Kako je unisten Inteligentni Dizajn u USA, predavanje Kennetha Millera

[Млађони]

Have fun.

Inace covek je hriscanin, katolik i evolucionista. Sjajan biolog, odlichan predavac, jako zanimljiv.

Svako ko ima sumnju u vezi evolucije neka pogleda ovo predavanje.

[Milan Stanojevic]

Steta samo sto su zagovaraci inteligentnog dizajna u americi po svemu sudeci neunistivi. Njihov uticaj je sve veci i veci. Zabrinjavajuce je u kom pravcu njihova politika ide (u odnosu sa naukom i obrazovanjem).

[winux59]

Steta samo sto su zagovaraci inteligentnog dizajna u americi po svemu sudeci neunistivi. Njihov uticaj je sve veci i veci. Zabrinjavajuce je u kom pravcu njihova politika ide (u odnosu sa naukom i obrazovanjem).

Steta sto se Kenet Miler vise ne poziva na argument o spajanju hromozoma, jos od 2005 godine, i sam je zazalio zbog toga, i stvarno je steta sto se boji debata sa kreacionistima, da odbrani svoje stavove, vec te price prodaje samo ispred svoje publike.

[Млађони]

Steta sto se Kenet Miler vise ne poziva na argument o spajanju hromozoma, jos od 2005 godine, i sam je zazalio zbog toga, i stvarno je steta sto se boji debata sa kreacionistima, da odbrani svoje stavove, vec te price prodaje samo ispred svoje publike.

On je svoje stavove odlichno odbranio u naucnoj zajednici i u sudskim odlukama. Stvarno ne treba da je brani ispred gomile klovnova kao sto su ID-ovci.

Usao je u sud razbucao vase kreacioniste, vecina presuda je apsolutno uz stranu za koju je on svedocio.

I smarate vise sa tim debatama, nauka nije podlozna debatama dva coveka. Debate su za politicare i ideologe sto i jesu ovi tvoji kreacionisti.

[Млађони]

Steta samo sto su zagovaraci inteligentnog dizajna u americi po svemu sudeci neunistivi. Njihov uticaj je sve veci i veci. Zabrinjavajuce je u kom pravcu njihova politika ide (u odnosu sa naukom i obrazovanjem).

Kako uostalom ljudi da se odreknu izvora profita i moci?! Zamisli tol'ki sledbenici koji kupovali njihove knjige? De ce ako priznaju da su pogresili? Zbog bad science koju su pripovedali nijedan univerzitet ih nece, niti naucni cetar jer su pokazalo jasne anti-naucne elemente. Sve sto im je ostalo je Winlux i tako ti fanovi.

Creationist still crazy after all this years:

[winux59]

On je svoje stavove odlichno odbranio u naucnoj zajednici i u sudskim odlukama. Stvarno ne treba da je brani ispred gomile klovnova kao sto su ID-ovci.

Usao je u sud razbucao vase kreacioniste, vecina presuda je apsolutno uz stranu za koju je on svedocio.

I smarate vise sa tim debatama, nauka nije podlozna debatama dva coveka. Debate su za politicare i ideologe sto i jesu ovi tvoji kreacionisti.

Sto se brukas, lepo ti kazem covek od 2005 godine se ne poziva uopste na taj argument, jer naucno znmo da je spajanje hromozoma nemoguce, a da ta zivotinja ne ugine.

[Млађони]

Sto se brukas, lepo ti kazem covek od 2005 godine se ne poziva uopste na taj argument, jer naucno znmo da je spajanje hromozoma nemoguce, a da ta zivotinja ne ugine.

Kako to mogu ja da se brukam kad si ti taj koji prica budalastine? Mada u toj tvojoj kreacionistickoj logici sve je moguce pa i da se stvori nesto from thin air.Covek na predavanju 2009-te godine koristi taj argument ti pricas da ga ne koristi od 2005-te. lol.

Jos navodi josh par vrsta pored ljudi.

Sa navodno "covek priznao!" nemogucom fuzijom hromozoma.

Strasno koliko lupas.

Ili pak lazes? Ali pre bih rekao da luaps jer si se ogranicio kao saksija na citanje samo i iskljucivo kreacionistickih izvora.

Da uzmes da ih uporedis i proveris sa nekreacionistickim (pravom naukom) detaljno shvatio bi kolika su krdza.

