Ben Stein's "Expelled"

ID isn't a scientific theory.

"Big science" is going to be the new strawman created by those who view intellect and academia as being fundamentally against them, rather than their ideas being absurd and shallow. It's like those folks who try to argue against scientific research by claiming (without any deeper examination than simply disagreeing with the studies' findings) that the funding is biased, the researchers biased, and the collective of researchers biased all in the direction of liberalism.

Bet they've never been in an economics or business dept. Ye gods.

I also bet (well, I *know*, but, y'know) you've never read any peer reviews I've read, written, or received. Trust me: academia is more intellectual masturbation than it is a circle jerk of like-minded folks. So much one-upsmanship and condescension of people towards those with similar research interests and like-minded hypotheses, that this "collusion" paranoia is clearly the result of people who have spent no time whatsoever in academia.

Remember: academicians egos are so frail that they often engage in zero-sum tactics: they better themselves by ferociously panning work that they get the opportunity to. And it's not done in terms of looking at the research findings first.

Again, ID is not a scientific theory, and thus has no place in science courses. Evolution can be empirically tested; ID can not.

If you can design a scientific test to find out if there is evidence of a "planner" or whatever phrase you want to use, then please do. By all means.

Until then (and I mean this directed towards anyone who believes in ID as "science," not those who believe in a creator), the phrase is quite simple: put up or shut the fuck up.

The ONLY, ONLY, ONLY positive thing about ID is that it invokes skepticism in what we are taught in school; I truly appreciate that. It's a shame that it's sent along in the same package as "you should be skeptical of things that you ideologically oppose, and wholly accept things that jive with your ideology."
 
I have yet to see a case made for ID (or against evolution for that matter) that is not rooted in dishonesty or ignorance.

Expelled is no different.
 
Evolution on a micro scale can be empirically tested, and then extrapolated out to the macro level required for our current life diversity. I'm not sure that's real great footing to stand on, but moving on...

I think the case for this movie (if the 2 minute trailer is any indication) is not evolution at all, but the origin of life. I've yet to see that or the origin of matter explained scientifically using any plausible dose of evidence that we rely on so heavily. At some point the science of the survival of the fittest becomes the magic of the beginning of matter and life.

I'm sure the film's not going to come down exactly where I stand, and it really can't from a scientific point of view. But, as you said myke, I applaud the concept of skepticism. I think I'll be going to check this out this weekend not to say "HA! THIS PROVES CREATION!" but more out of curiosity to see where they end up and the real points they're trying to make.

[quote name='Msut77']I have yet to see a case made for ID (or against evolution for that matter) that is not rooted in dishonesty or ignorance.

Expelled is no different.[/quote]You've seen it then, have you?
 
[quote name='daroga']You've seen it then, have you?[/QUOTE]

I have seen some of the original source material that the expelled crowd stole.

I have read several reviews/critiques of those who have seen it and some cases were featured in the movie.
 
I was listening to an interview with Ben Stein this morning on the way to work. He was talking about when he got to interview Richard Dawkins and how excited he was to find out all the "real answers".

He said he was astonished when he asked Dawkins "how it all started" when he essentially said he doesn't know. He says Dawkins went on to say that it's possible alien beings created us or planted us here. Stein asked him if it were more likely that aliens put us here than God and of course he said "yes".

Of course, anyone that follows Richard Dawkins knows he's as much anti-religion as he is an evolutionist. He gives evolutionists a bad name, in that regard.

I agree with the above, proving ID is not going to be any easier than proving a creator exists. Evolution really only explains adaptation of species, it really doesn't explain how it all began and what drives it to continue, unless you want to teach students that incredibly remote statistical chances in chaos are all around us and far more common that is probable mathematically.

I see nothing wrong with teaching kids evolution, as it's observed in a lab and in nature, and leaving it at that. The rest, concerning distant past, is really just guesswork. And at that point you might as well include other guess-work theories as well.
 
