Ben Stein's "Expelled"

[quote name='daroga']When dating of sediment and fossils discounts a younger earth that was created with age and an event as catastrophic to the whole of the earth as the Flood, then, yeah, I'd say they're bound to make a few mistakes in dating things.

But I'm certainly not up on the methods and conclusions drawn in such fields to say anything authoritatively.[/quote]

....what? Either you're trying to say that the fact that scientific dating processes have proven the Earth to be more than 6,000 years old is wrong because the Flood happened and therefore altered the chemical makeup of the rocks and what not used in dating or that the mistakes made in dating somehow makes it so shaky as to warrant looking at it with a serious critical eye. [quote name='daroga']I don't think there's a real solid date established (the genealogies in the Bible don't necessarily form a complete A-to-B flow of the course of years and length of time as that wasn't their purpose), but any age much beyond 10,000 years would give me pause.[/quote]

So, in your older post, you seem to somewhat dismiss the use of scientific dating because of some error present in it, but then it appears that you use the bible as some sort of guide for the age of the Earth. This doesn't work, daroga. [quote name='daroga']It's something called theistic evolution that tries to marry the Bible's creation account and science's guesses about the origins of the universe. The problem is that it's a horrible offense to both the Bible and science.[/quote]

Not really. One is human discovery that has lead to a vast understanding about the world around us and has saved countless lives, while the other is a book of fairy tales.

Frankly, I'm getting really sick and tired of daroga. How can we possibly debate science with someone who takes children's stories seriously and expect valid, reasonable discussion? It would be like arguing with someone who still believes in Santa Clause that matter can't travel faster than the speed of light.
 
[quote name='daroga']Msut, you've missed a lot of my points I think. Most likely because I worded them poorly. Let me take another stab at 'em.

Mutations: Slow and sure works just fine for mild things, but eventually you need massive leaps in that chain. Take the heart for example. Things that are "slowly but surely" developing a 3 chambered heart from a 2 chambered heart will... die. There's gotta be a big jump there.

Likewise, at some point in macro evolution for it to truly become a new species it has to cross the line where it is no longer compatible with the old species. And you can say slow and steady all you want but we don't have any "in between" species that can breed with relatives on either side but the relatives can't breed to the best of my knowledge.
[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry daroga, but you're clearly demonstrating that you do not understand evolution here.

Did a quick google search on the evolution of the heart and picked up several results. This is not my area of expertise, but I can see that there have been several papers written specifically on this subject. I can pretty much assure you the issue isn't a problem for evolution. This article looks to be a good start if you want to look into this more: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/53145.php

There is no line defining a species. Genetic change over time is inevitable. All alleles go to fixation or become extinct. Mutation maintains variation. But the point is that over time genes will change and without any mechanism to counteract this process speciation will occur. And have you really never heard of ring species? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
 
Ben Stein's main beef seem to be that ID is just as creditable as evolution because, you'know, a lot of people like Jesus, and FREE SPEECH! Both are fine for dinner conversation, but for teaching science they are useless.

There is none, nada, zero, zilch, .00000%, no evidence that supports any single part of ID, while on the other hand, every piece of evidence we've ever found points to evolution, from DNA discovery and mapping to flagellum cilia. Now are there breaks in the discovery line? Yes, but to fill them in with JESUS POWER is ridiculous.

Stein's recent interviews have been TV-smashingly frustrating because his entire argument seems to start and end with Darwin, leaving out the last 150 years of biological research and advancement that all stem, in one for or another, from the basic precepts laid down by evolutionary biology. He is a hard right neo-fascist religious nut who was made famous by Richard Nixon and Ferris Bueller. As smart as he may be in legal and political matters (not that he's right in them, but 'learned' nonetheless) his proven scientific knowledge is on par with 1950's level grade school text books. For him to make a movie on a scientific topic is smear to everything humans have achieved in the last century and a half.

PS - Noah's arc, if it were the size mentioned, couldn't hold all the forms of insects on the planet, much less any mammals.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']So then how do you classify those that believe people are the results of genetic tampering by an outside alien race?

How do you classify those people that believe life on earth was created by an alien race?

How do you define those that believe there is an underlying "force" behind all things and connecting all things, which also brings order out of chaos - but do not belong to a religion?

