What is Ben Stein Doing in the Sidebar?
Today is the opening of the film “Expelled” on Intelligent Design and the uncoordinated effort of atheistic science to blackball scientists (be they Christian or not) who believe in some sort of Intelligent Design. Because I believe this is a topic that should be in the public eye (rather than arguing over literal 6-24-hour-day creation vs. atheistic evolution in a dualistic manner), I have put up an ad for the movie in our sidebar.
As a number of frequent readers know, none of the writers are in this to make money. Aside from the Amazon search box, we do not have any commercial ads on this site, nor do we accept donations for numerous reasons - primarily that this is something we believe in strongly, and we don’t want any revenue pressure that might influence the content of the site - in any direction.
The ad that I’ve posted is simply to promote the movie - we do not get ANYTHING for having it up.
Nothing.
If you want to donate money, there are a number of missions which help flesh-and-blood people, and we can direct you to them.
That is all 
April 18th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Oh Ben Stein…
“dumbest smart guy in America…”
this not about blackballing scientists for their beliefs, this is about confusing science with religious belief, and ethical scientists understand the difference.
this piece explains the issue succinctly: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chez-pazienza/he-blinded-me-without-sci_b_97339.html
“It’s still a religious assertion, and not a scientific one. It doesn’t stand up to even the most rudimentary evidential scrutiny, and while it’s always important to ask questions and allow for healthy debate, no matter the topic, at some point a line has to be drawn separating fact from fiction — or distraction.”
April 18th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Sorry Evan, but you’ve fallen for a line…
There are a large number of Nobel-Prize winning scientists who have come to the scientific conclusion (via many avenues - including the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which convinced me back in my college days) that some source of intelligence (God, aliens*, whatever) was responsible for the life that exists on earth today.
What I’ve seen of the movie looks pretty funny and thought-provoking. As for Huffington… if you’re going to quote the HuffPost, I don’t ever want to hear complaints about quoting Jonah Goldberg…
*Krick (the guy who discovered and documented the structure DNA) believed it was aliens, as he could not believe in God.
April 18th, 2008 at 9:50 am
obviously you take your cues on which websites to believe from Bill O’Reilly?
been to Huffington Post lately?
if not, a short primer: MANY different writers, MANY points of view, on MANY subjects, as well as direct feeds from the wire services.
the point you’re missing is that scientists’ particular “beliefs” about the origins of life are just that: beliefs.
they are not able to be tested scientifically, and therefore don’t deserve a seat in the SCIENTIFIC discussion.
this belongs in religion class, philosophy class, whatever, but not in science class.
it’s all part of the great dumbing down of American education.
(by the way, i’ll play “fact-check” with Huffington vs. any right-wing website ANY day of the week. it’s insanely easy and fun.)
April 18th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Well, that’s because you’re always right Evan
April 18th, 2008 at 9:54 am
no, Joe, it’s because I know how to fact-check!
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
April 18th, 2008 at 9:55 am
I think that a lot of the controversy comes from the fact that people have taken Michael Behe’s assertion and used in ways that he never intended. I saw Behe speak here, and he’s very convincing. He’s really a brilliant man, and he’s certainly not a religious shill with an ax to grind.
His whole point isn’t that evolution doesn’t happen at all. He just says that there are some points at which it would need some “help” to put it simply. I don’t see that his description of intelligent design contradicts theistic evolution at all, really. It’s just when we let politicians define the argument on either side, it quickly become polarized and dumbed-down.
I do think Stein does have a point though. I think that because the argument has been defined in polarizing political terms that for a scientist in a university to “come out” and say he has looked into and given some creedence to Behe’s argument, he would be looked at by some as a religious nutjob. We can’t just pretend that the hardcore atheists like Dawkins don’t exist and have some influence.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:11 am
I’ve seen the movie twice. It has some very compelling arguments, and is going to cause alot of talk in the scientific community.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Not being a scientist I can only rely on people who are scientists to explain to me in laymens terms what exactly all of this means.
It seems that most of the people talking about this issue aren’t scientists and thats part of the problem. Quite frankly I’m not comfortable with Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort being the face of the christian scientific community.
Again I’m not a scientist but I’m going to see the movie and hopefully learn something.
Beuller? Beuller? Beuller? Ben Stein forever pigeonholed in my mind! LOL
April 18th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Here is where you’ve fallen for a false-dilemma, Evan, pitting “science” vs. “religion”.