[quote name='daroga']I think the case for this movie (if the 2 minute trailer is any indication) is not evolution at all, but the origin of life. I've yet to see that or the origin of matter explained scientifically using any plausible dose of evidence that we rely on so heavily.[/QUOTE]

I can see that (and I'll simply assume you're being honest that there are few, if no, empirical tests of, say, the Big Bang theory or something similar).

I still don't think ID or any study that can *never* be empirically tested should be given any credence. For two reasons:
1) It's not science if it can't be tested or plotted
2) The problematic approach of "killing God" when a scientific explanation comes to fruition.

The second concern isn't a big deal, since the God concept has remained pretty durable despite advances in the causes of disease and illness and the recognition that criminals are not possessed by demons. The first is my sticking point; meanwhile, other theories are at least shown to be plausible in terms of mathematical demonstrations, so moving forward from that is fine as far as I'm concerned. At best, though, if you hit a point where it can't be tested, and just plotted, then I'll sour pretty quickly on the idea.
 
I think this annoys me more than anything:

The movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, has been reviewed and reviewed and discussed.
But what hasn't been discussed as much is the fact that Yoko Ono either sold or gave the rights to "Imagine" to the producers of the film. In screenings around the country, and in copies of the movie reviewed, everyone notes the odd inclusion of the song.

I guess that the $20 million plus the estate earns every year isn't enough for Yoko Ono, not only does she feel the need to license the song out, she probably held out for the highest bidder, in this case, the money behind the movie, Walt Ruloff, who made over one hundred million dollars selling his company to Microsoft. (Irony is that a company who makes computers, perhaps the ultimate daily example of the higher power of science in our lives, indirectly funded a movie that doesn't believe science should be taught in schools.)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I can see that (and I'll simply assume you're being honest that there are few, if no, empirical tests of, say, the Big Bang theory or something similar).

I still don't think ID or any study that can *never* be empirically tested should be given any credence. For two reasons:
1) It's not science if it can't be tested or plotted
2) The problematic approach of "killing God" when a scientific explanation comes to fruition.

The second concern isn't a big deal, since the God concept has remained pretty durable despite advances in the causes of disease and illness and the recognition that criminals are not possessed by demons. The first is my sticking point; meanwhile, other theories are at least shown to be plausible in terms of mathematical demonstrations, so moving forward from that is fine as far as I'm concerned. At best, though, if you hit a point where it can't be tested, and just plotted, then I'll sour pretty quickly on the idea.[/quote]


I don't want to make it sound like I'm against empiricism or for ID but I have to believe that there are some things that cannot be tested empirically, but can be logically deduced in noncontradictionary manner. Metaphysical (philosophical) topics such as possible worlds,
essential properties, and truth relativism all cannot be tested empirically, but with the use of logic and reason we can make conclusions about these topics.

There are even some really powerful arguments for the existence of god (which are still controversial, but none the less difficult to argue against). Anselm's ontological argument is a great example.

To stay on topic though, I really hope this film isn't all about ID. It's trying to marry philosophy of religion and science, which honestly does not work out even though the two aren't mutually exclusive.
 
I actually thought that the intention of the movie was to try to show that ID proponents are removed from their jobs since they don't accept evolution. Hence "expelled". From what I know of the cases they mention those people either didn't lose their jobs, left for other reasons, or were fired for other reasons.

In any case the real point of the movie was to try to blindside some scientists to make them seem foolish to a target demographic of laymen and/or ID believers. Ben Stein has already shown his own ignorance about the science behind evolution (I believe I made a thread about it linked to a youtube video a while back) and I doubt that the other people behind the movie are any better versed in it.

The origin of life is a separate issue from evolution that is also obviously more complicated and will forever have little or no evidence left behind. Creationists often try to use the inherent and honest "I don't know" answers to the origin of life to try to wholesale dismiss naturalistic explanations of both the origin of life and evolution. They try to make the scientists look uncertain (as they should be) and therefore untrustworthy and therefore not a good authority on the subject. It mostly works for people who already believe, but I guess it can convince some others as well.