Most of those people (and I know many) feel their beliefs can be classified as ID. But they don't belong or adhere to any church or religion. I have been in many discussions with people like that who never brought up God, religion, or a church. So would that make it ok to at least "mention" it in schools?[/quote]

Well I hate to classify, but if you insist:

The first I'd classify as: "People who beleive people are the results of genetic tampering by an outside alien race?"

The second I'd classify as: "People who believe life on earth was created by an alien race?

The third I'd classify as: "People who believe there is an underlying "force" behind all things and connecting all things, which also brings order out of chaos - but do not belong to a religion."

It is important to be as specific as possible so as not to be over or under-inclusive.

ID is defined on www.dictionary.com as :
The assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes.
Click to expand...

Now what an individual refers to this "intelligent being" as is up to them, but to me and the majority of other people, they call it "G-d."

You take a crack at defining what is a religion, a belief in karma, an acknowledgement of mother earth, a cult, or just a whacko. I'm not gonna, and US Courts are hesistant to do it too.

There are cases that force them to though. Rastas wanna smoke weed (ha, reminds me of another active thread at the moment...coincidence?? Maybe?) and making that criminal, it can be argued, is infringing upon the free exercise of their religion.

Another example: Some guy doesn't wanna work on Wednesdays because he says it's against his religion to work any Wednesday. Should his employer be forced to make reasonable accomodations to allow him to work around Wednesdays? What if it's not just him, but an entire group of people? A community (maybe one in TEXAS thats practices polygamy??? Ring a bell?); how about a whole State? What about the majority of the people in a society? Ugh, I sure as fuck don't know what makes a religion a relgion, but IIRC, some factors that they consider are the amount of people that hold the belief/traditoin/practice, whether it is a sincerly held deep belief (or some language very close to that, I swear!) and other factors like the regularity of the practice, whether there is a formal place of worship, etc...

It's a tough call, deciding what is a religion and what isn't. I'm don't want to have to decide that, and it has been argued that even the Court deciding those things is violative of the Constitution and the First Amendment.
 
[quote name='StealthNinjaScyther']I'm sorry daroga, but you're clearly demonstrating that you do not understand evolution here.

Did a quick google search on the evolution of the heart and picked up several results. This is not my area of expertise, but I can see that there have been several papers written specifically on this subject. I can pretty much assure you the issue isn't a problem for evolution. This article looks to be a good start if you want to look into this more: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/53145.php

There is no line defining a species. Genetic change over time is inevitable. All alleles go to fixation or become extinct. Mutation maintains variation. But the point is that over time genes will change and without any mechanism to counteract this process speciation will occur. And have you really never heard of ring species? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species[/quote]

It seems like daroga is bringing up the question of how microevolution relates to macroevolution. Is macroevolution just the result of a series of small individual mutations or is there one big event, a hopeful monster, that develops and thrives?

When viewing parts of the body, it is important to look back to embryology and note how we all form into adults. The developing heart within a fetus is initially comprised of a primitive vascular tube that eventually forms the 4 chamber heart that we have as children and adults. In this way, it has been said that embryology retraces evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory) It is important to remember that small genetic or environmental changes may have profound effects on the final outcome with respect to an organ or organism. However, as a caveat, I would still imagine that most changes leading to a significant change would be more prone to be disasterous rather than beneficial. And, even though I'm supposed to know better, I still have difficulty imagining the exact mechanism of how new species may form over time without some more gradual steps (perhaps our concept of a species is not fully accurate and my ability to imagine an insanely large time scale is limited by my paltry 26 years on this earth).
 
[quote name='daroga']Msut, you've missed a lot of my points I think. Most likely because I worded them poorly. Let me take another stab at 'em.

Mutations: Slow and sure works just fine for mild things, but eventually you need massive leaps in that chain. Take the heart for example. Things that are "slowly but surely" developing a 3 chambered heart from a 2 chambered heart will... die. There's gotta be a big jump there.

Likewise, at some point in macro evolution for it to truly become a new species it has to cross the line where it is no longer compatible with the old species. And you can say slow and steady all you want but we don't have any "in between" species that can breed with relatives on either side but the relatives can't breed to the best of my knowledge.[/quote]
Ninja did a damn fine job, but I'd just like to talk a bit more (suprise) about this. What Daroga's more-or-less talking about here is Michael Behe's "Irreducible Complexity". Irreducibly complex organisms are those having parts so vital to their function that were they to be absent, the organism simply could not exist. And since they are so absolutely vital, they could not have been gradually added via our old friend evolution.

