Ben Stein "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

because it goes against the first book, the first chapter, the first verse of the Bible. So if Genesis is incorrect, then what does it say about the other 65 books of the Bible? 2.1 Billion citizens of the world might have to reconsider their way of thinking; at the very least, not have a literal interpretation of the Bible. Accept that it is a parable

You do realize there are already two different, contradictory creation stories in the Bible, right (Genesis 1 and Genesis 2)?

And it's been the official position of the Vatican since at least the 1960s to allow Catholics to accept evolution as fact, provided one believes it was the process by which God created life.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

because it goes against the first book, the first chapter, the first verse of the Bible. So if Genesis is incorrect, then what does it say about the other 65 books of the Bible? 2.1 Billion citizens of the world might have to reconsider their way of thinking; at the very least, not have a literal interpretation of the Bible. Accept that it is a parable

Well out of those 2.1 billion the majority are Catholics, and the Catholic position is in support of evolution, that the soul is created by God. So the majority of Christians don't have a problem with evolution.

It goes against the first book only if you see the creation story as literal truth (logos) instead of written as mythos. But there are tons of other things in the Bible that Christians take as either being not literal truth or as being bound by culture, so again why is this any different?

I can see that yes if you believe in a totally inerrant Bible then evolution does threaten your position, but the problems and historical errors in the Bible itself does that for them already, but I don't see them out creating movies about how historians are lying when they say there's no historical evidence that the nation of Israel was ever enslaved by Egypt and claiming that the establishment is marginalizing historians who have evidence for it.

[Canada 02]

^ Genesis 1 is God is the creator
Genesis 2 is Adam and Eve

I don't see your point

The first 5 books of the Bible also make up the first part of the Jewish Bible (Talmud?)

Muslims also believe in creation or so my muslim friend tells me.

So a great deal of people believe in creationism or ID.

Perhaps the most significant part is that these three groups are very powerful lobbies; controlling policy; contolling media

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Ben Stein isn't just a random Hollywood star; prior to becoming an actor/game show host, he was a lawyer and college professor. He was valedictorian when he graduated from Yale's law school (where, coincidentally, he was a classmate of Bill and Hillary Clinton), and he also has political experience, having served on the White House staff of presidents Nixon and Ford...

Sure, but Stein is presenting himself as a spokesperson for a field of study in which he is not professionally trained. He may be—and probably is—a brilliant man, but this alone does not qualify him to determine the validity of the scientific claims being made by ID proponants. This is quite obvious from the long trailer for the movie, in which he profiles Richard von Sternberg, and suggests that he is being persecuted for his beliefs in intelligent design. This is typical of IDists, and it REALLY skirts the issue: von Sternberg failed to follow appropriate protocol of the peer review process, and ramrodded a poorly researched, and scientifically unsubstantiated paper into publication. No mention of this in any of the trailers, and I seriously doubt it ever comes up in the movie.

[tjinaz]

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".

I think the point of the whole movie is that science zealots do exist. If one scientist does an experiment that shows an outcome other than the Neo Darwin theories they are shunned. I don't think Ben Stein is a religious extremist but that he would like those that have opposing views and have data to back that up be heard.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

I can`t imagine anyone debating that this is a masterpiece, created by a being.

So why is so hard to state that this is also a masterpiece, created by someone?

Because that's a limit on your imagination. Saying that "duh, I don't know how this got here, I guess somebody made this" is an easy explanation for something that is much grander and more powerful in and of itself. Feel free to believe what you believe but there's nothing "to be taught" here which is why there's so much backlash against teaching ID in schools. There's nothing TO BE TAUGHT. There's only one level - "somebody made this" and that's it. Science on the other hand posits that the universe is much more intricate, multi-dimensional, self-propagating and that these processes might be understood or even controlled over time.

Van Gogh made that painting but you can try to understand how Van Gogh did it, the proceses he used, you can try to understand his state of mind, his motivations, his painting techniques. There's no point to teaching ID because there is nothing behind it to teach. There is is nothing to be learned, nothing to be studied. It's simply stated as a fact and the very theology it is based upon says that it cannot be understood...so why must it be taught in schools? I really don't understand this point.

[photon]

Originally Posted by tjinaz

I think the point of the whole movie is that science zealots do exist. If one scientist does an experiment that shows an outcome other than the Neo Darwin theories they are shunned. I don't think Ben Stein is a religious extremist but that he would like those that have opposing views and have data to back that up be heard.

They may be shunned by one individual who's work it may displace, but they aren't shunned by science in general. If they have evidence they just have to publish it. The people who are shunned are the ones who are producing research without any evidence or merit.

That's the problem with this film, they take all the time whining about all the opposing views and data that's supposedly being ignored, but they DON'T ACTUALLY PRODUCE ANY OF IT! Not to mention they misrepresent and outright lie in the film (where do liars go?).

This mythical suppressed scientific data is simply that; a myth.

The reality is over 150 years since Darwin, evolution as a theory has changed radically. Every month dozens if not hundreds of papers challenging different points and aspects of evolution are published, accepted, duplicated, tested, etc; if the theory that no one was allowed to challenge evolution was true then a) it wouldn't have changed as much as it has in the past century and b) those papers wouldn't be out there.

[MarchHare]

^ Genesis 1 is God is the creator
Genesis 2 is Adam and Eve

I don't see your point

Exactly right. Now read both chapters again and see how contradictory the two different creation stories are. Here's an example to get you started:

In Genesis 1:24-25, all the other animals were created before humans, both male and female (Genesis 1:26-27).

