Ben Stein touting Intelligent Design

dastly75

dastly75

CAGiversary!
Feedback
9 (100%)
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/home.php

Is "Big Science" a new phrase that's supposed to be akin to "Big Tobacco"?

The warnings at the end of the trailer made me laugh.

Apparently Darwinism boils down to lightning and a mud puddle according to Mr. Stein or Dr. ____berg.


Bonus Ben Stein school boy pic:
expelledmovieposter.jpg
 
Garbage.

ID doesn't belong in the classroom because there's no evidence for it and because it can't be tested and proved. End of story.
 
Yeah I heard about this a while ago. It's pretty sad when a man like that can be so incredibly stupid. I had a thread with the youtube video of him talking to bill o'reilly. It was very sad.
 
By his logic which should allow people to rampantly argue that 2 + 3 = 100, because of freedom of speech. We don't let people say 2 + 3 = 100 as if it is fact, because it would be moronic to do so, since it cannot be proven.
 
I guess clear eyes works because it's holy water they put in the bottles too. Get back to me when you aren't doing stupid commercials for eye drops, Ben.
 
^what everybody else said. Evidence...or a book that's been re-translated/edited over thousands of years?
And I could have sworn that evolution was treated the same way at first but hey, IT MAKES SENSE, OH SHI
 
[quote name='rabbitt']Oh, he's serious.

Oh.[/quote]
I was waiting for the punchline, too.

Very disappointing.

[quote name='btw1217']Both theories should be presented, at the same time, in schools.

/opinion[/quote]

Evolution isn't a theory.
 
[quote name='bmachine']

Evolution isn't a theory.[/QUOTE]

Organisms can/do evolve. However, whether or not that is how life came into existence is the theory.
 
Oh my, so Ben Stein isn't a liberal athiest?!? OH NOES!!!!!!!!

Also, there is totally a Ferris Bueller reference at the end of the "super trailer."

[quote name='help1']By his logic which should allow people to rampantly argue that 2 + 3 = 100, because of freedom of speech. We don't let people say 2 + 3 = 100 as if it is fact, because it would be moronic to do so, since it cannot be proven.[/QUOTE]
Uh, I have the freedom to sit here all day and argue with someone that 2+3=100. I'm allowed to say whatever I want. Since when was their a rule against arguing anything, even something factually incorrect?
 
Both theories should be presented, at the same time, in schools.

More or less, give or take.

I will never let my faith or spirituality get in the way of my need for scientific advancement, and vice versa. The one thing I can't seem to grasp is why so many people have to find the two to be so mutually exclusive and why they feel so threatened by the other viewpoint.

Then again, religions are always at odds with one another, and schisms in churches cause bickering within religions. Simultaneously, there's a lot of pettiness in the scientific community as I get the impression a lot of people are as much out to disprove others as they are to prove something of their own. That's Pride and grant money in tandem, right?

For a succinct take on this madness and how Conflict is inherent to our existence, please view (again) the two-parter of South Park about Cartman going into the future for a Wii. And on that note, I heard they're putting out a sequel to it where he goes five years into the future and the shortage still exists.

And on that note...(flips off 'zealots', bolts)
 
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']Oh my, so Ben Stein isn't a liberal athiest?!? OH NOES!!!!!!!!

[/QUOTE]

thats what i was thinking, who cares what he believes. hes still smarter than you and you cant win his money.
 
If they're gonna give the reason that intelligent design is being taught because there isn't enough evidence to support evolution theory then why not teach other creation stories as science.Why just pick the judeo-christian singular god idea and teach that? I mean you've got greek mythology, egyptian mythology, native american mythology, etc. Better yet, why not make an entire class around it called, I dunno, ancient mythology? Oh wait...
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']Yes it is.[/quote]

Evolution is a theory.

However when a scientist says "theory", they mean something entirely different from what a layperson would think.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']If they're gonna give the reason that intelligent design is being taught because there isn't enough evidence to support evolution theory then why not teach other creation stories as science.Why just pick the judeo-christian singular god idea and teach that? I mean you've got greek mythology, egyptian mythology, native american mythology, etc. Better yet, why not make an entire class around it called, I dunno, ancient mythology? Oh wait...[/quote]

To be fair, Christian mythology is not just ancient mythology, it has survived into the modern era. To some extent Native American mythology has survived as well.

To really test the theories we need a 3-way battle between Jesus, that Native American turtle with the world on his back, and Darwin. Since Jesus has superpowers (walking on water, can reattach limbs, who knows what else) and the turtle is freaking huge, I think it's only fair if Darwin is given a rocket pack, lightweight body armor, and laser beam wristbands (all conforming to the natural law of physics, of course).
 