Take, for example, this bridge, shamelessly stolen from talkorigins.org (because, let's face it, they're fucking badass when it comes to this stuff):
stone_bridge2.jpg

If it was missing any part, it would cease to function. It is irreducibly complex.

Sort of.
The whole picture goes a little bit more like this...
Step 1
stone_bridge0.jpg


Step 2
stone_bridge1.jpg


Step 3
stone_bridge2.jpg


Not all that irreducibly complex at all. At no point was the bridge nonfunctional, and it was all done one step at a time. Now, that's not the one way everything happened I guarantee. Merely an illustration of the flaws of IC.

Once again, many thanks to talkorigins. They explain shit far better than I ever would be able to. Those images were taken from this piece on irreducible complexity (or "Mullerian interlocking complexity").


And just for the record, pointing out whatever flaws are involved in the whole Noah's Ark thing isn't exactly gonna get you anywhere. If you, for example, believe that modern dating techniques are entirely flawed because they show no record of any global flood, then my asking how all those animals fit on the ark or how fresh-water fish survived in the suddenly much more saline environment or where the hell all that water came from/went to won't make much of a difference. If God can make it rain for 40 days and 40 nights, he can probably handle the logistics of intercontinental penguin travel.
 
[quote name='BigT']It seems like daroga is bringing up the question of how microevolution relates to macroevolution. Is macroevolution just the result of a series of small individual mutations or is there one big event, a hopeful monster, that develops and thrives?

When viewing parts of the body, it is important to look back to embryology and note how we all form into adults. The developing heart within a fetus is initially comprised of a primitive vascular tube that eventually forms the 4 chamber heart that we have as children and adults. In this way, it has been said that embryology retraces evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory) It is important to remember that small genetic or environmental changes may have profound effects on the final outcome with respect to an organ or organism. However, as a caveat, I would still imagine that most changes leading to a significant change would be more prone to be disasterous rather than beneficial. And, even though I'm supposed to know better, I still have difficulty imagining the exact mechanism of how new species may form over time without some more gradual steps (perhaps our concept of a species is not fully accurate and my ability to imagine an insanely large time scale is limited by my paltry 26 years on this earth).[/QUOTE]

It doesn't help to think of microevolution and macroevolution as separate processes since the only real difference is time. The hopeful monster idea is a dead end. Big changes aren't really necessary for evolution to produce the variation we see today.

I think you might also be placing too much emphasis on mutation. Not that it isn't extremely important. Mutations with noticeable effects are still rather rare. Drift and selection are at work more than mutations are. It might also help to stop thinking of mutations in terms of being beneficial or detrimental. Really, a particular mutation doesn't have to be beneficial to stick around. It's the detrimental mutations that don't last. It took awhile for these ideas to click for me too, this is pretty heavy stuff after all.
 
[quote name='StealthNinjaScyther']It doesn't help to think of microevolution and macroevolution as separate processes since the only real difference is time. The hopeful monster idea is a dead end. Big changes aren't really necessary for evolution to produce the variation we see today.

I think you might also be placing too much emphasis on mutation. Not that it isn't extremely important. Mutations with noticeable effects are still rather rare. Drift and selection are at work more than mutations are. It might also help to stop thinking of mutations in terms of being beneficial or detrimental. Really, a particular mutation doesn't have to be beneficial to stick around. It's the detrimental mutations that don't last. It took awhile for these ideas to click for me too, this is pretty heavy stuff after all.[/quote]

Sure, over time we have developed many benign polymorphisms...

I focused on mutations because one needs a mechanism for diversity. Genetic drift may account for a small population favoring certain alleles just by chance... but still, the development of a novel allele is necessary for significant change... and how can this happen, aside from a germline mutation?

Same idea for natural selection... we need diversity to select from. Of course, as I mentioned before, small genetic changes may cause a huge change in phenotype (just see what havoc accutane may wreck on facial development because of its effect on the expression of Hox regulatory genes).
 
Interesting stuff, guys. It's a bit early here to really digest it, so I might come back later when I'm... awake.

At first blush I'd just like to thank Ninja for more or less proving my point and showing some honesty on that matter. That heart example is exactly what I was talking about. If that's how it happened (a particular environmental cause causing havoc on the developing offspring), that's pretty much what I'd call a "big change." There's nothing slow and steady about Mom having a 1 chambered heart and Son having a 2 chambered heart. It also introduces a whole host of other questions in my mind, most of which are likely easily answered by someone who's been awake for more than 20 minutes.