[winux59]

Strasno koliko lupas. On je svoje stavove odlichno odbranio u naucnoj zajednici i u sudskim odlukama. Stvarno ne treba da je brani ispred gomile klovnova kao sto su ID-ovci.

http://www.evolution...is_t054521.html

http://www.evolution...educ054531.html

Despite the scientific progress of intelligent design in recent years, critics love to claim that intelligent design (ID) is dead, that it was laid to rest by the Kitzmiller v. Dover case. The post-Dover narrative favored by the Darwin Lobby has it that in the case, ID's education policies were defeated, and it's been nothing but loss after loss for us ever since. This account is wrong on multiple counts.

First, it wasn't the ID movement's education policies that lost in the Dover case. The Dover school board expressly required the teaching of ID, but leading ID groups such as Discovery Institute havelong opposed requiring ID in public schools. This was true before, during and after the Dover case, and in fact Discovery Institute did not support the Dover school district's ID policy. So when the policy got struck down, that in itself could hardly be counted as a death blow to the ID movement's educational policies.

the actualeducational policy goals of the ID movement have seen many successes in recent years. In fact,since the Kitzmiller v. Dover lawsuit, at least four states have passed policies requiring or permitting the teaching of scientific criticisms of evolution.

• In 2006, South Carolina adopted a standard requiring students to "Summarize ways that scientists use data from a variety of sources to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory."
  
• In 2006, Mississippi passed a law holding that "No local school board, school superintendent or school principal shall prohibit a public school classroom teacher from discussing and answering questions from individual students on the origin of life."
  
• In 2008, Louisiana required passed a policy requiring that Louisiana schools shall "create and foster an environment...that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."
  
• In 2009, Texas adopted science standards that require students to "analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations ... including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking," and also "analyze and evaluate" core evolutionary claims, such as "common ancestry," "natural selection," and "mutation."
  

If you haven't heard of these victories, there's a good reason why: the media love to cover debates over evolution-education, but only on rare occasions do they accurately report the ID movement's wins.

Thus, another post-Dover landmark for the ID movement came in 2008, when the pro-ID documentary Expelled was released in mainstream theaters nationwide. The film told the stories of scientists, educators, and students who, for daring to support ID, have suffered heavy costs to their careers. The mainstream media hated this documentary because it overturned the Inherit the Wind Stereotype, which claims that it's the Darwin-opponents who are closed minded. The Darwin lobby worked overtime to put out an extensive, but error-filled website rebutting the movie. The reasonExpelled was so dangerous was that it showed many ID-critics are as intolerant as the fundamentalists they claim to despise. A few examples of discrimination that came up in the wake of the Dover lawsuit include:

• In 2004, after Smithsonian research biologist Richard Sternberg allowed a peer-reviewed, pro-ID paper to be published in a scientific journal, his superiors investigated his religious and political affiliations in violation of the First Amendment. Subsequently, he faced various forms of harassment at the Smithsonian. According to an investigation by U.S. Congressional subcommittee staff, Smithsonian officials "explicitly acknowledged in emails their intent to pressure Sternberg to resign because of his role in the publication of [stephen Meyer's ID] paper and his views on evolution."
  
• In 2006, Larry Moran, a professor of biochemistry and textbook author at the University of Toronto, stated that a major public university "should never have admitted" students who support ID, and should "just flunk the lot of them and make room for smart students."
  
• In 2007, the Council of Europe, the leading European "human rights" organization, adopted a resolution calling the teaching of ID a potential "threat to human rights"!
  
• At Iowa State University (ISU), over 120 faculty members signed a petition denouncing ID and calling on "all faculty members to ... reject efforts to portray Intelligent Design as science." The campaign was focused on astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, co-author of the book The Privileged Planet, who was up for tenure. As one ISU scientist said, the school "is not a friendly place for him to develop further his IDeas."
  

In some cases, attacks on the free speech rights of ID proponents have led to free speech lawsuits or other legal actions. In 2011, three academic freedom cases produced favorable outcomes for Darwin-skeptics:

• In January, 2011 the University of Kentucky paid $125,000 to settle a lawsuit by astronomer Martin Gaskell who was wrongfully denied employment because he was perceived to be skeptical towards Darwinian evolution.
  
• Soon after the Gaskell settlement, the journal Applied Mathematics Letters paid $10,000and publicly apologized to avoid litigation after it wrongfully withdrew mathematician Granville Sewell's paper critiquing neo-Darwinism.
  