EDIT: Here's the NCSE's opposing website: http://www.expelledexposed.com/
 
Oh my. Oh my, oh my, oh my. Ben Stein...

Oh my. Woah my.

First off, thanks to Spaz for getting some of the more important points out there.
[quote name='tokitoki50']
There are even some really powerful arguments for the existence of god (which are still controversial, but none the less difficult to argue against). Anselm's ontological argument is a great example.[/quote]Don't want to derail this thread. Care to take that one to PMs? I've seen ontological arguments used before, and... well, I wasn't impressed. Could also make a new thread of it or put this in Friend of Sonic's thread.[quote name='thrustbucket']I was listening to an interview with Ben Stein this morning on the way to work. He was talking about when he got to interview Richard Dawkins and how excited he was to find out all the "real answers".[/quote]Yeah, about that. Ever hear of P.Z. Myers? He's a "comrade" of Dawkins', and he also appeared in the film. Not that he knew it - he was actually told that the film would be something totally different. You'll have to excuse me if I am skeptical about the portrayal of anyone this side of Kirk Cameron. I'm sure Stein was so excited to hear Dawkins' "real answers".

[quote name='thrustbucket'] He said he was astonished when he asked Dawkins "how it all started" when he essentially said he doesn't know.[/quote]Good on him. It would be wholly irresponsible for him to say, "it definitely happened this way." See what Spaz said.
[quote name='thrustbucket']He says Dawkins went on to say that it's possible alien beings created us or planted us here. Stein asked him if it were more likely that aliens put us here than God and of course he said "yes".[/quote]It should be noted that this merely pushes things back one level, and isn't an actual answer to the question of the origin of life - merely a potential answer for the origin of life on Earth.

[quote name='thrustbucket'] Of course, anyone that follows Richard Dawkins knows he's as much anti-religion as he is an evolutionist. He gives evolutionists a bad name, in that regard.[/quote]Thanks for the concern trolling.

[quote name='thrustbucket'] I agree with the above, proving ID is not going to be any easier than proving a creator exists. Evolution really only explains adaptation of species, it really doesn't explain how it all began and what drives it to continue, unless you want to teach students that incredibly remote statistical chances in chaos are all around us and far more common that is probable mathematically.[/quote]
Take ten dice. fuck that, take... 523. More the merrier. Roll them. See what you get. Do you know what the odds of ever getting those specific numbers are? I don't. But I betcha the odds are pretty fucking abysmal. And you want me to believe that you rolled those specific numbers! Hah! Fat fucking chance! You obviously moved them into place. Don't fucking lie to me - the odds are against you 523 times over. Don't make me get Ben Stein in here.

[quote name='thrustbucket'] I see nothing wrong with teaching kids evolution, as it's observed in a lab and in nature, and leaving it at that. The rest, concerning distant past, is really just guesswork. And at that point you might as well include other guess-work theories as well.[/quote]The important part of a theory - of a hypothesis - is that it is falsifiable. If you can't at least get that bit down, and the class you're in isn't called "Comparative Religion" or some-such noise, then get outta the school.
 
I'd certainly grant that ID cannot be "proven" (though I'd argue that baseline evolution can't either, because any argument given for it is easily adapted into a Creation belief; likewise most Creation-based arguments can be adapted into an evolution belief).

But, with that being the case, would you grant that the origins of matter and life have no scientifically-based explanation either? If yes, then what are your personal beliefs on the matters? If no, then what evidence is floating around for how those two things came to be?
 
Explain to me how evolution can be converted into a creationist idea and vice versa.

On the surface they seem wholly incompatible, whether it's the kind of 'long-term' evolutionary changes that most ID advocates posit as indicating evolution is wholly absurd (i.e., the "we didn't get to be humans from no damned tadpoles trillions of years ago" argument), or whether the sort of short term changes in mankind itself (what are the longer life expectancies, taller average heights, and greatly decreased infant mortality rates of humans if not evolution?).
 