The Ring Species thing is also interesting. I wonder if those guys scattered through the ring who can't mate--is it that they can't or they won't. Is it that they biologically can't make it work or due to their unfamiliarity with each other there's no natural instinct to mate. Could you forcibly get offspring from them even if they wouldn't do it on their own?
 
Haven't been following in a few days due to being generally busy (i.e., doing some writing as well as seriously wanting to finish Lost Odyssey before GTAIV comes out), but I thought I'd hop in with the NYT review. Evidently, only one person has been allegedly "expelled" as the title suggests, and there is debate over whether completing a research assistantship means the same thing as being expelled.

April 18, 2008
Resentment Over Darwin Evolves Into a Documentary

*
E-MAIL
* Print
* Save
* Share
o Digg
o Facebook
o Mixx
o Yahoo! Buzz
o Permalink

Article Tools Sponsored By
By JEANNETTE CATSOULIS
Published: April 18, 2008

One of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” is a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry.

Positing the theory of intelligent design as a valid scientific hypothesis, the film frames the refusal of “big science” to agree as nothing less than an assault on free speech. Interviewees, including the scientist Richard Sternberg, claim that questioning Darwinism led to their expulsion from the scientific fold (the film relies extensively on the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy — after this, therefore because of this), while our genial audience surrogate, the actor and multihyphenate Ben Stein, nods sympathetically. (Mr. Stein is also a freelance columnist who writes Everybody’s Business for The New York Times.)

Prominent evolutionary biologists, like the author and Oxford professor Richard Dawkins — accurately identified on screen as an “atheist” — are provided solely to construct, in cleverly edited slices, an inevitable connection between Darwinism and godlessness. Blithely ignoring the vital distinction between social and scientific Darwinism, the film links evolution theory to fascism (as well as abortion, euthanasia and eugenics), shamelessly invoking the Holocaust with black-and-white film of Nazi gas chambers and mass graves.

Every few minutes familiar — and ideologically unrelated — images interrupt the talking heads: a fist-shaking Nikita S. Khrushchev; Charlton Heston being subdued by a water hose in “Planet of the Apes.” This is not argument, it’s circus, a distraction from the film’s contempt for precision and intellectual rigor. This goes further than a willful misunderstanding of the scientific method. The film suggests, for example, that Dr. Sternberg lost his job at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History because of intellectual discrimination but neglects to inform us that he was actually not an employee but rather an unpaid research associate who had completed his three-year term.

Mixing physical apples and metaphysical oranges at every turn “Expelled” is an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike. In its fudging, eliding and refusal to define terms, the movie proves that the only expulsion here is of reason itself.

“Expelled” is rated PG (Parental guidance suggested). It has smoking guns and drunken logic.

EXPELLED

No Intelligence Allowed

Opens on Friday nationwide.

Directed by Nathan Frankowski; written by Kevin Miller and Ben Stein; narrated by Mr. Stein; director of photography, Mr. Frankowski; edited by Simon Tondeur; music by Andy Hunter and Robbie Bronnimann; produced by Logan Craft, Walt Ruloff and John Sullivan; released by Premise Media. Running time: 1 hour 30 minutes.
Click to expand...

http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/movies/18expe.html?pagewanted=print
 
Charlton Heston being subdued by a water hose in “Planet of the Apes.”
Click to expand...

They used the original "Planet of the Apes" in "Expelled"??!?

Have you forgotten your scripture, the thirteenth scroll? "And Proteus brought the upright beast into the garden and chained him to a tree and the children did make sport of him."
- Dr. Zaius
Click to expand...

Part of the serious subtext of that movie was how destructive and backwards religious dogmatic thinking is. They specifically parodied the Scopes Monkey Trial. The ape tribe can't accept a talking human because it refutes everything in their religious mythos, therefore the human is an abomination that must be destroyed (via lobotomization). The true scientists among the ape tribe are the heroes of that movie.

It's a mad house! A mad house!
 
[quote name='camoor']Part of the serious subtext of that movie was how destructive and backwards religious dogmatic thinking is. They specifically parodied the Scopes Monkey Trial. The ape tribe can't accept a talking human because it refutes everything in their religious mythos, therefore the human is an abomination that must be destroyed (via lobotomization). The true scientists among the ape tribe are the heroes of that movie.