[quote name='help1']By his logic which should allow people to rampantly argue that 2 + 3 = 100, because of freedom of speech. We don't let people say 2 + 3 = 100 as if it is fact, because it would be moronic to do so, since it cannot be proven.[/QUOTE]
Black and white; Apples and oranges.
 
Theory: A testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.

Intelligent design fits none of these criteria. It cannot be used to make predictions, it cannot be tested, it cannot be observed. It is not a theory, and should not be taught in schools as a theory. There is no scientific way to work with it.

Furthermore, Intelligent Design promotes the idea of a "God of the Gaps," meaning that anytime we don't have an explanation, we simply ascribe God to it, assuming that no further inquiry is necessary. That is extremely dangerous, particularly considering all of the things God used to be responsible for that we now have scientific reasons for. Just because we don't have an answer yet does not mean God did it and we can close the book on it.

Also: Can anyone argue that Intelligent Design is not religiously based? To have an intelligent designer is to have a God. To have a God is to have belief in God. To believe in God is to follow a religion. Or, to put it more succinctly, would anyone espouse this idea if not for religion? The answer is no. As such, this is a religious initiative and therefore unteachable in school, especially a science class.
 
This thread and the posts in it are pure comedy.

Church teaches religion, schools teach science. Ben Stein is smart because he knows this kind of attitude will garner him a ton of publicity.

I thought he died after Win Ben Stein's Money.

Big Spoony Bard is on point.
 
"Thank the Lord"? That sounded like a prayer. A prayer in a public school. God has no place within these walls, just like facts don't have a place within an organized religion.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']Ben Stein is smart because he knows this kind of attitude will garner him a ton of publicity.

I thought he died after Win Ben Stein's Money.[/quote]

Good call. He's following in Dennis Miller's footprints.
 
Here is what i don't understand. A church wouldn't allow a class on evolution to be held within it's walls, so why should a school have to allow a class on what ammounts to religion.

If this stuff was taught in schools then why would anyone even need a church. You might as well just combine the school and church into one building.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']"Thank the Lord"? That sounded like a prayer. A prayer in a public school. God has no place within these walls, just like facts don't have a place within an organized religion.[/quote]
chalmershuge.gif
ftw
 
[quote name='bmachine']

Evolution isn't a theory.[/QUOTE]

correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't Darwin always present it as a theory?

I'd be careful defending something with so much passion if the guy who came up with it didn't even present it as fact.

but that's me, and i'm just sayin'
 
[quote name='specialk']correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't Darwin always present it as a theory?

I'd be careful defending something with so much passion if the guy who came up with it didn't even present it as fact.

but that's me, and i'm just sayin'[/quote]

Is this a joke? I can't tell without the winking smiley.
 
I realize that religion is a touchy subject, but ID should be less teachable than religion, as at least religion has some historical value, where ID has none.
 
[quote name='jollydwarf']Both theories should be presented, at the same time, in schools.

More or less, give or take.

I will never let my faith or spirituality get in the way of my need for scientific advancement, and vice versa. The one thing I can't seem to grasp is why so many people have to find the two to be so mutually exclusive and why they feel so threatened by the other viewpoint.

Then again, religions are always at odds with one another, and schisms in churches cause bickering within religions. Simultaneously, there's a lot of pettiness in the scientific community as I get the impression a lot of people are as much out to disprove others as they are to prove something of their own. That's Pride and grant money in tandem, right?

For a succinct take on this madness and how Conflict is inherent to our existence, please view (again) the two-parter of South Park about Cartman going into the future for a Wii. And on that note, I heard they're putting out a sequel to it where he goes five years into the future and the shortage still exists.

And on that note...(flips off 'zealots', bolts)[/quote]

Your post and this thread in general reminded me of the South Park episode where Cartman wants a Wii.

Paraphrasing Stan Marsh's line: Couldn't evolution be an answer to how and not why?
 
Scientific theory is different than the common meaning of theory. People that don't understand the difference really should stay out of the debate.

And he is correct in at least one sense. We should question everything. But if you're going to take issue with Darwinism or evolution as a whole you should be prepared to come up with an equally tested and falsifiable scientific theory to replace it. Saying "There is evidence in nature of intelligent design" and "There's lots of scientists that agree with me" does not cut the mustard.

But I guess there is lots of money in telling the masses what they want to hear.
 