In actuality, speaking as a scientist and an engineer, it requires much more faith to believe that everything that exists, including humans, is purely a random occurrence than to believe that something (God, aliens, the FSM, ???) had to ‘help’ out several of the steps along the way. Presenting atheistic evolution as “science” and anything else as “philosophy” is intellectually dishonest…
April 18th, 2008 at 10:27 am
And I think he’s saying: “Bueller…Bueller………Bueller” through that megaphone in the movie, too.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Crud…Chris beat me to it!
April 18th, 2008 at 10:29 am
no, you’re missing what i’m saying. “evolution” itself, the theory of evolution, isn’t “atheistic.” it’s SCIENCE. you betray the problem in your quote. i don’t particularly care what a scientist actually believes. i care whether the scientist is exhibiting integrity and respect toward the scientific method. to assert that someone “had to help along the way” to “fill the holes” or whatever is a purely religious argument, unverifiable by science, and thus has no place in a scientific discussion.
close friends of mine are leaders in the emerging biotechnology world. they are also very spiritual, very religious people. to read their work, though, you wouldn’t know it. why? because they have integrity, and they refuse to muddy their scientific inquiry with religious assertions.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:31 am
So, following Evan’s logic…
Anytime I see a speed limit sign (a law) and assume a law-maker exists - I am having a religious experience.
Anytime I see a design and assume that there was a designer - I am engaging in religion.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:34 am
The very fact that evolution is still referred to as a “theory” belies that fact that it too cannot be proven and therefore certain gaps must be filled in… by faith.
Whether it’s faith in a creator or faith in an accident… filling in the gaps in a faith-based operation.
Neil
April 18th, 2008 at 10:36 am
that makes absolutely no sense.
we’re talking about what we teach to our children in this supposedly intelligent country, which is rapidly falling behind other countries in educational standards and results.
i’m sorry, but American children need more than religious indoctrination if we don’t want India, China, Japan, Europe, etc. to leave them in the dust.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Evan,
Creation/evolution/intelligent design cannot be proven scientifically. It is not repeatable. It is all opinion.
All you need to know to understand that there is a creator is eyes to see and a brain that understands.
Only those who have become fools through a darkened understanding by supressing the clear knowledge of God through creation can actually buy into the falsehood of evolution.
Chris L, you really should go beyond the Cameron/Comfort Bananna and coke can thingy and look a little deeper into their teachings on the subject. Remember, they are most interested in Evangelism, so their teaching is really mostly just attention grabbing and discussion starting. Comfort’s books actually go much deeper and present some very logical and complete arguments. Though Ray admits he is not a scientist, they are compelling and Biblical arguments none the less.
Stein’s movie is great because it takes the Intelligent design argument from a scientific perspective, not a religious one. The logic is stunning. And why are most scientists so threatened? Because they have staked their careers to this erroneous theory. Even Einstein believed God had to be behind creation.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:37 am
you obviously do not know the scientific definition of the term “theory.”
look it up. i’ll wait.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Evan,
The point is though, that I think that hardcore atheists actually are asking scientists to be intellectually dishonest. I mean even if someone says we’re here because of aliens, the aliens had to come from somewhere, right?
I think there are a lot of scientists who aren’t hostile to religion, maybe even the majority. But there are certainly ones who are, and who even get some sort of thrill out of trying to convince people to be atheists.
By the way, the assertion of researchers being “objective” is pretty much a lie. I’ve seen too many researchers out and out lie to believe this any more. I’m not saying they’re all liars or anything, but to buy the lie that says they couldn’t possibly have an agenda just seems naive to me.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:42 am
i guess when the Christians decide to take over America, they’ll come up with their own wondrous version of Shari’a law that mandates that children be taught that “faith,” rather than “more scientific inquiry,” is required to fill the holes in scientific understanding.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:43 am
It’s not religious indoctrination that’s the problem. People in India and China are deeply religious. They just work harder than us. Americans have just become fat and lazy.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:44 am
The methodology of creation or evolution as it pertains to molecular formation is not revealed with any specificity in the Scriptures. Only the Creator is revealed specifically.