• In August 2011, the California Science Center paid $110,000 to settle a viewpoint discrimination lawsuit filed by a non-profit group American Freedom Alliance (AFA) after the museum had cancelled AFA's contract to show a pro-ID film at its IMAX Theatre.
  

These cases send a deterrent message to the Darwin lobby: those who illegally suppress the free speech rights of ID proponents will have to pay large sums of money for such mistakes.

Critics of ID who fume on the Internet, preach in university classrooms, and feign knowledge and authority in the media love to proclaim that the ID movement is dead. As their story goes, in 2005 a federal judge ruled in the Kitzmiller v. Dover lawsuit that ID is religion and thus unconstitutional to teach in public schools. This supposedly dealt a "deathblow" to the ID movement, which according to critics, has since lost momentum and all but dissipated.

This tall tale may reassure the barons in the ivory tower that they need no longer fear the barbarians at the gate. But those who actually follow the ID movement and know the facts about the debate understand that the critics' preferred narrative could not be further from the truth.

As more ID research is published, more heads are turning in the scientific community. Many of those heads belong to up-and-coming young scientists. Since 2007, Discovery Institute has hosted summer seminars where undergraduate and graduate students in the sciences and humanities from around the world have learned about ID from leading theorists. (For details, seewww.discovery.org/sem.) To date, well over 100 students -- many of them future faculty members and researchers -- have graduated from the program with a deep understanding of ID's bright scientific prospects.

ID's record shows it deserves -- and is increasingly receiving -- serious consideration by the scientific community. This is seen too in the fact that pro-ID research conferences have taken place worldwide over the past few years where pro-ID scientists have presented their research in fields such as genetics, biochemistry, engineering, and computer science.

Hardcore ID-critics, of course, have no interest in acknowledging ID's scientific successes. Back in March, journalist Lauri Lebo (a card carrying member of the Darwin lobby) blithely declared "there is no such thing as ID research, which has not yet produced one single legitimate peer reviewed paper." The purpose of ID's research programs is not to convince unconvincible critics like Ms. Lebo. Rather, ID research seeks to engage open-minded scientists -- and thoughtful laymen -- with credible, persuasive, peer-reviewed, empirical data supporting intelligent design. And this is happening: the scientific progress of ID is cauing skeptics in the scientific community to increasingly turn their heads towards ID, attend private scientific conferences with ID proponents, and engage in serious scientific dialogues. You won't know it from reading the New York Times, an NCSE-staffer blog, or Judge Jones's manifesto, but ID has already gained the kind of scientific legitimacy we'd expect from a young (and vastly underfunded) scientific field. With scientific productivity leading the way, ID's future is looking bright.

Alas, the kind of folks who are still waving the banner of Kitzmiller over their heads probably will never admit to ID's progress. Like Rick in Casablanca, they'll always have Dover.

[Млађони]

Uf dobro da opet nisi kopirao tudji tekst

[winux59]

Uf dobro da opet nisi kopirao tudji tekst

mislim da sajt evolutionews nije kreacionisticki

a oni priznaju da eksploziju ID pokreta, kako pise na engleskom boom.

a ti kazes ID pokret mrtav,

[Avocado]

Despite the scientific progress of intelligent design in recent years,

smej.gif

Taman sam pomislio da je "Institut za otkrica" konacno nesto otkrio... medjutim, za njih "naucni napredak" znaci "uspeli smo da prosvercujemo nekoliko tekstova u drugorazredne casopise".

critics love to claim that intelligent design (ID) is dead, that it was laid to rest by the Kitzmiller v. Dover case. The post-Dover narrative favored by the Darwin Lobby has it that in the case, ID's education policies were defeated, and it's been nothing but loss after loss for us ever since. This account is wrong on multiple counts.

First, it wasn't the ID movement's education policies that lost in the Dover case. The Dover school board expressly required the teaching of ID, but leading ID groups such as Discovery Institute havelong opposed requiring ID in public schools. This was true before, during and after the Dover case, and in fact Discovery Institute did not support the Dover school district's ID policy. So when the policy got struck down, that in itself could hardly be counted as a death blow to the ID movement's educational policies.

the actualeducational policy goals of the ID movement have seen many successes in recent years. In fact,since the Kitzmiller v. Dover lawsuit, at least four states have passed policies requiring or permitting the teaching of scientific criticisms of evolution.