But in Genesis 2:7, God first created man (Adam), then all the other animals which Adam named in kind (Genesis 2:19-20), then finally he created woman (Eve) from Adam's rib (Genesis 2:21-23)

[Vulcan]

I am what most would call a believer in god, although not a follower of any religion, so when I first heard of ID, I thought good, I'm going to read up on this. Well two paragraphs in my crapo'meter started going off and I've never read anything further about it except what is here.
Watching that Ben Stein trailer left a sour taste. I don't like being manipulated and that's what he is doing. As for the question of did god create the universe, I don't know, I wasn't there. Maybe he or it is a result of this creation, although I doubt it. For now I'll accept the scientific research on when and how the physical universe and I came into being.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

^ Genesis 1 is God is the creator
Genesis 2 is Adam and Eve

Actually, Gen 1 and 2 are generally considered to be alternative creation myths originating from different segments of ancient Israelite religion. Both were combined in the formation of the Book of Genesis, well after the destruction of Jerusalem in the 6th cent. B.C.E.

Originally Posted by Canada 02

The first 5 books of the Bible also make up the first part of the Jewish Bible (Talmud?)

TaNaKh, which is an acronym for the three parts of the Hebrew Bible: Torah ("Law"), Nabiim ("Prophets"), w'Ketuvim ("Writings" or "Scriptures").

Originally Posted by Canada 02

Muslims also believe in creation or so my muslim friend tells me.

So a great deal of people believe in creationism or ID.

Let's be clear: believing in creation is quite different from believing in creationism or intelligent design. The first is merely ahope or a supposition that the world, the universe, and everything in it may be the product of something or someone beyond the material constrains of what we know. The latter assumes that a creator or an intelligence behind the world, the universe and everything in it may be observed and known through science.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by tjinaz

I think the point of the whole movie is that science zealots do exist. If one scientist does an experiment that shows an outcome other than the Neo Darwin theories they are shunned. I don't think Ben Stein is a religious extremist but that he would like those that have opposing views and have data to back that up be heard.

Suppressing opposing theories that have merit and can withstand the process of peer review is extremely unscientific behaviour. The very basis of the scientific method is to reject assumptions and to search for knowledge based on facts and empirical evidence.

Suppose a scientist performs an experiment and the results contradict the theory of evolution. He then has his study published in a journal to be criticized by other scientists, and his methodology is determined to be sound, and other scientists are able to repeat his experiment under the same conditions and receive the same results. What do you think would happen next?

A) The scientific community would shun the scientist and reject his findings because it contradicts their previously held theories?

or

B) Scientists would accept the results, proceed with further experiments, and modify their theories accordingly.

I don't know of a single scientist (and I know many) who would choose answer A).

One of my favourite quotations comes from the astronomer Carl Sagan, who said:

Originally Posted by Carl Sagan

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.

[photon]

Not to mention that if someone really did overturn evolution with a new theory, they'd win a Nobel prize at the very least.

[SebC]

I once did an experiment that determined that I could create energy by getting a partial reflection off a refractive surface that was more intense than the light being reflected... but since it wasn't peer reviewed, I don't think I can just say that we need to scrap conservation of mass-energy.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by troutman

Evolution is not random.

Someone could have thunk this up, or it could have started without a someone. The way evoultion works, hints at the latter being more likely.

It is in the sense that it has no definable purpose. At least from the secular point of view.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by peter12

It is in the sense that it has no definable purpose. At least from the secular point of view.

I may be way off here, but isn't that precisely what natural selection is: a theory of purpose? Put simply, evolution occurs for the purpose of survival. Species arise, adapt, evolve, and disappear based on the ability of each to survive. Isn't this the very basic purpose of life?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I may be way off here, but isn't that precisely what natural selection is: a theory of purpose? Put simply, evolution occurs for the purpose of survival. Species arise, adapt, evolve, and disappear based on the ability of each to survive. Isn't this the very basic purpose of life?

Oh, of course. Well, its purpose is adaptability, but in the sense of n the spiritual purpose there is none. I suppose Dawkins is right in one sense, our purpose is to pass on copies of our DNA in the form of children.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I may be way off here, but isn't that precisely what natural selection is: a theory of purpose? Put simply, evolution occurs for the purpose of survival. Species arise, adapt, evolve, and disappear based on the ability of each to survive. Isn't this the very basic purpose of life?

I don't see it so much as the purpose of life as it is the method by which life sustains itself. You wouldn't be here if your parents didn't survive, but that doesn't mean you have some sort of mission to pass on your genes as a result.

[photon]

Any given evolutionary change's purpose is driven by the selection that drove it. Cheetahs run fast because their prey runs fast. Prey runs fast because cheetahs run fast, it's a biological arms race.

Evolution isn't random because natural selection is the opposite of random. Genetic mutations are random, and those are the seeds which natural selection uses (without changes to the genome there would be nothing for natural selection to work with), but natural selection is definitely not random.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

Any given evolutionary change's purpose is driven by the selection that drove it. Cheetahs run fast because their prey runs fast. Prey runs fast because cheetahs run fast, it's a biological arms race.

Evolution isn't random because natural selection is the opposite of random. Genetic mutations are random, and those are the seeds which natural selection uses (without changes to the genome there would be nothing for natural selection to work with), but natural selection is definitely not random.

It's not random in a mathematic sense. It makes sense and it works quite beautifully.

I meant random that it doesn't have a driving purpose in the sense that religion does. A pure Neo-Darwinian worldview is way too reductionist to take into account the substance of everyday human life.

[photon]

Yeah, there's no "target" of evolution (i.e. humans being "more evolved" or closer to some ideal).

Though things like love, altruism, conflict, even spirituality, etc are all parts of the social structure that has evolved alongside us; it's part of the process; we have them because there were evolutionary advantages to them at some point.