Everything else is educated and uneducated conjecture. Those who wish to know more must first meet with the Professor who will be teaching the class in the future. Many have already signed up while others are experiencing scheduling conflicts.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:45 am
i don’t think so.
yes, there are fundamentalist atheists just like there are fundamentalist Christians, and both are obnoxious.
yet, i think the scientific community is asking that people stop trying to blend the two, because though they may not be incompatible ultimately, they are in terms of how study and inquiry are to be conducted, how questions are to be answered, etc…
today’s “holes” may be filled in 10, 20, 50, 100 years…who knows?
but science is, after all, the study of God’s creation, so why don’t we just let them do their jobs?
April 18th, 2008 at 10:45 am
I am with the fat part…
April 18th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Evan,
Then allow real scientific debate to take place!
Allow intelligent design to be an alternative theory that can be taught without threat of losing one’s job or status in the community!
Really, what are evolutionists afraid of? Being proven wrong?
April 18th, 2008 at 10:50 am
theory based on what experiment, what line of inquiry, please?
which scientific journal is it, again, that proves the likelihood of a giant hand creating things and moving them about?
Genesis?
“Intelligunt Desine” is in hypothesis stage, at best.
if scientists want to actually study the issue in an effort to bring it to “theory” status, fine.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Listen. This is the one subject that I will fight vehemently about because I probably have a lot more firsthand experience (well OK it’s not all firsthand, but it’s through my wife, so it’s someone I trust) in it than others. Being with my wife as she has gotten her PhD at a large, secular research institution has been quite eye-opening for me.
I actually will defend scientists from attacks from Christians a lot of the time. I don’t think most scientists are out to destroy Christians, and I don’t think most of them are hostile towards them even. But there are definitely ones who enjoy being thorns in the sides of Christians. I’ve met them, I’ve heard them talk. I can tell you stories about them. These people aren’t ethical, and they aren’t objective. They exist.
So let’s not pretend that every scientist is a virtuous person in it for the betterment of society. Just as there are lawyers, doctors, police officers, pastors who are bastards, there are scientists who are bastards.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:53 am
yes, i understand that.
Exxon-Mobil has scientists on staff, and they are soulless hacks.
i’m talking about the at-large “scientific community” and their consensus.
individuals are another matter.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:00 am
even,
I agree with PB on this one… it is called the evolution theory and is not based on scientific methods of repeatability. In fact if it was science then they would drop the “theory” part. Now science used many theories, but the part that is scientific is the observability of the study object.
Main Entry: scientific method
Function: noun
Date: circa 1810
: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Again, the idea is the collection of data and repeatable experience that leads to a theory. Yet, being a theory does not mean it is proved as not all the data may be in. Such as the case that there is no evidence of a “monster” that jumps from a fish to a bird or a reptile to a mammal… most agree these seem to “just appear” on the evolutionary charts.
iggy
April 18th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Evan,
Science begins with observation. Take a look at your hand. Closer. How did that combination of flesh, bone, muscle, tendons, veins, nerves evolve?
And as you are looking at your hand, realize that your eye and its 300,000 light sensitive cells are sending omplex messages to your brain, which is interpreting and categorizing this information instantly.
Meanwhile, your heart beats and your lungs breathe through no command or control of your own, simply because the brain controls these reflexive actions.
And this all appeared out of a ball of gasses? a single cell? a primordial ooze?
Hold it while I check my brain at the door.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Evan…
You’re not getting it brother.
The entire prior assumption of the NDT (neo darwinian theory) is as unprovable as the most fundamentalist creationist dogma.
You can’t prove what happened, you can’t even test what happened 4 billion years ago. Not science. Bam, convo over. However, it’s still pushed that way, so someone is being intellectually dishonest.
So my question is, WHY OH WHY, is that taught as ’science’? Following your logic, we really need to throw out the atheistic underpinnings of the NDT. Because hell, that got taught to me in school and college.
Hypocrites. The scientific community I’m now getting in to are a bunch of hypocrites (not all of them lol), and it’s obvious from the points made here in this thread.
THAT’S why this is a good movie.
Everyone’s got motives.
God and science don’t conflict. Follow the evidence, that’s the scientific method, that’s the purpose of scientific inquiry. If scientists have to come to a personal conclusion that there is intelligent design in nature, great. I don’t believe we should teach that in school. And I don’t think they should teach “billions of years ago, these nonliving amino acids, lipids, and random information came together to form the first living cell”. That’s the most faith-based assertion I’ve ever seen shoveled as science.
Just some thoughts.
