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

This post has been removed from the Science channel by channel owner rembar. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

This is the second time this has been posted, the first sift can be found here, including my comments.

I'd had a shot at it a while ago too. Hopefully it gets through the sift this time, it should be the comedy sensation of the summer!

Its actually coming out in April now, I imagine right around the same time at Bill Maher's "Religulous." Should make for a fun double feature.

I don't see them being persecuted by scientists, I see them being persecuted by reality.
No but seriously though, claiming that “Big Science" allows no dissent from the scientific theory of evolution is not only a misinterpretation of the entire science community, it's a deliberate smear campaign. It's really disgusting how someone claiming to be a man of science is trying to undermine it because he refuses, beyond reason, to acknowledge the validity of its methodology.
I mean, why produce evidence contradicting the theory when you can discredit the people supporting it and overshadow the process in which it's proven?

could the subtitle of this flick be more appropriate? i think not.

anyone who still thinks intelligent design has a leg to stand on?

2 words: Ken Miller

clearly, the previous sift attempt tried to paint this 'controversy' in a different light. so, here's the news. there is no controversy. this has nothing to do with being a liberal, or any imagined 'status quo'.

every prediction that behe made, for irreducible complexity? was wrong.

and, in the act of disproving them all, the arguments for natural selection became even stronger. especially after the discovery of the splice in #2.

for now, i'll just playlist this accordingly. if it gets to 9, i'll top it off, given only due to heap's description, and not the pathetic source material.

intelligent design is bullshit.

end of line.

>> ^Kreegath:
I don't see them being persecuted by scientists, I see them being persecuted by reality.

and reality has a well-documented liberal bias.

/adjusts glasses betwixt thumb and middle finger

I'll upvote for the controversy.

Moving this video to gorgonheap's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 3 days.

*documentaries

Upvote for pointing out that scientists can be closed-minded jerks.

Not all, not always, but it does happen. LOL @ losing your friends & jobs. The US is kind of insanely polarized according to this intro... reminds me of how a college librarian in the US asked if I'm Republican or Democrat. I'm like, "huh?"

Adding video to channels (Documentaries) - requested by Krupo.

"some of you are going to lose your friends for watching this film...some of you may even lose your job"

Wow, that's fucking retarded. I'm sorry.

alright. upon recent review of my *bullshit list?

due to recent additions of truly staggering proportions?

i realized this was the only one on the list, that i hadn't upvoted.
only because i almost can't believe anyone is still willing to defend intelligent design.
but as long as heap is in charge of the description, sure.

someday, we're all going to look back on intelligent design, and laugh.
and then slam into the back of a parked car.
s'ok though.
by then, we'll have that groovy collision-resisting insta-drying foam, from Demolition Man.

so much wrong with this, lying to scientists about what the film was about - and then editing what they say in a way to match the intelligent design position (which is another lie). saying DNA is evidence of god is also a lie. all *lies.

Invocations (lies) cannot be called by Johnald_Chaffinch because Johnald_Chaffinch is not privileged - sorry.

Straw man arguments begin at 2:15. "Random" is really not the right word and shows that he doesn't understand biochemistry. It's like saying a steam engine is random because individual gas particles in it move somewhat randomly. Then he conflates evolution with abiogenesis. There seems to be a lot of the word "random" going around as a substitute for "I don't know". They're not interchangeable.

I have little to add that hasn't been said already. This is bunk.

That being said, I will probably enjoy seeing the scare-o-rama, just to see what "the man" isn't telling me.

less than 3 minutes before the first nazi footage is shown, awesome

I'm going to vote this up not because I agree with the video at all, but because it deserves a place here on the sift for discussion by rational individuals who can see the fear/scare/hatred mongering that this film really is.

Any film that tries to paint Dawkins in a bad light is in my big book o' bad.

The scary thing is that Christians all around the world will use this pile of drivel as support and 'fact' for their fight. Even though this will be using incorrect assumptions and bald faced lies, they will use it as a tool to push their agenda.

It's just another way of crying 'Religious persecution'.

Scientists are not ridiculed for suggesting things outside of the norm... that's how discoveries are made. What they are ridiculed and cast out for is BAD SCIENCE. Those that suggest there is intelligent design in us are using BAD SCIENCE. That's why they can't get tenure, that's why they lose that jobs. They are BAD SCIENTISTS... not shunned for daring to question, shunned for being shit at the job they are pretending to be good at.

There are bad scientists just like there are bad... well, anything, every profession has people in it who are good and others who are bad at it. Those who believe in intelligent design are displaying a terrible lack of being able to apply scientific process to things. "Gee, that's pretty darn complicated.... must have been made by some Omnipotent being, who in and of themselves must be infinitely MORE complicated... but that doesn't matter they just kind of... exist, I don't have to explain them"

Idiots.