I didn't say the theories were compatible, I said that arguments for it could be reversed easily. Creationists have an easy out. "This feature demands an earth of X billions of years old!" "Or, God created it that way."

I'm not overly familiar with the field of "Creation Science," but I'd have to imagine the same flip-flop from that camp would work toward evolution.

Care to weigh in on the origin of life and/or matter? I'm really curious to see what people think about that. :)
 
"God created it that way" can't stretch all that far, since it doesn't include evolution (for some, at any rate).

As for the origin of life, I'll give 'chance' and 'god' equal weight, just as a personal and completely unscientific opinion. Writing off chance because of a low probability when we are (mostly) unaware of the breadth and depth of the universe on the whole is wrong - and sometimes, it's damned hard to soak up the majesty of the world we live in and not think there's something that planned it this way.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']"God created it that way" can't stretch all that far, since it doesn't include evolution (for some, at any rate).[/quote]Is there something that it won't cover? Assuming a universe created with age, I'm not aware of a problem with the concept's wingspan.

[quote name='mykevermin']As for the origin of life, I'll give 'chance' and 'god' equal weight, just as a personal and completely unscientific opinion. Writing off chance because of a low probability when we are (mostly) unaware of the breadth and depth of the universe on the whole is wrong - and sometimes, it's damned hard to soak up the majesty of the world we live in and not think there's something that planned it this way.[/quote]Very interesting. I've been slammed for saying such things in the past, but I agree with you. Even apart from my faith, it's hard for me to look around (really look) at the complexity of life and the grandeur of our landscapes (take another watch of Planet Earth for instance) and even humor the idea of it being accident.

Any thoughts on the origin of matter? If I'm not mistaken, the Big Bang and similar theories account for the position and range of matter in the universe as it stands, but still presupposes the existence of that material before the explosion.
 
[quote name='daroga']I'd certainly grant that ID cannot be "proven"[/QUOTE]

What you do not seem to understand is that ID is the lipstick on the Creationist pig.

The funny thing about the film is that are not even really pretending otherwise any more.
 
[quote name='daroga']Very interesting. I've been slammed for saying such things in the past, but I agree with you. Even apart from my faith, it's hard for me to look around (really look) at the complexity of life and the grandeur of our landscapes (take another watch of Planet Earth for instance) and even humor the idea of it being accident.[/quote]

Heh. My wife and I debate on whether we want to have children or not (if we do, it will be at most one since we both believe the world is unsustainable with the population we already have, so we don't want to do anything to increase it) - and one of the more selfish reasons to not have children is so we can travel to far off and exotic places and do things like what you speak of. Of course, we could be talking over each other's heads: I mean traveling to natural places, parks, scenic points, mountains, and things like that; she probably means places to spend money and shop for exotic things.

Any thoughts on the origin of matter? If I'm not mistaken, the Big Bang and similar theories account for the position and range of matter in the universe as it stands, but still presupposes the existence of that material before the explosion.
Click to expand...

Nope; for a change of pace, I have no thoughts whatsoever on this.
 
[quote name='Msut77']What you do not seem to understand is that ID is the lipstick on the Creationist pig.

The funny thing about the film is that are not even really pretending otherwise any more.[/quote]What?

[quote name='mykevermin']Of course, we could be talking over each other's heads: I mean traveling to natural places, parks, scenic points, mountains, and things like that; she probably means places to spend money and shop for exotic things.[/quote]That's probably something good to clarify before you get into your airplane or hot-air balloon.

[quote name='mykevermin'] Nope; for a change of pace, I have no thoughts whatsoever on this.[/quote]April 16 is circled on my calendar. ;)
 
I'm still not quite sure why religion and science try to mix together. Science explains how things work, and your spiritual beliefs can explain why things work (To that respective person of course).
 
[quote name='daroga']What?[/QUOTE]

ID is not and was never meant to be an actual scientific theory, it is an attempt to sneak creationism into schools.

Expelled hardly even pretends otherwise anymore.
 