Joe
April 18th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Amen Iggy and Joe.
I appreciate the debate on this subject. Now if they would allow this to happen in Public Schools and Universities, then this would be all good!
April 18th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Let’s break this down just a little bit, Evan -
1) There is ‘micro-evolution’, which says that a single species will change over time to adapt to its environment. Almost NOBODY doubts this exists - we have direct evidence.
2) Then there is ‘macro-evolution’ which says that a species will randomly evolve through multiple, transitional species over long periods of time. The problem with this theory, is that there is nothing remotely similar to a transitional species found in the fossil record or in modern observable form.
3) Within those who believe in ‘macro-evolution’, there are some who believe “Theistic Evolution” - meaning that God (or someone/something else intelligent) guided the transitions from species to species, increasing the complexity of each, along the way (in direct opposition of the Second Law of Thermodynamics - which proves that the forces of the universe tend toward disorder, not order, unless acted upon by an outside force).
4) Within those who believe in ‘macro-evolution’, there are those who believe this was an ‘atheistic’ process, meaning that it was purely random and coincidental all along the way. (This requires discarding the Second Law of Thermodynamics, along with ignoring such things as Irreducible Complexity, and accepting this theory in absence of repeatable, observable data - past or present).
So - when I’m referring to “atheistic evolution”, I know exactly what I’m speaking about, and I’m being very precise.
ALL theories of the origins of life and its progression to its present form are NOT science, but rather philosophical. It is just that only some scientists are intellectually honest enough to admit this which is at issue here…
April 18th, 2008 at 11:17 am
I think you’ve got the wrong Chris…
April 18th, 2008 at 11:21 am
The New Testament and the teachings of Jesus are mostly silent about this issue.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Sorry
April 18th, 2008 at 11:31 am
I feel a hug fest between Pastordude and Iggy coming on.
Pastordude: I love you man.
Iggy: No, I love you man.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Rick,
While I agree that Jesus spoke little on this issue, it is at the basis of much of Paul’s argument, which begins with the evidence of Creation…
April 18th, 2008 at 11:36 am
I agree, Chris, but wouldn’t you agree that the Roman’s chronology is basically an apologetics for the/a Creator and not so much methodology?
April 18th, 2008 at 11:37 am
I am just hoping to be able to have a coffee with Carlos when I drive through Billings to Bozeman.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:39 am
PD - What you call coffee Iggy calls “moonshine”.
Montana - I love it. I want to visit the Unibomber museum!
April 18th, 2008 at 11:48 am
And isn’t that the difference between argued between atheistic evolution vs. intelligent design - whether or not the evidence points to a creator or just to blind luck?
April 18th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Which then breaks out into a huge blog fight over who loves each other more! ; )
iggy
April 18th, 2008 at 11:54 am
John,
I would love to have coffee with you! That would be great.
Email me and I will give you my phone number.
What are the dates of your drive to Bozo?
iggy
April 18th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Rick,
Nope we call it mountain mudd
iggy
April 18th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
The problem with this whole debate is that both sides are disingenuous.
For evolutionists, let’s say hypothetically that there is a God who has in the past and maybe today intervenes in the universe. By refusing to acknowledge his possible existence, scientific inquiry is necessarily going to be incomplete and flawed. To automatically assume that the hypothetical God does not exist limits science unnecessarily. Acknowledging the possibility of the existence of God does not in any way force religion into the scientific method, but (if that hypothetical God actually does exist) may in fact bolster science by opening it up to possible areas of inquiry that were unavailable before.
Creationists, however, need to stop assuming that every evolutionary scientist is out to get them all the time. They need to stop declaring scientists to be stupid because they just can’t see the truth that God is there. They need to be just as willing to explore the possibilities that God used an evolutionary method of one kind or another, engaging in the scientific process (and not the Ken Hamm junk…real scientific inquiry). They may find that science may illuminate them about the nature and character of the Creator in ways that they had never thought about before.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
i’ll address more specific points later, b/c i’m busy with clients right now, but you’ll notice i’m not arguing for “belief” in either creation or evolution, nor did i state whether i believe in either, both, or neither.
i’m talking about getting peoples’ religion out of the classroom, down the hall, out the double-doors, and back in their homes and churches where it belongs.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Evan,
My “religion” belongs on my face, in my body, by my side, and everywhere I go. You sound like the people getting angry with George W. saying his faith is fine, just don’t let it influence how he runs the country. If my faith doesn’t influence EVERY move I make and everything I do and say, than I am not really serious about my God. And, pardon me, but until you experience your children (excuse me if I assume too much, but considering your lifestyle…) getting “taught” (or rather indoctrinated) about the “facts” of things like evolution and global warming and all other kinds of THEORIES, then kindly…well, you get it.
