Ben Stein touting Intelligent Design

[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're supposed to quote the entire paragraph, not just the part you like.
 
[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]Evolution is capable of being proven false, yet it hasn't been. It is a sound theory. ID cannot be proven false since it relies on God existing. This means it cannot be a valid theory, although it is a valid belief. I believe in God and know that He lives. But there is no way I can perform a replicatable, scientific experiment to prove my belief. All I can ask is that others perform an experiment upon faith, as I did, in order to gain their own belief. And only by nurturing that belief they have obtained on their own can they ever have a knowledge.

Don't make partial quotes and not address the entire meaning of my post. It reminds me of fanatical Bible bashers who take one verse of scripture, interpret it wrong, base their whole life on that scripture and throw out everything the rest of the prophets and apostles ever wrote. You have to take everything as a whole. It's a package deal. You pick and choose, and it becomes the gospel of [fill in your name here], not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
[quote name='specialk']And yes morphiend, I can read. I'm gonna leave this thread at that.[/quote]Sorry. I just re-read that line and I can see how it came off as mean. That was not my intention.
[quote name='SpazX']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]No. No, not at all. Why does everyone here generally paint the religious faithful as a bunch of nutty quacks? Just as Islamic Fundamentalists are the extreme minority of a good religion, so are Fundamental Evangelicals without a brain who blindly follow a God who doesn't make sense.

BSB assumes that anyone who believes in God discounts any scientific rationale and that all religious people think that anything presently unexplainable should remain that way and be attributed to an unknown god. That is stupid and childish. As I have already stated, most faith holding people are actually pretty intelligent and would rather have science correlate with their faith, rather than remain clueless idiots for eternity.

My particular faith actually teaches people that they are obligated to seek out secular knowledge.[quote name='Doctrine and Covenants 88:118']118 And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.[/quote]And having served the people of North Carolina for two years of my life, I know and love the people of the Bible Belt and know that they have the same belief, even if they don't share the same verse of scripture in common with me.

I really try not to delve too deeply into my religion on here because I know most of you don't want to hear it and I respect that. But the all too often portrayal of the faithful as a bunch of quacks on here is ridiculous. And the only reason it stands unopposed is because the majority of active people on this board are of the opposite mind as the average American.

This country was not founded on the basis of established religion. But it was not founded upon the idea of a lack of religion. It is a freedom of religious expression that this country was founded upon and any ridicule from any party, whether against faith or for it runs completely against the tennets of our founding fathers.

I am ashamed that so many on this board are apparently secular progressive, faith hating bigots. And I am saddened that those who aren't rarely, if ever, stand up to those who are.

And this, I feel, is what Ben Stein is trying to address with the film this thread is based on. There are so many religious and God fearing people in this society, including in the scientific community. But because of political correctness getting out of control, it has become okay (or even prerequisite) for the few to bully and persecute the many. And there seems to be nothing the majority is able to do but sit there and take it. And as Ben's trailer says, if people can get so upset by an alternate idea, it probably means that there is a good chance of validity to the point of said idea and it somehow threatens the people who are being so hateful towards the idea.


I am a person of great faith. But I have to say that I believe I do pretty well not going around spewing vitriol on those who are of a secular nature. Why can't those of us who are of faith have the same respect from those who aren't?


(If you want more on religious freedom, read this. If you want to see video excerpts, click on Mitt TV> On the Issues> On Faith in America.)

God Bless America.
 
[quote name='MorPhiend']

BSB assumes that anyone who believes in God discounts any scientific rationale and that all religious people think that anything presently unexplainable should remain that way and be attributed to an unknown god. That is stupid and childish. As I have already stated, most faith holding people are actually pretty intelligent and would rather have science correlate with their faith, rather than remain clueless idiots for eternity.
[/QUOTE]

Actually, I didn't say anything about people who believe in God or their acceptance/rejection of science. I was talking about proponents of ID and some of the core flaws of ID. The issue with the "God of the Gaps" is that we shouldn't be making that assumption in the first place. We know that we don't know everything, but we have a very long history of scientific advancement that would suggest that if we don't know it now, we'll probably eventually figure it out. Why should we even think about putting God as a "placeholder" explanation until we figure it out? That would be irrational. We should just say, "We don't know yet, but we're working to figure it out."
 