[quote name='seanr1221']I'm still not quite sure why religion and science try to mix together. Science explains how things work, and your spiritual beliefs can explain why things work (To that respective person of course).[/quote]

Philosophers are the people who theorize on the answer to why.

Religions provide a set of answers and ask only for belief.

Therefore it makes sense to me why scientists and philosophers rarely feel as if their respective fields clash, but scientists and religious fundamentalists are often at odds.

Religion is like one of those old Ninty game and watch handhelds that were preprogrammed to play one game only. Philosophy is like a Gameboy where you can plug multiple carts into the system and get several different outcomes.
 
[quote name='mykevermin'](what are the longer life expectancies, taller average heights, and greatly decreased infant mortality rates of humans if not evolution?).[/quote]

I don't believe in creationism, but the answer is better diets and better access to health care.
 
Which flies in the face of the ultimate anti-evolution argument from religious types: it doesn't jive with "God's perfect creation" claims. Perfect then or perfect now?

Don't get me wrong, I'm uninterested in parsing out God's perfection, and I'm also well aware why child mortality rates are down and nobody's afraid of measles or polio anymore. I'm just pointing out that evolution doesn't necessarily have to be this massive, or even visually noticeable change. It can just as easily be living longer.
 
[quote name='seanr1221']Because it's a protection against Malaria.[/quote]

Sickle cell anemia is caused by having total type S hemoglobin.

When infected with malaria, it takes a sickle shape.

If a person only has half type S hemoglobin, the growth of a malaria infection is slowed or halted when the type S cells are immobilized while regular hemoglobin remains uninfected and still providing oxygen to the body.

It is found more in black people because malaria was more prevalent in humid Africa than frozen Denmark.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Aye. To play devil's advocate, is it more "adaptation" than "evolution"?[/quote]

Adaptation is putting on a heavy coat in a snowstorm.

Evolution is having large quantities of fat insulating you from the snowstorm.
 
Why can't adaptation be "those w/ sickle-cell anemia lived, and passed it on to more and more people, while those who did not have it died in larger numbers - the result being that people w/ SCA became a larger portion of the population than they were before due to others dying out"?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Why can't adaptation be "those w/ sickle-cell anemia lived, and passed it on to more and more people, while those who did not have it died in larger numbers - the result being that people w/ SCA became a larger portion of the population than they were before due to others dying out"?[/quote]

You're mostly right.

The adaptation/evolution is that SCA carriers (1/2 type S hemoglobin) survive in better numbers in a malaria rich environment.

If they survive in better numbers, they produce more offspring.

However, 25% of the their offspring will have SCA (full type S hemoglobin).

Those with SCA and those without any type S hemoglobin are in for the same rough ride in a malaria rich environment.

EDIT: Adaptation and evolution can be used interchangeably.
 
I've seen micro-evolution, I've actually forced it to happen in laboratories time and again to get the cells I wanted back when I was pretending to be a biologist in undergrad/grad school, before I moved back into engineering. Macro-evolution is a pretty straightforward extrapolation. Yes, it's difficult to empirically test, but it's a logical assumption.

That said, evolution and the creation of the universe through any Biblical sense are not mutually exclusive. First, consider the fact that in the word "day" in Genesis may or may not have been translated correctly and that some current translations into Hebrew use a term meaning "indeterminable time unit." Secondly, consider the fact that as when you look at an overview...it's a gradual creation of all things with Man being the last to form after light, Earth, plants, and animals which is, to a certain degree, what evolution is -- a gradual formation of everything through evolutionary processes. What's so wrong about claiming that a greater power had some part in sparking the big bang and setting it all in motion?

Back to the actual film, it looks interesting. Obviously it's going to be ridiculously biased and, like all documentaries, will show only what it feels the urge to show in order to get it's point across. That's okay. It shows a different side and yes, some of its claims such as that Darwinism is partly responsible for the Holocaust despite Darwin's books being burned by the Nazi's, are outrageous. Take it for what it's worth -- Ben Stein trying to show people that dissent in the scientific community for a cause that he believes in isn't always acceptable. It's also a useful tool for those who don't believe in ID to be able to actually understand why people like Mike Huckabee and Ben Stein could begin to view it as an acceptable alternative to teach in the schools.
 