2 things:
You cannot separate science from God, because God is the creator of our science.
and…
we will never be able to prove either, that is why it is called FAITH. All I want is a balanced and thoughtful presentation of the many theories. With none of them presented as fact. Because none are.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
adults should be able to experience their faith fully without imposing it on others.
adults, i said.
and no, i do not want my child being indoctrinated in a public school by people with a religious agenda…
b/c that’s all this is.
from Wikipedia:
“Although in the scientific community there is almost universal agreement that the evidence of evolution is overwhelming, and the scientific consensus supporting the modern evolutionary synthesis is nearly absolute,[1][2] creationists have asserted that there is a significant scientific controversy and disagreement over the validity of evolution.”
it’s called a manufactured controversy.
the right wing has been perfecting it for years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
April 18th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
oh, and what “lifestyle”?
*eyerolls*
April 18th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
more “evil Christian-hating” scientist stuff - a list of the scientific societies (er, all of them) that reject the teaching of intelligent design on an equal footing with evolutionary theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_societies_rejecting_intelligent_design
April 18th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
“adults should be able to experience their faith fully without imposing it on others.”
What you call imposing I call sharing. And our faith is in a Person who told us to go and
imposeshare it. Many times I wish He hadn’t said that.April 18th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
there actually is a huge difference between sharing your faith with a willing listener and imposing a belief system about the origins of the universe that is supported by fewer than one percent of all scientists.
April 18th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
You know waht, Evan, I agree. I never get into those cosmological discussions because they usually lead to entrenchment. I am an amateur astronomer, however, and I have see men on Mars!
And just so you know, the Big Bang wasn’t a Bang since there wasn’t any sound waves in space yet. And it wasn’t big since it began as something smaller than a proton. So in realty it was a Small Poof!!
April 18th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
I’d say children need NO indoctrination - in the public schools sense. That means not indoctrinating them that a theory is fact… whether that theory is purely naturalistic evolution, or design by creator.
Since neither can be proven, neither should be taught at the expense of the other.
Neil
April 18th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Evan said: “the right wing has been perfecting it for years”
I’ll never smile again……
April 18th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Ye Olde Christian War On Science Continues Apace!
AND
AND
Oh, dear God.
America deserves to be left behind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
April 18th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
simple! just redefine the word “macroevolution” and preach about it to people in church pews, and all of a sudden they’re “experts” on the manufactured “controversy” over evolution!
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
April 18th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Wittenburg Door has a review of the Stein movie…
http://www.wittenburgdoor.com/stein-nukes-darwin
April 18th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
ugh, scientific websites with…facts…are so obnoxiously…well-sourced!
April 18th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
It all comes down to faith - one way or the other…
Neil
April 18th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Just which version of evolution are we supposed to believe in particularly in relation to the beginnings of life as there is no agreement of opinion.
April 18th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Exactly, Neil - that’s the point.
As Evan’s proved, the “scientific” community has a vested interest in perpetuating the myth that there is some sort of conflict between science and religion.
Both “sides” of the debate attempt to prove their point via Argumentum ad populum, whether it’s misrepresenting what “all scientists believe”, or what “most non-scientists believe”.
Whether you want to call it “macroevolution” or whatever, the root of the question boils down to - was life created or did it come about by accident? Neither of these can be proven scientifically, and so whichever choice one makes on this basic question, it is a matter of faith - not science. There is no contradiction between the two…
April 18th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Evan Evan Evan…I’m very dissapointed in you.
Wikipedia is a reliable source now?
Talk origins?
Come on dude. Seriously.
You might as well say “I believe creationists are wrong… BECAUSE!”
Majority rules, is usually wrong as time increases, in the scientific field.
I take Darwin and the movement he started with a big grain of salt.
As for your expelled exposed, you know what I think? I think saying someone is “creating controversy where there is none” is just a cheap ploy to distract from a damage rebuke.
Those guys got pwned and they know it. They’re pissed. The dog that gets hit, yelps.
