London Showing of EXPELLED + Debate Afterwards

If you’re near London on the 27th, please attend.

Is Seattle, WA near London? Mung

I sincerely hope that in the discussion which follows the showing of Expelled that someone on the ID side takes the time to make the analogy between ID/Darwinism and Anthropogenic global warming. The essential point is that what we learned from the East Anglia emails is that when people in positions of power and authority separate their consensus from the public and alternative points of view entirely (which is essentially what the crooked so called scientists did by making their climate projection models private and conspiring in private by email at the same time) then inevitably corruption seeps in. In a world where we want the people to have a say about what direction that their government is heading- it is necessary for alternative perspectives to be presented- even if they are viewed by many as incomplete or imperfect. For example almost no one is demanding that Darwinian evolution be banned from all publicly certified funded education simply because there is an incomplete understanding of exactly how evolution happens- the same leniency should be given to any other theory like ID- which while being far from perfect still has a LARGE following from the general public and makes claims that are extemely relavant to the enterprise of origins science. In truth people are interested in ID and many are well educated scientists and philosophers who think that ID IS a perfectly worthy scientific theory and research program. However, for those who want to use their power to block out a harmless theory- which DOES NOT tear down scientific fervor but in almost every case enhances it with interesting new questions and debates and lines of research- those authoritarians are abusing their power- especially in light of the FACT that ID has already lead to interesting exchanges and concerning probabilities of evolutionary events and the order and nature of how they may have occurred. Like anthropogenic climate change skeptics, IDists are rightly asking for an opportunity to be respected and heard at the level where it counts- in the institutions education and science- to get their theory circulated and appropriately placed in the right context- so that the people then have the opportunity to take up for themselves whether they think it should be rejected out of hand as inadequate or probably false or worthy of a career pursuit. Once again the analogy between ID and anthropogenic climate science is very clear- that the scientific establishment needs the checks and balances of alternative perspectives and critiques at all levels- and that it has the duty to respect the will of the people on issues of controversy especially in light of nature of science as a convention based on the ideal pursuit of the narrow path to what is useful, correct, enlightening, right and true. If theories like ID which have public support cannot be expressed with their deserved respect than science is doomed to become corrupt not only as it was in the case of the climategate emails but also in many cases concerning origins science- hence constantly reassessed tree of life models, proclaimed "junk" DNA and embryonic diagrams invented from scratch but produced as fact of nature- just to name a few. Many IDists are not even demanding equal time paid to the theory of ID - but first only that it's case be made along side that of Darwinian evolution in schools and institutions where origins science are being pursued- so that unbiased minds can at least have the opportunity to think for themselves on the issues involved. When a debate between Darwinism and ID does happen is almost always enriches the scientific knowledge of those involved- but helping to clarify and define terminologies as well as highlight areas where a greater level of understanding is desired. I do agree that scientists have a responsibility to protest and reject issues related to science which they think to have NO scientific value at all. For example if someone wanted a theory of Irish Leprechauns created man kind or something totally mythological along these lines- this regardless of how much public support it has should be opposed by scientists unless there was some excellent reason for pursuing it. But the important thing to note is that ID does not make any claim which is not perfectly in line which evidence and reason. Anyone who wants to understand ID as it's theorists define it- can see that it is a scientific theory based on evidence and arguments and not or proposed and presupposed imaginary axioms. There is nothing "made up" about ID- as we can see it's effects almost everywhere we look. ID does not propose a specific designer to which evidence of its nature and existence would be properly demanded. There is no silver bullet argument which opponents of ID can rightfully use to disqualify it from being science- such as "show us proof that leprucans exist"- because ID is based on a general defintion of inteligence and specified complex information. If the theory of ID is wrong than allow its oponents to critque theor papers debate and disprove their theory out of existence. Let the sceintific enterprises work ID down the dark ally of irrelavncy. The truth is that the real problem that exists for ID is that it has been falsely defined by its opponents- by the most aggressive straw-man fallacies imaginable- and this is just the manifest proof of the intellectual dishonesty that permeates at the highest levels of educational and scientific authority. And these misrepresentations have resulted in a heavier consensus against the legitimacy of the theory. The bottom line is that consensus and authority do not equate to truth- nor even the BEST attempt at finding truth. So the case for ID must continue to be made and fought for by its advocates- for the sake of the pursuit of truth and honesty-if nothing else. Dissent and diversity of perspective is needed to obtain the proper equilibrium in any scientific venture. Frost122585