Ben Stein "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"

[photon]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

It's not hard to state. You just stated it. It's not hard for me to state it, it's not like I want to and can't. I just don't believe it.

Exactly, and it's hard to believe it (using belief in the sense of accepting a point of view) because there's no evidence for it.

[Kipper is King]

Originally Posted by photon

Just because you think it can't be random doesn't mean that it can't be. That's an argument from personal incredulity, which is a logical fallacy.

...and I'm in a logic class, so I should have realized that. D'oh! But there will be loads of those fallacies anytime someone is debating something so deeply rooted in opinions.

[photon]

Originally Posted by llama64

So much time is spent on this pointless issue. Both ID and traditional science theories should be taught in school. Knowledge doesn't corrupt people. Teaching your kids about ID doesn't turn them into religious nuts. More likely, expanding their knowledge to alternative views on things will make them more intelligent.

There is a lot of bias and blindness on both sides. The religious element of society is to large to ignore. Better to understand it's impact on our lives then to rage about how wrong proponents of ID are.

Then teach it as it is, teach it as creationism and teach it in social studies in a section on religions of the world or something. That's fine.

But don't teach it as a science, because it isn't.

Let me ask this, would you support teaching in schools that all Natives in North America are descended from Israel to observe the Mormon beliefs? Despite there being no evidence for it and there being DNA evidence to the contrary?

[Thor]

Originally Posted by llama64

So much time is spent on this pointless issue. Both ID and traditional science theories should be taught in school. Knowledge doesn't corrupt people. Teaching your kids about ID doesn't turn them into religious nuts. More likely, expanding their knowledge to alternative views on things will make them more intelligent.

There is a lot of bias and blindness on both sides. The religious element of society is to large to ignore. Better to understand it's impact on our lives then to rage about how wrong proponents of ID are.

ID is an attempt to not offer an alternative theory that science gives a shred of respect, but an attempt to bring in creationism into science classrooms.

Like with all things in science, unless ID can find compelling evidence and support within a large chunk of the scientific community, it should not be taught alongside real science.

Public schools are supposed to be secular, I would not want my child being given lessons that ID is real science. If ID supporters want their children to be taught this, then they certainly have church, after school programs, home, etc..

[Metro Gnome]

Originally Posted by llama64

So much time is spent on this pointless issue. Both ID and traditional science theories should be taught in school. Knowledge doesn't corrupt people. Teaching your kids about ID doesn't turn them into religious nuts. More likely, expanding their knowledge to alternative views on things will make them more intelligent.

There is a lot of bias and blindness on both sides. The religious element of society is to large to ignore. Better to understand it's impact on our lives then to rage about how wrong proponents of ID are.

ID should perhaps be taught in anthropological or historical classes. But it has no place in a scientific discussion as a "alternative view". It's not a scientific theory...it's a faith-based fairy tale. There is nothing falsifiable about ID's claims and it therefore can not be subject to hypothesis, correction through testing or debate. "God dun it" does not signify a "theory" on anything, and shouldn't be legitimated as such.

[Kipper is King]

Originally Posted by photon

Exactly, and it's hard to believe it (using belief in the sense of accepting a point of view) because there's no evidence for it.

Do Jesus and the Bible (for instance) not count as evidence for the existence of God?

Main Entry: 1ev·i·dence Pronunciation: \ˈe-və-dən(t)s, -və-ˌden(t)s\ Function: noun Date: 14th century 1 a: an outward sign : indication b: something that furnishes proof : testimony; 2: one who bears witness;

They could be considered evidence for the existence of God who could have created us.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

touche! Why is it so hard to believe it, then? That's a better wording.

It's not hard to believe it. It's probably easier.

I don't see any evidence for it.

That's about it and probably as far as I'm willing to get into this subject for the trillionth time.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by photon

Then teach it as it is, teach it as creationism and teach it in social studies in a section on religions of the world or something. That's fine.

But don't teach it as a science, because it isn't.

Let me ask this, would you support teaching in schools that all Natives in North America are descended from Israel to observe the Mormon beliefs? Despite there being no evidence for it and there being DNA evidence to the contrary?

I've stated that in past threads. Fully agree with you there. I just don't like the science zealots that come out denouncing anything remotely tied to religion. It betrays an ignorance of what they are talking about.

[Kipper is King]

Originally Posted by Metro Gnome

it's a faith-based fairy tale.

You call it a fairy tale, does that make it so?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

...and I'm in a logic class, so I should have realized that. D'oh! But there will be loads of those fallacies anytime someone is debating something so deeply rooted in opinions.

Of course, that's why we learn about them so we can see them in ourselves and each other to improve our ability to reason.

What I don't understand is why this is such a huge issue. People today don't have a problem leaving other ancient traditions such as inequality of women, slavary, a flat earth or geocentric universe behind, why is evolution such a sticking point?