Joe
April 18th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
proved no such thing.
you put “scientific” in quotes…why?
if anything, the scientific community would like to operate outside of religion, please, since one is based on dogma and the other is based on intellectual inquiry.
also, they are two completely different subjects, and people can hold opinions on both simultaneously.
the only problem with the argumentum ad populum idea is that all the scientific organizations, indeed over 99% of scientists, rather than the 700 or so (some of them not even scientists, per se) touted by institutes of “Creation Science,” are telling us “yes. we the scientific community, apart from a loon here and there who doesn’t actually do experiments or submit experiments to peer view, acknowledge evolution.”
there IS no debate among the scientific community over whether or not evolution happened.
Wikipedia is just the first resource i’ve come across so far in the limited time i’ve spent today on this. believe me, when i lay it out this weekend on my blog, there will be references to lots of journals, etc.
the entire scientific community got pwned. right.
except that, since Darwin wrote, the body of science has been building UPON the idea of evolution, rather than coming to different conclusions.
the only reason there’s any idea of “majority ruling” here in the first place is that the majority of Americans don’t even have a layman’s understanding of science.
but that’s not the question these pseudo-intellectuals are framing in this debate. they are presenting ID as an ALTERNATIVE to evolution, which real scientists, almost to a T, agree happened. these people who seem to want to force religious dogma into the public square, into impressionable kids’ minds, systematically do everything they can to give people the impression that “science” is out to get them.
ID cannot be proven, cannot even be TESTED, therefore it belongs nowhere near a science curriculum.
btw, i just got off the phone with a biochemist, at the top of his field…he says those in the actual scientific community are kinda rolling their eyes and snickering at this.
April 18th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
i mean, i guess i could always go to “Conservapedia,” the whiny website set up because a few disgruntled conservatives don’t like the way that facts tend to have a liberal bias, so they have to set up a fantasy-land for themselves…
April 18th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
I didn’t say ‘the entire scientific community’ Evan.
The targets of the movie got hit. That’s obvious.
Guess what Evan, macro can’t be tested either. Call you friend. Ask him if we can test macro in the lab. None of this “well the fossils….” crap either.
I’m not saying I’m against what the scientific community believes, I’m getting in to the field myself, I’m just saying, I can tell the difference between science (repeatable testable verifiable things…like say…gravity) and faith (like say…in 1,000,000 years humans will no longer be human).
Joe
April 18th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
I’m going home, this crap is infuritating.
April 18th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
the scientific community would like to operate outside of religionThat’s an argumentum ad populum statement.
That’s like saying “The Emerging Church is liberal theologically, therefore Mark Driscoll is liberal”.
April 18th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
When we survey the human race, we might come to the conclusion that creation was one BIG accident, an experiment that went very, very wrong. However God tells us why it went like this.
To suggest the absence of a Creator of some kind is foolish. To suggest a Creator without redemption is to render the Creator a mad scientist who didn’t know what he was doing.
April 18th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
from New Scientist:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13717-evolution-myths-yet-more-misconceptions.html
April 18th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
“There are no transitional fossils”
Oh yea? They haven’t seen Bea Arthur lately!
April 18th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
psssst evan….
still love ya man… even if we disagree.
iggy
April 18th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Evan, you said “they are presenting ID as an ALTERNATIVE to evolution”
I’m pretty sure you’re wrong on that. Double-check. Especially if you will give ANY validation to the idea of macro v. micro evolution.
btw, have you even seen the film?
April 18th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
another Wikipedia entry…i know, i know…
April 18th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
OK, Evan, I’m convinced. I am on my way to the Tampa Zoo to help my relatives escape a cruel prison!
April 18th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
nope…i don’t need propaganda, aimed at the hoi polloi, from Ben Stein, who isn’t a scientist of ANY kind, in order to educate myself on the findings of the greater scientific community.
April 18th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
nose-bleed?
April 18th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
no, i’m not wrong on that. that’s exactly what the goals of the Creationist Anti-Thought Anti-Science movement are, and they’ve been that way ever since Darwin decided to threaten their flimsy faith by asking questions.
April 18th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Sorry, but they are going to the crux of the matter - did life begin as an ‘accident’ from primordial goo and lightning (or whatever), or was it an intentional act?
Stein even asks this question in one of the oft-played clips of the movie.