Dakle, cilj "naucnika" okupljenih u ID pokretu (mislio sam da su "naucna disciplina" a ne pokret) nije da se ID izucava kao nauka, vec da se omoguci srednjoskolcima i osnovcima da kritikuju evoluciju... posto ce oni to sigurno ciniti usled svih velikih naucnih saznanja koje su stekli u zabavistu...

• In 2006, South Carolina adopted a standard requiring students to "Summarize ways that scientists use data from a variety of sources to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory."
  
• In 2006, Mississippi passed a law holding that "No local school board, school superintendent or school principal shall prohibit a public school classroom teacher from discussing and answering questions from individual students on the origin of life."
  
• In 2008, Louisiana required passed a policy requiring that Louisiana schools shall "create and foster an environment...that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."
  
• In 2009, Texas adopted science standards that require students to "analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations ... including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking," and also "analyze and evaluate" core evolutionary claims, such as "common ancestry," "natural selection," and "mutation."
  

If you haven't heard of these victories, there's a good reason why: the media love to cover debates over evolution-education, but only on rare occasions do they accurately report the ID movement's wins.

Sjajne pobede zatucanosti americkih protestantskih evangelista. Uspeli su u nekoliko najzatucanijih drzava da zakonima omoguce srednjoskolskim nastavnicima da kritikuju nauku... a sam izbor reci dovoljno govori o cemu i o kome se radi: "scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning." sHa_sarcasticlol i dovoljno ukazuje na to da li je u pitanju interesovanje za razvoj kritickog misljenja ili se radi o nekim sasvim drugim ciljevima.

Samo ne znam kako su ovo pobede IDa??? Koliko god se pametni ljudi trudili da pokazu da ID nije nista drugo do zamuljani kreacionizam i antinaucni stav, pametnice poput Luskina to uvek urade mnogo bolje.

Ostatak je trubljenje u prazno, sa prezvakanim Expelled-om i idejom da ID "nauka" dobija na snazi time sto se ID pokret povecava brojcano... to sto su se skoro sve originalne teze IDa (poput flageluma) toliko obrukale da bi njihovi proponenti trebalo da se pokriju usima, njih ne zabrinjava ni malo... kao i sa tatom IDa - kreacionizmom, ne mogu naucnici da debunkuju toliko tvrdnji koliko novih ovi mentoli mogu da smisle...

[winux59]

Sjajne pobede zatucanosti americkih protestantskih evangelista. Uspeli su u nekoliko najzatucanijih drzava da zakonima omoguce srednjoskolskim nastavnicima da kritikuju nauku... a sam izbor reci dovoljno govori o cemu i o kome se radi: "scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning." sHa_sarcasticlol i dovoljno ukazuje na to da li je u pitanju interesovanje za razvoj kritickog misljenja ili se radi o nekim sasvim drugim ciljevima.

Samo ne znam kako su ovo pobede IDa??? Koliko god se pametni ljudi trudili da pokazu da ID nije nista drugo do zamuljani kreacionizam i antinaucni stav, pametnice poput Luskina to uvek urade mnogo bolje.

Ostatak je trubljenje u prazno, sa prezvakanim Expelled-om i idejom da ID "nauka" dobija na snazi time sto se ID pokret povecava brojcano... to sto su se skoro sve originalne teze IDa (poput flageluma) toliko obrukale da bi njihovi proponenti trebalo da se pokriju usima, njih ne zabrinjava ni malo... kao i sa tatom IDa - kreacionizmom, ne mogu naucnici da debunkuju toliko tvrdnji koliko novih ovi mentoli mogu da smisle...

Ja razumem avocado da ti ne zelis da prihvatis sadrzaj ovog teksta. Sa olutionews,

zar ti nije malo cudno sto uprkos, pretnji da ce dobiti otkaz ako kritikuju TE, uprkos svim zabranama, uprkos svim tvrdnjama da je ID mrtav, on je iz dana u dan sve brojniji i jaci.

Sta je to sto natera jednog bivseg profesora biologije, bivseg darvinistu da kazem, da sam predje na stranu ID iako postoji mogucnost da ce izgubiti posao.

[Млађони]

Ja razumem avocado da ti ne zelis da prihvatis sadrzaj ovog teksta.