I fell over this while looking through my own comments for some reason (I HAVE NO LIFE), and to people who argue against evolution on the basis of probability I have a little conundrum for you, a riddle if you will.

If I take one (1) six-sided die and roll it, we can all agree that, given an even die, the chance of getting one eye(1) is 1/6.

Doing that twice and getting exactly 1 and 1 has a probability of (1/6)*(1/6) = (1/6)^2= 1/36. Agreed? The same goes for any combination, as long as I decide the exact order first.

If I do that a million times then the chances of getting any given order is (1/6)^1000000, which is a very, very small probability.

Now when I roll the die one million times in a row, I write down the order in which it landed (1, 4, 4, 3, 6, 1 (...)) and the odds of me hitting any given order is astronomically small, yet I hit one single order.

If I do it again, I will almost certainly not hit the same order again, but I hit an order that has exactly as low probability as any other order that is defined exactly.

This is the same way with evolution. If you look at it as though it has to hit a master plan then, of course, statistically the numbers just don't fit. It would be impossible to predict the 1 million numbers in my experiment also. But when you look at it, they way it should actually be looked at, as without any plan, without any meaning, but only a direction then it makes sense. You cannot argue against evolution with a statistical analysis for this exact reason.

LOL okay, anyone else notice he nearly says "Beuller..." at the end? "Anyone...anyone...(looking at empty desks...)"

second - natural selection / darwinsim is not random. let me repeat. it is NOT random. NOT. not a bit. not even a teeny. so... when they start out by saying "evolutionists believe this all came about because of random chan..." stop there. They didn't learn a thing. It takes Ignorance and puts it before Knowledge, like saying "this is my BOOMstick" and not understanding how a gun works. They want to say it's too amazing, it must be designed, and haven't bothered to study ANYTHING.

Evolution and learning about how species involves is the basis of medical research, astronomy, chemistry... why do they want to do away with learning? Are they afraid of people who learn to think critically? I'm totally disappointed in Ben Stein. Apparently, everyone won his money and now he's doing this to pay the rent.

Lastly, they always overlook the basis of science. It demands critical thinking, research, proven results, over and over and over. If science FAILS then it opens the door to new research to find answers. All ID does is ask people to STOP LOOKING FOR ANSWERS! gah. If science is proven wrong, it goes back to the drawing board and tries to learn from it. If ID is wrong, they make a movie and edit out fact.

This looks awful, I hate the fact they pulled in legitimate scientists under false pretences to "contribute" you can bet your bottom dollar their sections were very carefully edited in favour of the film...

And if I ever hear that stupid "I see a camera lense, its complicated and I know its designed...therefore..." crap again...


Look, a new concept of thinking - fine, but ID IS Creationism under a more scientifically acceptable label...

It's complicated..therefore it was designed by magic man in the sky.

what says the gorgon of heap about his post ?

The Heap of Gorgon says he doesn't see why these people need to find an alternative to science. I believe there is a God. And I believe the bible (so far as it is translated correctly). I think fundamental Christian theologists don't have enough information from the bible to tell them exactly how God created the earth, I don't think it's terribly relevant to ones salvation either.

I also believe that science has only begun to scratch the surface about the laws that govern the universe and all the anomalies that are in it. In short I see the two sides as thus: Science supports the things we can see and evidence in life. And Theology is the belief in things we cannot see.

I posted this with as much neutrality as I could muster. Haven't seen it myself. But it's really hard to argue feelings and beliefs against scientific method, it's like comparing apples to oranges.

Have you had a change of heart as of late ? I thought I've read some of your prior posts stating that while you believed in a god, you did not consider yourself a christian. maybe it was someone else.

So out of curiosity, out of all the gods to worship how did you narrow down your options to only believe in the Christian god ?

Careful, that whole translation angle is a slippery slope :-)

http://www.videosift.com/video/A-SHORT-LIST-OF-GODS

'Big Science' lies about the causes and results of "man-made" global warming and the "deadliness" of secondhand smoke. When you don't have scientific proof, only consensuses, you have a mob of modern day witch doctors in lab coats scaring the public, which then results in greater tyranny.

I just love Stein for pointing out the Emperor at least wears no pants: Darwin's theory doesn't explain how life began, nor does it "prove" that no god exists.

"If there's no god, then the State can be God." Those that believe this are the real enemies of mankind, not creationists. The former gang deserves this thumb in their eye.

Would tagging this *eia be too ironic?

Adding video to channels (Eia) - requested by dystopianfuturetoday.