ID does not posit that “evolution” (more specifically ‘macroevolution’) does not exist - rather it goes to the root of the matter - was it a matter of “Intelligent Design” or “Random Design”? “Evolution” as taught in most universities & schools is taught as “atheistic evolution” - i.e. the original cause was random/accident. (Even the name “Intelligent Design” gets to the cause of the design, not the mechanics)
The TRUTH is, neither of these can be proven via the scientific method. Whichever you choose is a matter of faith - not science.
April 18th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
then you would agree we shouldn’t be mindlessly indoctrinating schoolchildren by inserting this anti-academic tripe into their science classes?
April 18th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
I just realized that Wikipedia is run by the Wiccans.
April 18th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Maybe you need to stop drinking the Koolaid, Evan.
A number of the folks who post here belong to the “ID Movement”, and it is anything BUT “Anti-Thought Anti-Science”. In fact, most of the folks I know of (not counting fringe kooks which are present in any/every movement) have been pressing simply for academic honesty, which then gets propagandized as “Anti-thought Anti-science”. Sorry, but the folks I went to university with were and are scientists and engineers, and many of them support ID and are anything BUT “Anti-Thought Anti-Science”…
In this particular matter, the only difference between you and the Silvas of the world is which side of the fence you’re playing on - ultra-right or ultra-left… Joe’s right, dude, your yelping is coming through loud and clear…
Funny, I work in the real world in the “scientific community”, and this film has already sparked some good discussion - and I’ve seen no rolling eyes… Polling a few people around you is not the basis for truth in fact…
April 18th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Yes ,”anti-academic tripe”, like telling them that their existence is the result of pure accident and natural selection…
April 18th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Evan,
A giraffe with a shorter neck does not prove evolution… it proves there was a giraffe with a shorter neck! If I have a big dog and a small dog… neither would prove evolution. It proves that dogs come in different sizes… and back to the giraffe. There is one in Santa Barbara with a crooked neck… is that evolution?
As far as the intermediate fossils, can we say the adaptation is the same as a fish becoming a man? Now, you can turn off and on DNA for a bird to be a dinosaur, yet again is that evolution or adaptation? I think there is still much room to debate.
More interesting to me is that there is proof man and dinosaur walked the earth at the same time… yet that is poopooed as none scientific as it does not fit their model.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Barbara_Zoo
http://www.rae.org/tuba.html
http://www.archaeologyexpert.co.uk/EarlyFootprints.html
April 18th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
How immobilized are we Christians? Besides Christian schools, how about endoctrinating your child to watch for people teaching we came from monkeys. Make it so laughable that when they are taught it they will be able to use their inherrant urge to rebel against that theory.
You’ve got to be taught before it’s too late
Before you are six, or seven or eight…
(South Pacific)
April 18th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
HR,
Exactly…even when I heard this as a youngster, I couldn’t accept the idea that I evolved from apes. Similarities, yes. Once was one…nope, can’t do it.
although, raising kids makes me reconsider…*wink*
April 18th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
The Geico commercials really had me goin’, though!
April 18th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
wait, you just conflated the two again - i thought you were trying to say that this debate is only over the ORIGINS, since the process of evolution is widely accepted within the scientific community.
so, which is it? because it sounds like you’re trying to put God into the process of evolution, which he MAY HAVE BEEN, but since we can’t test/verify it, it has no place in science!
April 18th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
which is why i included that as an “aside.”
April 18th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
“Polling a few people around you is not the basis for truth in fact…”
Unless you can come up with a better way.
April 18th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
yet, polling all scientists named Steve and using scientific statistical analysis to show that Steve multiplied by 100 equals about 83,000 scientists who would NOT support teaching ID in the science classroom, versus the 700 who would, shows us (now i’m bringing in mathematics, so hold on) that 99.992% of scientists (being conservative, since new Steves are signing the list all the time) would agree that this film is agendized propaganda.
April 18th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
excuse me, 99.2% …i had to reset my calculator to decimal.
haha.
*admits it when he messes up*
April 18th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
“agendized propaganda.”
Propaganda is an agenda, right? I mean, that’s kinda the idea of propaganda. (Joseph Goebels, 1933)
April 18th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
si, si.
April 18th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
So you didn’t watch Al Gore’s movie either, right? I mean he’s not a scientist either.