Apsolutno je razumno da nece da privhatamo gluposti, lazi i namernu intelektualnu neiskrenostuost.

zar ti nije malo cudno sto uprkos, pretnji da ce dobiti otkaz ako kritikuju TE, uprkos svim zabranama, uprkos svim tvrdnjama da je ID mrtav, on je iz dana u dan sve brojniji i jaci.

Nista cudno sto nije mrtav, a to da je jaci pfhahah.

Sta je to sto natera jednog bivseg profesora biologije, bivseg darvinistu da kazem, da sam predje na stranu ID iako postoji mogucnost da ce izgubiti posao.

Isto ono sto natera razne fizicare, hemicare, biologe i ostale naucne likove na razne druge silly ideje kao sto su atlatida, energetska mreza zemlje, masonske zavere, vanzemaljci koji grade piramide i ostale stvari.

A imas ih u svakoj toj silly ideji po kojeg.

I sad ti pitas sta? Licna ubedjenja, zarada, slava, uspevanje da se probiju u javnost etc...

Daleko si ti od objektivnog......... da jesi, ne bi uopste postavljao toliko ta tupava pitanja i njima argumentovao.

[winux59]

Apsolutno je razumno da nece da privhatamo gluposti, lazi i namernu intelektualnu neiskrenostuost.

winux59, on December 31 2011 - 10:15, said:

zar ti nije malo cudno sto uprkos, pretnji da ce dobiti otkaz ako kritikuju TE, uprkos svim zabranama, uprkos svim tvrdnjama da je ID mrtav, on je iz dana u dan sve brojniji i jaci.

Nista cudno sto nije mrtav, a to da je jaci pfhahah.

winux59, on December 31 2011 - 10:15, said:

Sta je to sto natera jednog bivseg profesora biologije, bivseg darvinistu da kazem, da sam predje na stranu ID iako postoji mogucnost da ce izgubiti posao.

Isto ono sto natera razne fizicare, hemicare, biologe i ostale naucne likove na razne druge silly ideje kao sto su atlatida, energetska mreza zemlje, masonske zavere, vanzemaljci koji grade piramide i ostale stvari.

A imas ih u svakoj toj silly ideji po kojeg.

I sad ti pitas sta? Licna ubedjenja, zarada, slava, uspevanje da se probiju u javnost etc...

Daleko si ti od objektivnog......... da jesi, ne bi uopste postavljao toliko ta tupava pitanja i njima argumentovao.

hahahaahaa

joj

evolucionista kritikuje ono sto pise evolutionews sajt, hahhaah

i tvrdi da je to neistina sto? jer mu se ne slaze sa teorijom?

hahah

sretna nova godina svima na forumu.

aj ziveli

[Млађони]

evolucionista kritikuje ono sto pise evolutionews sajt, hahhaah

i tvrdi da je to neistina sto? jer mu se ne slaze sa teorijom?

hahah

U nauci se sve uvek i stalno kritikuje. Tvoj je problem sto mislis da se nauka vodi debatama i tome kako ce ko da iznese dokaz. Nije to politika - al ina zalsot za tebe jeste. Zato je i ne razumes.

Mnogoe stvari u evoluciji mogu biti predmet kritike. Naprimer verovali smo da su nam neardetalci preci - ustvari su nam rodjaci.

al to nikako nije dokaz da evolucija nije tacna. Vec su to samo sitni tweekovi. Istinitost evolucije je samoevidentna cinjenica. Samo je bitan raspored razvoja zivota.

Jasno se vidi kroz godine i kroz vrste razvoj odredjenih osobina, organa, u ovom ili ono smeru.

Mozak kod homosapiensa, kopita kod konja, krila kod ptice, gubljenje nogu kod kita.

Pa se cak vidi i na fetusima, i na mnogim stvarima. Zasto recimo fetus delfina u pocetku ima "rucice" koje tek u daljem razvoju fetusa postaju peraja.

Mozda zato sto mu je u genima pre bilo da ima ruke, pa kako se vrsta razvijala to su postala peraja.

To je gomila stvari koje ne mogu kroz postove da ti objasnjava, stvari koje se smestaju u knjige i knjige i van razumne sumnje je svakom ko je uzeo bilo koju knjigu razvoja vrsta, i evolucije da vidi da je to samodokaziva teorija kao sto je to da ti sedis na stolici koja je od drveta samodokazivo.