[quote name='t0llenz']I've seen micro-evolution, I've actually forced it to happen in laboratories time and again to get the cells I wanted back when I was pretending to be a biologist in undergrad/grad school, before I moved back into engineering. [/quote]

Amp+ plasmid FTW.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Which flies in the face of the ultimate anti-evolution argument from religious types: it doesn't jive with "God's perfect creation" claims. Perfect then or perfect now?[/quote]Biblical Creation is "perfect then." At mankind's fall into sin, the whole creation was affected by that. Death came to creation (and eternal death in hell to mankind as punishment for sin).

Death wasn't part of the original creation. We're doing alright stretching out life-spans, but we're never going to be able to completely circumvent that great inevitability thanks to sin.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']"God created it that way" can't stretch all that far, since it doesn't include evolution (for some, at any rate).[/quote]

I just felt the need to respond to this. I know a lot of people that believe in god, and they all believe in evolution.

[quote name='camoor']Philosophers are the people who theorize on the answer to why.

Religions provide a set of answers and ask only for belief.

Therefore it makes sense to me why scientists and philosophers rarely feel as if their respective fields clash, but scientists and religious fundamentalists are often at odds.[/quote]


[quote name='seanr1221']Hmmm...what you say makes sense. I guess my problem is I mix philosophy and religion together :p[/QUOTE]

I agree with Seanr1221. For me, philosophy and religion are the same. I think most religions and most religious pepole have changed in the past 100 years to think of religion in more philosophical terms. I don't know very many religious people, or religions for that matter, that demand their members believe a religions answers and reasons for everything.

More and more religions are morphing into tools. Launching pads into a new realm of thought. And they encourage seeking out answers outside theirs.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I agree with Seanr1221. For me, philosophy and religion are the same. I think most religions and most religious pepole have changed in the past 100 years to think of religion in more philosophical terms. I don't know very many religious people, or religions for that matter, that demand their members believe a religions answers and reasons for everything.

More and more religions are morphing into tools. Launching pads into a new realm of thought. And they encourage seeking out answers outside theirs.[/quote]

That's a very progressive attitude.

However it really doesn't explain why conservative Christians march in lock step on issues such as stem cells, abortion, and rights for homosexuals. Where is this rock solid voting bloc coming from if religous people are being encouraged to engage in critical thinking?

Moreover the current President of the United States is a fundamentalist. As in, he litereally believes everything written in the Christian Bible (even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff). Surely America couldn't elect such a dogmatic leader if that characteristic wasn't prevelent in a sizable portion of it's citizens.
 
Interesting, so can someone who's a critical thinker not have views different from yours on stem cells, abortion, and homosexuality?
 
[quote name='daroga']Interesting, so can someone who's a critical thinker not have views different from yours on stem cells, abortion, and homosexuality?[/QUOTE]
Thank you, daroga. I was planning to say something similar.

They key word that you should notice, camoor, is the term conservative. I know plenty of non-religious conservatives who oppose embryonic stem cell research, same-sex marriage, and abortion. I know a number of Christians who attend church regularly who are middle of the road on abortion and in some cases even support wholeheartedly same-sex marriage. One can be a critical thinker even within their own religious views and come to a different conclusion than someone else. Religious people do critically think and it's not merely the religious that are part of the voting block that came out to vote for President Bush. Just because these "Evangelical voters" came out in 2000 and 2004 suddenly, doesn't mean that they're a huge portion of the voting population and the sole basis for the support of President Bush. He had united fiscal conservatives who cared little for his social issues and war hawks. These people who only cared about social issues because of their religious views are in the vast minority when compared to the larger voting public. Look at how the GOP primary played out and how the characters who only pushed forward these views (i.e. social conservatism as #1) failed to make enough traction to come close to winning, ex. Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback. Heck, Huckabee still didn't have as many delegates as Romney until the last primary he competed in and still didn't have the number of actual votes Romney had when he dropped out...and say what you will about Romney, his candidacy wasn't a one-trick, social conservative pony like Huckabee.