[Kipper is King]

I enjoy these debates. But they do tend to turn into rather bogged down trench-warefare type things.

Maybe I'm enjoying this because it provides another long pathway for procrastination with a term paper! Yeah, that's it.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

Do Jesus and the Bible (for instance) not count as evidence for the existence of God?

Main Entry: 1ev·i·dence Pronunciation: \ˈe-və-dən(t)s, -və-ˌden(t)s\ Function: noun Date: 14th century 1 a: an outward sign : indication b: something that furnishes proof : testimony; 2: one who bears witness;

They could be considered evidence for the existence of God who could have created us.

Existance of jesus is debatable, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest he never existed.

Which god? The bible when created took a vast majority of its content from older religions and other gods. In fact a great deal of christianity, judaism, islam ALL have taken from the ancient religions of Egypt, Babylon, Greek, Roman, etc..

Jesus was just version 2.0 of a familiar tale that to people during his supposed life would have said "oh this story again?"

[FlamesAddiction]

Whether or not biological and physical processes are random or engineereed isn't even the key question here. In fact, not too much about nature is random - patterns persist in almost aspects of nature. That being said, there is no reason to think that if processes are non-random, that they necessarily have to be a result of ID.

Perhaps there is some kind of cosmic higher power that governs life and existence (not necessarily a "being" in the conventional sense), we'd be foolish to think that our intellect could ever understand the reasoning and methods. ID could be as simple as making "something" instead of "nothing", and letting the natural processes create the complexities of life.

[Metro Gnome]

Originally Posted by llama64

I've stated that in past threads. Fully agree with you there. I just don't like the science zealots that come out denouncing anything remotely tied to religion. It betrays an ignorance of what they are talking about.

Oxymoron. Science is systemic method of discovering the truth. It's not an established dogma demanding obedience. It's not a competing religion to Christianity (or other religions). Calling a scientist an unrealistic "extremist" because he/she chooses evidence and fact over fanciful stories is fallacious. It's like denouncing a mathematician that insists that 2+2=4 as being a "numbers zealot".

[Kipper is King]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Perhaps there is some kind of cosmic higher power that governs life and existence (not necessarily a "being" in the conventional sense), we'd be foolish to think that our intellect could ever understand the reasoning and methods. ID could be as simple as making "something" instead of "nothing", and letting the natural processes create the complexities of life.

That's an interesting angle...hmmmm. ::head scratching::

[Metro Gnome]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

You call it a fairy tale, does that make it so?

The burden of proof is on the claimant. You're in a logic class you say?

If a person who approaches me and declares "the all mighty spaghetti monster created the universe!" might just be correct as well. But until he can provide some kind of proof - beyond the axiomatic "the universe exists doesn't it!" - Im going to dub that fairy tale as well.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

Do Jesus and the Bible (for instance) not count as evidence for the existence of God?

Main Entry: 1ev·i·dence Pronunciation: \ˈe-və-dən(t)s, -və-ˌden(t)s\ Function: noun Date: 14th century 1 a: an outward sign : indication b: something that furnishes proof : testimony; 2: one who bears witness;

They could be considered evidence for the existence of God who could have created us.

Ok now you've changed the question. I was talking about evidence that the pretty galaxy had been created and had not occurred naturally, now you've shifted it to the existence of God in general.

This isn't an all or nothing proposition.

But to answer your question about the existence of God, no, because the quality of those witnesses can't be established.

If Jesus was here to testify then great, but He isn't (or won't testify on demand anyway). Jesus left no writings of his own for us to read so we really don't know, all we have is records written by often anonymous authors decades and centuries after the events. So I don't see how Jesus is evidence for God.

For the Bible itself, if you accept the Bible as evidence for God, do you accept the Qu'ran as evidence for Allah as well?

[Kipper is King]

Originally Posted by Metro Gnome

It's not an established dogma demanding obedience. It's not a competing religion to Christianity (or other religions).

Well, then what do you say the people who are adament to take ID out of schools are doing? Seems like they are demanding obidience to dogma of sorts.

I do get your point that science does not compete with religion. Ironically, that's one of my points as well. But from a different angle.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

Maybe I'm enjoying this because it provides another long pathway for procrastination

And the funny thing about it is that procrastination is about the only thing these debates ever accomplish.

We are stuck.

Ben Stein though, this really seems like "selling out" to me. It's suggested in that review posted earlier -- that he might be in this just to get paid. I find it hard to believe that he personally believes in this stuff but there he is shilling for the Jesus freaks.

Maybe if the movie was an honest attempt (and maybe it is) to shed light on some genuine academic/scientific stifling by the community as a whole then he'd be onto something, but from that short preview I saw, there was nothing but preachiness and propaganda.

[Hack&Lube]

this movie should be called Dunce:No intelligence used