[quote name='BigSpoonyBard']Actually, I didn't say anything about people who believe in God or their acceptance/rejection of science. I was talking about proponents of ID and some of the core flaws of ID. The issue with the "God of the Gaps" is that we shouldn't be making that assumption in the first place. We know that we don't know everything, but we have a very long history of scientific advancement that would suggest that if we don't know it now, we'll probably eventually figure it out. Why should we even think about putting God as a "placeholder" explanation until we figure it out? That would be irrational. We should just say, "We don't know yet, but we're working to figure it out."[/quote]I see what you are saying now. In fact, it seems we pretty much agree on most of the issue. I misinterpreted what you said. But what I said still remains true about so many people on here ridiculing those who do have faith.

But I hope you see where my misunderstanding came from. You talked about ID people believing in God and those people blindly ascribing not understood phenomena to a god and that we don't need to try and understand it.

I believe in God and I believe He uses evolution to mold His creations. I also understand that we don't understand all that He does, but every day we move more in that direction and that we should continue to strive for an understanding of the mysteries of this universe. So in a way, I believe in a form of ID that conforms to the provable truth that is evolution.

In the end, I don't believe that ID has to be seperated from normal, human brain function. We always have the capablility to someday know the unknown.

EDIT: Sorry for the misunderstanding.
 
Just bumping to say I've noticed a lot of ads for this movie lately on TV. The AD I've been seeing run on tv doesn't really explicity mention "intelligent design". Perhaps they want to coax people into seeing a "edgy" "controversial" documentary featuring Ben Stein.
[media]http://youtube.com/watch?v=ibtrpsUc-0o[/media]
 
I find it hilarious that people who bash intelligent design then state that evolution isn't a theory.

Do some research, people.
 
[quote name='jer7583']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.[/quote]

Well said.
 
[quote name='Plinko']I find it hilarious that people who bash intelligent design then state that evolution isn't a theory.

Do some research, people.[/QUOTE]

huh?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']huh?[/quote]

Deleted after reading this:

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/theory.htm

"In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory. Evolution must be accepted with faith by its believers, many of whom deny the existence, or at least the power, of the Creator. Similarly, the Biblical account of creation is not observable, repeatable or refutable by man."

Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D. in Biology at Brown University
 
You miss this part?

"By Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D.
Copyright (c) 1993 by the Missouri Association for Creation"

I'm sure they're a fair organization with no vested interest. ;)

EDIT: A cursory google search shows that he earned his Ph.D. at Brown, but is not employed in academia. Not to be trusted, IMO.
 
[quote name='Plinko']Deleted after reading this:

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/theory.htm

"In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory. Evolution must be accepted with faith by its believers, many of whom deny the existence, or at least the power, of the Creator. Similarly, the Biblical account of creation is not observable, repeatable or refutable by man."

Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D. in Biology at Brown University[/quote]Yeah, because being a creationist, he has no bias at all.:roll:
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Yeah, because being a creationist, he has no bias at all.:roll:[/quote]

So everybody who believes in intelligent design has a bias. Got it.
 
Irregardless of where he is now, what about his statement on how micro-evolution is erroneously used to assume that macro-evolution exists? Macro-evolution (which would be the driving force of evolution we're discussing) can't ever be observed. Wouldn't that, then, put it on the same level as intelligent design?

Thoughts?
 
[quote name='tokitoki50']Show me micro intelligent design then Plinko. Then they'll be on the same level.[/quote]

Nice deflection.

Until scientists can make the statement that macro evolution exists for reasons that add up to more than a simple assumption (which, by the way, is what evolutionists use), they're both on the same level--unprovable, untestable, and unseen. They're both caught in that limbo between fact and theory.
 
[quote name='Plinko']So everybody who believes in intelligent design has a bias. Got it.[/quote]Well of course they do, just like evolutionists would have a bias towards evolution, works both ways. You're biased towards what you believe in.
 
[quote name='Plinko'] They're both caught in that limbo between fact and theory.[/quote] And religion in general isn't?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top