm not familiar with any of Favreau's directorial work. It certainly doesn't set off the alarm bells that "Fantastic Four" did -- they at least seem to be taking the thing respectfully, and there are no horrible one-liners, and it has Robert Downey, Jr., who could keep the movie afloat on his force of personality alone.
The trailer for "The Bucket List" is completely awful, not because it's silly crowd-pleasing pap, but because it has Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman skydiving while "Feelin' Alright" plays in the background. I wanted to puke. |
|
|
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 01/13/2008 : 02:03:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
On a semi-related note, it's also good to see the poster is again by Drew Struzan- an artist whom I've admired greatly since the mid-80s. I was thinking recently, in a world of heavily Photoshopped posters, Struzan must be one of the last remaining hand-painted poster artists. Yep- he's *that* good! 
Some long years ago, I got the chance to meet Drew, and to evaluate a potential book of his movie art. [My company had retained him to draw some non-movie images, so that was the connection.] Sadly, we had to turn down his proposal, but I did get to publish Ralph McQuarrie...
The producers would never Photoshop an Indy poster. In fact, their original direction to Drew back in '81 was, "make it look like it was done 40 years ago!" |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 01/13/2008 : 02:24:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
On a semi-related note, it's also good to see the poster is again by Drew Struzan- an artist whom I've admired greatly since the mid-80s. I was thinking recently, in a world of heavily Photoshopped posters, Struzan must be one of the last remaining hand-painted poster artists. Yep- he's *that* good!
Some long years ago, I got the chance to meet Drew, and to evaluate a potential book of his movie art. [My company had retained him to draw some non-movie images, so that was the connection.] Sadly, we had to turn down his proposal, but I did get to publish Ralph McQuarrie...
The producers would never Photoshop an Indy poster. In fact, their original direction to Drew back in '81 was, "make it look like it was done 40 years ago!"
You met Drew? Yeesh... I wish you'd stop meeting all my heroes- it's really starting to vex me now! 
That's really interesting about the retro look requirement, too- I never really thought about it until now, but it makes sense looking at the posters again. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/13/2008 : 10:12:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
Typically, "creationism" is a label used to denote people who don't believe in evolution, and I'd be wary of using the term as synonymous with "intelligent design," although of course there is some overlap. Intelligent design are those who believe that the ecosystem is such a complex, ordered and well-functioning system that it couldn't have come about through the machinations of a chaotic, random universe.
Creationism and intelligent design are the same thing :- religion. ID is creationism renamed. They couldn't get creationism into schools years ago, so they renamed it and tried again. Next time it rears it's head it'll be called something else. It's based on incredulity, and goes something like "I don't understand how this could have evolved naturally as it's too complicated, therefore an intelligent supreme being must have created it". And guess who they're talking about...
|
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 01/13/2008 : 14:38:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
Typically, "creationism" is a label used to denote people who don't believe in evolution, and I'd be wary of using the term as synonymous with "intelligent design," although of course there is some overlap. Intelligent design are those who believe that the ecosystem is such a complex, ordered and well-functioning system that it couldn't have come about through the machinations of a chaotic, random universe.
I find it an interesting philosophical position, something worth debating at least, but it's not science. Not good science, not bad science, not science. It's philosophy.
But if presented as science, it's dangerous.
At least to some, "intelligent design" is simply another term for "creationism" which sounds more secular -- but it means the same thing. This was proven in the recent case where a group of parents sued the Dover, PA school board for requiring science teachers to read a statement acknowledging the ID "theory" and for placing ID-friendly books in the school library. Among the bits of evidence presented was the word-processed manuscript for a new ID book: it was, word for word, the same text as an earlier creationist book, except that references to "creation" had simply been search-and-replaced throughout with "intelligent design." Unfortunately for the school board, in a few places sloppy portmanteaus were created, revealing exactly what had been done and demolishing the defense's argument that ID was some kind of "scientific theory" apart from creationism.
Religion is not science. It is faith. It can still be studied and discussed: frankly, I wish more members of the Bush administration had taken comparative religion classes. But religion has no business in a science class. Evolution is a theory, sure. But so is all the rest of science -- and like all scientific contentions, the theory of evolution is testable.