[quote name='BigSpoonyBard']Furthermore, Intelligent Design promotes the idea of a "God of the Gaps," meaning that anytime we don't have an explanation, we simply ascribe God to it, assuming that no further inquiry is necessary. That is extremely dangerous, particularly considering all of the things God used to be responsible for that we now have scientific reasons for. Just because we don't have an answer yet does not mean God did it and we can close the book on it.[/QUOTE]

Overall, you win, BSB. Well written.

This point, however, comes with an interesting caveat: that is, when we attribute real-world phenomena to "god(s)," we assume that we'll never be able to explain that phenomena in rational, empirical (i.e., non-"god") terms. Each time we do that, we ruin some religious twat's day because their faith and foundation was premised upon this flimsy idea of "proof" for a metaphysical presence.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Overall, you win, BSB. Well written.

This point, however, comes with an interesting caveat: that is, when we attribute real-world phenomena to "god(s)," we assume that we'll never be able to explain that phenomena in rational, empirical (i.e., non-"god") terms. Each time we do that, we ruin some religious twat's day because their faith and foundation was premised upon this flimsy idea of "proof" for a metaphysical presence.[/QUOTE]

True, but being that I despise effort, I don't want to spend decades trying to convince the religious that they were, in fact, wrong. Let's just skip the steps wherein we allow them to believe silly things (more than they already do).
 
[quote name='specialk']correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't Darwin always present it as a theory?

I'd be careful defending something with so much passion if the guy who came up with it didn't even present it as fact.

but that's me, and i'm just sayin'[/quote]You obviously don't know what a theory is, despite it being described a number of times in this very thread. This also leads me to believe that you have no idea what Darwin's research was about, which makes sense if you can't read the definition of "theory" in a thread.

A theory is not a random guess that just sounds good. A theory is an explanation that is falsifiable, yet is able to stand up to replicatable scientific rigor. The Theory of Evolution has not ever been able to be proven false. Therefore, for the time being, it is a theory that is considered truth.

And Darwin's explanation of evolution is based entirely upon direct observations he made while travelling around the world by sea on the HMS Beagle, much of which was observed in the Galapagos Islands. And furthermore, a guy named Wallace came to the same conclusions simultaneously and forced Darwin to publish (On the Origin of Species) sooner than he wanted. Now over 150 years later, science has only strengthened Darwin's conclusions.

That is what a good theory is. A theory is not a guess.

I wish people would stop taking comments like the one above as typical comprehension of any person who believes in God.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

On topic, I am intrigued by this trailer. As intelligent as Ben Stein is, he absolutely cannot discount evolution all together. I want to see what this movie is really about. I agree this has to be just drawing attention to the film. And I do think it is okay to have alternative views and that people should not be ridiculed for having alternate views. Remember, Copernicus went through the same thing. It's just that roles are now reversed.

I do believe in "Intelligent Design", but not how others would explain it's meaning. I believe in and have total faith in God. But I believe in a God with ultimate knowledge and who can use the natural laws of the universe to fulfill His purposes in ways that we do not understand. I do not blindly attribute unexplainable phenomena to an unknown god. Rather, I attribute the things we have come to understand as having been set forth by an omniscient God. And the things we do not understand, I believe have an explainable solution that we simply do not have a grasp on yet, but God obviously does. That being said, I don't see why God wouldn't use evolution for His creations to progress. Furthermore, I don't see why an all knowing God would rather use hocus pocus magic and *poof* things into existence. In fact, I refuse to believe in such foolishness. If some people believe that all occurances can be some day understood by rational science, then I don't see why it's not okay for others to believe in a supreme being who understands more than us and who adheres to His own laws in order to bring about His purposes and designs. Either way, there are ultimate scientific laws that cannot be defied. It's just one option has us randomly arising from primodial ooze (imagine an Oxford Dictionary being torn into a million pieces, tossed in the air and having it all land in readable order - that's about the odds you are looking at) and the other option has a being who used the same mechanism, but executed His plan with a specific knowledge and a specific end goal.

I always expected Ben Stein sees things about the way I do. And I don't expect that his definition includes "supernatural occurances" that have no ultimate explanation by logical science. That is just dumb. Science has a solution for everything, even if we don't understand it yet. And true religion is in total compliance with science.
 
:applause:
[quote name='Liquid 2']Garbage.

ID doesn't belong in the classroom because there's no evidence for it and because it can't be tested and proved. End of story.[/quote]
 
[quote name='MorPhiend']The Theory of Evolution has not ever been able to be proven false. Therefore, for the time being, it is a theory that is considered truth.[/quote]

You could apply this same "definition" to Intelligent Design or any religion's version of creation since no one alive now was there at the time that it occurred, and therefor no one is able to *prove* that it is false either.
 