April 18th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Chris L,
“ID does not posit that “evolution” (more specifically ‘macroevolution’) does not exist ”
i have a, possibly, dumb question. what is the difference between some forms of ID and theistic evolution?
April 18th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
“So you didn’t watch Al Gore’s movie either, right? I mean he’s not a scientist either.”
From the pictures I’ve seen, I think he’s a chef now.
April 18th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Evan,
Maybe you need to get back into the science - “Natural Selection” posits that all of the “selected” mutations were “natural” (meaning, unguided - random) - that evolution was simply guided by nature (no outside force). Pure accident = natural selection. Pure accident does not necessarily equate with evolution, if you consider “theistic evolution” as evolution.
Theistic evolution would be one possibility within ID.
Basically, you’ve got “Intelligent Design” or “Random Chance” - it’s got to be one or the other.
6-day creation? ID
Theistic evolution? ID
Day/Age? ID
Historical Creationism? ID
Alien creation? ID
Spontaneous Generation? Random Chance
Natural Selection? Random Chance
You’ve got to have faith in “Intelligent Design” or “Random Chance” - neither can be proven or disproven via the scientific method. BOTH are matters of faith, but ONE (”Random Chance”) is currently being taught as “science”, but is, in reality, pseudoscience when it makes such a claim…
April 18th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
haha, at least his film was backed up by the scientific community.
April 18th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
“scientific”
You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.
April 18th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
oh, i do, i do.
yet another “manufactured” controversy.
but let’s not get into that one.
i’m exhausted.
that’s a scientific explanation. it’s not so simple as “ID or random chance.”
April 18th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
What does it all matter? The only question is “Who do you say that I am?.”(Jesus)
All the rest - window dressing.
April 18th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Evan - if a system has two steps and one of the two steps is random, then the output of the system is random. So:
Natural selection posits that ALL mutations are random, chance events.
Intelligent Design posits that at least some of the mutations (those on the macro- level) are guided, whereas others are allowed to occur, based upon the environmental factors (microevolution).
April 18th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
All mutants are randon except turtles.
April 18th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
and you base this on…
see, there’s no scientific evidence that there IS an intelligent force guiding things, therefore we must assume, from a scientific basis, anyway, that there isn’t. once an ID proponent decides to macgyver together an experiment, we can see if it can be proven that there is a designer. until then, we assume there’s not, from a scientific perspective.
now, from a religious perspective, it’s all fair game, and there’s nothing wrong with addressing these issues in religion classes, in philosophy classes, etc…in fact, they already are. that’s the other Great Big Lie of the ID propaganda movement: that the idea of a designer is somehow being “pushed out of the classroom.”
it’s like “no sweetheart. it’s just being put in the appropriate classroom.”
tthe general scientific consensus seems to be that macro, by its nature, follows micro
April 18th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
No, it wasn’t it was debated by the scientific community. In England when they teach it, they have to point out that there are at least 9 major errors in it. Be careful Evan, you may become a fundy of a different stripe.
April 18th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
ha. incomplete thought. i hate it when the comments get all screwed up and you can’t see what you’re typing or what you’ve already typed, etc.
i’ll finish that thought later. i’m cooking right now.
April 18th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
okay, it has 9 errors…
the point is that the issue of global warming, Joe, has the utter weight of worldwide scientific consensus behind it.
ID doesn’t have jack___.
April 18th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
“the point is that the issue of global warming, Joe, has the utter weight of worldwide scientific consensus behind it.”
I suggest the utter weight of worldwide panic. If you believe that scientific consensus means a forty year observation window is solid scientific evidence about a cyclical event. Every single person living in the world can stand on a three by three square in the state of Rhode Island.
There are approximately 600 million cars in the world which can all be parked in New York City. And cars have only been cumulative for 50 years. So these cars represent turning the earth’s climate in 5 decades?
Your definition of scientific is different than mine.
April 18th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
really? seriously, Evan?
“the UTTER weight of worldwide scientific consensus”?
Really?
April 18th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
But, Evan, I do get the Gore connection to “utter weight”.
April 18th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
as opposed to some Exxon Mobil scientists and their unpaid spokespeople in the Christian Church?
April 18th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Rick: I believe if you take:
- 1000 lbs of scrap metal
- 500 lbs of plastic
- 1.5 miles of electric wiring
- 200 lbs of rubber
- 800 lbs of sand
- and a roll of LifeSavers (actually those optio