This was the opinion of the judge [who criticized the "breathtaking inanity" of the school board and accused them of illegally trying to promote religion], and also the opinion of the appalled citizens of Dover, who voted the entire school board out of office in the next election.
A fine documentary on this case aired on public television late last year, but I've just tried to find the title and failed. |
Edited by - randall on 01/13/2008 16:23:18 |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 01/13/2008 : 17:09:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
A fine documentary on this case aired on public television late last year, but I've just tried to find the title and failed.
Here's the PBS link and you can watch some online, too.
Always happy to help 
|
|
|
|
Downtown 
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 01/15/2008 : 18:56:33
|
| Rubbish. ID is just Creationism in disguise, cleverly dressed up to sort of look like science so it can be wedged into the public schools. It's got nice sheep's clothing, but it's still a wolf. |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 01/15/2008 : 19:00:48
|
quote:
Its a mystery to me what one would do with a masters degree in creationism. It won't help a person to become a member of the clergy nor will it help a person to become a scientific researcher, teacher, professor, or expert at any institution other than the Institute of Creation Research.
But it does make you imminently qualified to publish pro-ID papers on the subject, which will then be cited by those making the arguments that it should be taught in public schools, as supporting evidence of their positions. "Look, Dr. Whatisface, PhD, says we've got a valid point!" |
Edited by - Downtown on 01/15/2008 20:07:10 |
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 01/16/2008 : 01:01:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by 17-0
quote:
Its a mystery to me what one would do with a masters degree in creationism. It won't help a person to become a member of the clergy nor will it help a person to become a scientific researcher, teacher, professor, or expert at any institution other than the Institute of Creation Research.
But it does make you imminently qualified to publish pro-ID papers on the subject, which will then be cited by those making the arguments that it should be taught in public schools, as supporting evidence of their positions. "Look, Dr. Whatisface, PhD, says we've got a valid point!"
I can't find any kind of doctorate program on the Institute of Creation Research's website, but I get your point about the possibility of writing books.
When I was in tenth grade, we learned about natural selection in biology class. Before we began the lesson, my biology teacher (I'm fairly certain that he himself was a scientific skeptic) briefed the class that he is mandated by the state to provide us with the knowledge of what evolution is and to tell us that this is the prevailing opinion of scientists around the world, but made a point of saying that he is not trying to change anybody's beliefs about how life developed on Earth. His role was to educate us on the "current scientific understanding" and leave us to make our own conclusions.
One could argue that my biology teacher was being too "wishy-washy" about the way he presented it, but I think his intentions were noble. The biggest problem about ID/creationism proponents is that they don't understand what it is they are objecting to. It isn't that society is "shoving the theory of evolution down their throats" in science classes any more than society is "shoving the theory of supply and demand model down their throats" in economics classes. The point is that people should be aware of famous theories even if they themselves choose to be a member of the minority. |
|
|
|
silly
"That rabbit's DYNAMITE."
|
Posted - 01/16/2008 : 01:54:32
|
True story:
A co-workers son (fourth grade), in class they were asked "what keeps the planets in orbit around the sun." Public school, btw.
The boy was the only one to say gravity. Five kids said they had no idea. The rest (fifteen or so) said "God."
And you know they all went home to tell their parents about the evil child that was talking about gravity at school... |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 01/16/2008 : 02:20:21
|
God must get very bored, dontcha think?
"What have you been doing today God?"
"Oh, the same old thing, keeping those planets going around the sun as usual..."
"You should take a holiday."
"Nope, can't do that, those planets would just fly off and that would be the end of the solar system."
|
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 01/16/2008 : 05:21:10
|
quote:
Creationism and intelligent design are the same thing :- religion. ID is creationism renamed.
Hate to split hairs, but no, intelligent design isn't the same thing as creationism, it's a specific philosophical argument for creationism.
Anyways, the best case I've ever heard against the intelligent design argument goes something about how we define "order" based on the natural physical laws of the world, so saying that God exists the natural world is ordered is circular logic. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 01/16/2008 : 10:11:21
|
| I'm intrigued by the ID "controversy" because I don't understand how Darwin's theory precludes the existence of a deity -- who could have set the whole thing in motion. Cheerful enough. But to teach kids that the earth is 8,000 years old, or was created in six 24-hour periods? In science class? I'd be suing somebody too. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Films for 2008
