handy said:
Many folks feel the same way about Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. That was filled with lies as well.
I would be one of them. Fahrenheit 9/11's problem wasn't so much lies as biased, uneven and sometimes blatantly dishonest film making. To be honest it's what we have come to expect from the socialist weasel that is Michael Moore.
bears a bit more looking into.
Richard Sternberg
Guillermo Gonzalez
Caroline Crocker
Robert Marks
Pamela Winnick
Michael Egnor
First, Rosenau says that the claims intelligent design "promoters" (as opposed to "scientists")
Some may be scientists but there is no such thing as an 'intelligent design scientist' because intelligent design is not science. There can only be promoters of ID and here's why; Can ID be tested? Are there falsifying observations? ID could potentially be disproved by observing a more primitive intermediate form of some part that has been touted as ‘too complex’ to be natural (just a Ken Miller did with Behe's bacterial flagellum during the Dover ID trials). But then, the individual running the ID experiment can alter his hypothesis to say that this new structure is that which was installed by the Intelligent Designer. Because of this, there is no part of ID that can be unequivocally falsified by material science.
The second part of ID calls for an external Designer. This idea is neither supported nor falsified by material observation. There is no scientific way to test for the presence or absence of the Designer, as the Designer is defined as unobservable, or at least, only observable by a chosen few. Even then ID does not explain how, it does not explain when. Then ID has the problem of the designer itself. Where did the designer come from? Obviously the designer is meant to be God but many ID promoters will be disingenuous and claim that they don't mean God. Well of course they do, and as it's God then it also requires faith and faith is belief without evidence and you can't call something utterly without evidence "science".
One of the most important characteristics of scientific hypotheses and theories is the predictive power they provide. ID does not offer any new explanation or observation about these complex structures that the theory of evolution does not already provide. The observation that some structures in organisms are too complex to have originated from gradual change will not help scientists to develop a better antibiotic, for example. In fact, the idea that “some things are too complex†is anti-scientific, since it seems to suggest that we shouldn’t try to understand the origins of the complex structures. ID discourages us from looking and asking questions. True science, however, moves on. If it is later found to be the case that some structures in organisms do not have more primitive counterparts, science will observe and recognize this fact, and the new knowledge will be incorporated into evolutionary theory.
Lastly ID sets out with the conclusion and looks for evidence to support it, this is not science.
They're not supported though, are they, because ID by it's very nature is a fundamental assumption that is
not testable and so, by it's very nature, cannot be supported.
but then he goes on to say, "lecturers who repeat creationist falsehoods shouldn't be surprised if they have trouble holding jobs".
But that is dead accurate. You cannot claim that the world was made by magic 6000 years ago and expect to keep your university teaching job. Come on handy you must see that? Would you accept a scientologist teaching the ways of Xenu and body thetans to the students? Would it be ok if some promoters of Greek mythology started teaching about chaos, Nyx (the galactic black bird who laid the golden egg that spawned life) and Zeus as factual historical events and figures? Teaching this stuff at church, or in religious education or philosophy classes is all well and good but it has to stay out of the science class room.
He makes Stein's point here you know.
Oh, come on, no he doesn't. 1) These people never lost their jobs 2) The statement that "lecturers who repeat creationist falsehoods shouldn't be surprised if they have trouble holding jobs" is quite valid and 3) Stein's point was that these people had their right to free speech taken away (when they didn't) because ID was an equal alternative to evolution (when it isn't).
The fact that the dogma of 'science' is now Evolution only and anything else suggested is 'falsehood'.
Evolution has been developed over 150 years, it has MOUNTAINS of evidence supporting it, you can actually witness it happening every time you see a poodle in the street. At the moment there are no alternatives on the table. Everything that is being spouted as an alternative are not science and have to be treated as falsehoods until there is evidence to support them, that is how science works. ID isn't an alternative because it doesn't explain anything. It doesn't
account for anything. It just says a vague designer did it and that's that. You can't take "a designer did it" and apply that to medicine or biology.
This is exactly what Stein is pointing out in his movie.
No he wasn't at all, he was making ID equal and thus misrepresenting the whole debate. ID isn't equal because it's
not science and as such should not be taught in science class but even when IDers tried to teach ID in science class they were not fired as Stein dishonestly claimed and so Stein has no point. All he can do is say "neo-darwinist" over pictures of mass graves, it's false, horrible, vile propaganda and it's dishonest.
: 