[quote name='soonersfan60']You could apply this same "definition" to Intelligent Design or any religion's version of creation since no one alive now was there at the time that it occurred, and therefor no one is able to *prove* that it is false either.[/QUOTE]


you can't scientifically test religion or ID so therefore it is not science. Do you actually think if there were enough flaws in Evolution to discredit it that the zealots would have found it by now.

Your thinking is the same as the pagans, everything that is not explainable was a thing of god. Lightning - lightning god, Waves= God of Oceans, Sun = Sun God That is the same logic as ID and any religion based science
 
I think all this debate about evolution vs. intelligent design is a waste of energy. Put that wasted energy into building a time machine and just prove either one already.
 
[quote name='Doc Bacca']I think all this debate about evolution vs. intelligent design is a waste of energy. Put that wasted energy into building a time machine and just prove either one already.[/QUOTE]

Well you see, time is just a theory that can't be proven. :lol:
 
BigSpoonyBard's post should just be put in the OP with the title "read this before posting."

That should effectively end the thread :p.
 
[quote name='MorPhiend']You obviously don't know what a theory is, despite it being described a number of times in this very thread. This also leads me to believe that you have no idea what Darwin's research was about, which makes sense if you can't read the definition of "theory" in a thread.

A theory is not a random guess that just sounds good. A theory is an explanation that is falsifiable, yet is able to stand up to replicatable scientific rigor. The Theory of Evolution has not ever been able to be proven false. Therefore, for the time being, it is a theory that is considered truth.

And Darwin's explanation of evolution is based entirely upon direct observations he made while travelling around the world by sea on the HMS Beagle, much of which was observed in the Galapagos Islands. And furthermore, a guy named Wallace came to the same conclusions simultaneously and forced Darwin to publish (On the Origin of Species) sooner than he wanted. Now over 150 years later, science has only strengthened Darwin's conclusions.

That is what a good theory is. A theory is not a guess.

I wish people would stop taking comments like the one above as typical comprehension of any person who believes in God.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

On topic, I am intrigued by this trailer. As intelligent as Ben Stein is, he absolutely cannot discount evolution all together. I want to see what this movie is really about. I agree this has to be just drawing attention to the film. And I do think it is okay to have alternative views and that people should not be ridiculed for having alternate views. Remember, Copernicus went through the same thing. It's just that roles are now reversed.

I do believe in "Intelligent Design", but not how others would explain it's meaning. I believe in and have total faith in God. But I believe in a God with ultimate knowledge and who can use the natural laws of the universe to fulfill His purposes in ways that we do not understand. I do not blindly attribute unexplainable phenomena to an unknown god. Rather, I attribute the things we have come to understand as having been set forth by an omniscient God. And the things we do not understand, I believe have an explainable solution that we simply do not have a grasp on yet, but God obviously does. That being said, I don't see why God wouldn't use evolution for His creations to progress. Furthermore, I don't see why an all knowing God would rather use hocus pocus magic and *poof* things into existence. In fact, I refuse to believe in such foolishness. If some people believe that all occurances can be some day understood by rational science, then I don't see why it's not okay for others to believe in a supreme being who understands more than us and who adheres to His own laws in order to bring about His purposes and designs. Either way, there are ultimate scientific laws that cannot be defied. It's just one option has us randomly arising from primodial ooze (imagine an Oxford Dictionary being torn into a million pieces, tossed in the air and having it all land in readable order - that's about the odds you are looking at) and the other option has a being who used the same mechanism, but executed His plan with a specific knowledge and a specific end goal.

I always expected Ben Stein sees things about the way I do. And I don't expect that his definition includes "supernatural occurances" that have no ultimate explanation by logical science. That is just dumb. Science has a solution for everything, even if we don't understand it yet. And true religion is in total compliance with science.[/QUOTE]

I have a feeling my post didn't come across the way I wanted it too. Regardless arguing topics like this are usually fruitless over the internet.

And yes morphiend, I can read. I'm gonna leave this thread at that.
 
Arguments like this made me sad.

It's clear that both sides each have fairly irrefutable statements they can make about their point that the other side can't do anything but dismiss or ignore, but people still engage in it. Add to that that both sides are both operating under the assumption of some fact, either the existence of god or the infallibility of evolution, and you have a train wreck of a discussion waiting to happen.

Believe what you want. Thank God for difference of opinion. Anyone throwing insults around this thread should be ashamed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top