Also, did President Bush bold-faced say that he believes in the Christian Bible verbatum with no leeway for symbolism, etc? I can't think of an actual quote where he's said that. He's a member of the United Methodist Church, which is the same church as John Edwards, Dick Cheney, and Hillary Rodham Clinton -- quite the varied background.
 
[quote name='daroga']Biblical Creation is "perfect then." At mankind's fall into sin, the whole creation was affected by that. Death came to creation (and eternal death in hell to mankind as punishment for sin).

Death wasn't part of the original creation. We're doing alright stretching out life-spans, but we're never going to be able to completely circumvent that great inevitability thanks to sin.[/quote]

So is it your position that "sin" is also responsible for aging? What about SIDS? Did G-d bring death on those sinful infants b/c of sins?


FWIW, I too think that philosophy and science are very similar. (I was a philosophy major in undergrad.) We basically both start with an assumption (hypothesis in science) and then sit around smoking herbs and try to poke holes in the outcome of what that assumption and reasoning (experiments in science) conclude.

Science is concerned about the answers, but equally concerned about how you get there.
Religion is concerned about the answers, but could care less about how you get there -->FAITH!
Philosphy is NOT concerned about the answers (well, almost entirely NOT), and ONLY cares about how you get there (good logical reasoning).
 
[quote name='t0llenz']

Also, did President Bush bold-faced say that he believes in the Christian Bible verbatum with no leeway for symbolism, etc? I can't think of an actual quote where he's said that. He's a member of the United Methodist Church, which is the same church as John Edwards, Dick Cheney, and Hillary Rodham Clinton -- quite the varied background.[/QUOTE]

I've noticed a lot of people really believe Bush is a fundamentalist. The extreme left pushes this belief in order to justify what they say about him and vilify him further. (I am NOT saying Camoor is extreme left).

But I too, have never seen proof of it, which can really only be an admission stated somewhere.

Camoor, it would be silly for me to claim the issues you listed are not at least partially influenced by religion. But I don't see that as a bad thing. I think ultimately, with the issues you listed, people go by their gut feeling. Does it feel wrong or right? Most religious and non-religious people I know ultimately do that.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']So is it your position that "sin" is also responsible for aging? What about SIDS? Did G-d bring death on those sinful infants b/c of sins?[/quote]Aging in terms of just getting older? I don't think so. I'd have to imagine that had a child been born in Eden before the fall into sin, the child would've grown up from a baby as we know them now to an adult. Aging as far as complete deterioration of the body, then yes. As to whether or not there was an ideal peak that the human body would get to sans sin and then remain there, I don't know. Without sin there is no death, or sadness, or pain.

Do children die because of sin, both theirs and those of the world around them? Yes.

[quote name='Sleepkyng']no one tries to explain faith with science, so GTFO.[/quote]Actually people do attempt to do that. It's called "Creation Science." I, too, believe it's largely a silly and fruitless endevaor, but I'd have to imagine for the complete opposite reasons as you do.
 
[quote name='Sleepkyng']

no one tries to explain faith with science, so GTFO.[/QUOTE]

Actually, a lot of people do.

If the truth were a rope, and science was one end of that rope, a lot of people believe that spirituality is simply the other end of the same rope.

One can only be experienced on a personal level, internally. While the other one only validates itself through proof to another persons five senses.

And not everyone believes only one end of the rope (method) should matter.
 
[quote name='daroga']Aging in terms of just getting older? I don't think so. I'd have to imagine that had a child been born in Eden before the fall into sin, the child would've grown up from a baby as we know them now to an adult. Aging as far as complete deterioration of the body, then yes. As to whether or not there was an ideal peak that the human body would get to sans sin and then remain there, I don't know. Without sin there is no death, or sadness, or pain.
[/quote]

Did you write this with a straight face?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top