It's a mad house! A mad house! [/quote]There's only one suitable way to deal with this:

:whee:
 
[quote name='daroga']There's only one suitable way to deal with this:

:whee:
[/quote]

K let me break it down for you this way:

You don't see Michael Moore using footage of "Gunsmoke" in "Bowling for Columbine"
 
[quote name='camoor']K let me break it down for you this way:

You don't see Michael Moore using footage of "Gunsmoke" in "Bowling for Columbine"[/quote]It was a joke, bud. :) I found the irony quite funny myself.
 
It's the way the discussions about Evolution versus Creationism go. I've never seen anyone over 12 years old change their mind on the subject.

As a theory, evolution has made progress since the Scopes Monkey Trial days.

Still, 55% of Americans believe that God created human beings just like that (I interpret this as a belief in Creationism)

Strict evolutionists (IE belief in evolution without guidance by God) comprise only 13% of the population.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml
 
Really? That number surprises me. I figured Creation still bested evolutionary ideas, but it surprises me that it's that skewed.
 
[quote name='camoor']It's the way the discussions about Evolution versus Creationism go. I've never seen anyone over 12 years old change their mind on the subject.

As a theory, evolution has made progress since the Scopes Monkey Trial days.

Still, 55% of Americans believe that God created human beings just like that (I interpret this as a belief in Creationism)

Strict evolutionists (IE belief in evolution without guidance by God) comprise only 13% of the population.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml[/quote]

"Support for evolution is more heavily concentrated among those with more education "

See, now that didn't surprise me at all. I've always thought that the strictest believers in religion seem to be the least educated. Not all, but many. That is especially true here in the south.
 
Yep, I totally agree. It's not even a generalization.

And Daroga, are you really that surprised? Most of America is very religious, especially in the middle.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Yep, I totally agree. It's not even a generalization.

And Daroga, are you really that surprised? Most of America is very religious, especially in the middle.[/quote]

I was very surprised. Look at this "Expelled" movie - the way they pose it, the Creationist theory is the underdog in mainstream society. In fact the opposite is true, and those of us who believe in a strict interpretation of the theory of evolution (IE without God's influence) are the real contrarians.
 
Well, we went to see it tonight. A few thoughts.

The Nazi argument was a bit of a low-blow. It wasn't really a fair argument; there was no counterpoint given. It's not that those same poor arguments haven't been leveled against Christianity as well, but that doesn't make it fair. I think it really, really hurt their points as it evoked an emotional response (how could WWII and the Holocaust not?) rather than the rational argument they were trying to maintain.

It was actually more charitable to evolution than I thought it would, especially in light of some of those reviews.

I'd recommend all of you see it. It would be good to at least see what the other side says and a little bit about how they think rather than just hiding from it.

EDIT: Just a thought I had to give an indication of where the film comes from. I'm pretty sure not a person on that film would be a biblical, six-days Creationist. There's certainly a discussion about religion and talk in the loosest terms about Creation, but that's not the main point from which these men and women (or even Stein himself) are coming from. I think general impressions prior to this may have given a false idea of the tone of the documentary.
 
To be honest I've never understood the Creationist arguement, even from a cursory metaphysical glance.

I mean, does this world seem like the work of a focused, disciplined, perfect God? If anything, it's a design by committee (polytheism). Or maybe the Demiurge started his 7th grade HS science project late and what we got was a half-assed experiment called "Earth"
 
[quote name='camoor']I mean, does this world seem like the work of a focused, disciplined, perfect God? If anything, it's a design by committee (polytheism). Or maybe the Demiurge started his 7th grade HS science project late and what we got was a half-assed experiment called "Earth"[/quote]You sure about that one camoor? To me the Earth and all of its systems are pretty damn amazing.
 
[quote name='XxFuRy2Xx']You sure about that one camoor? To me the Earth and all of its systems are pretty damn amazing.[/quote]I agree. My gut reaction to the point was "How much of it have you studied in depth?"

The more we learn and study, the more complex and organized everything becomes. Even to the point of water molecules breaking the norms of chemistry so it has a freezing and boiling point in a region that would actually support life.

Like I said, camoor, give the documentary a watch. It's not going to change your mind, but I I think it does dispell some widely-held misconceptions about those who would seek to investigate ID. I'll give you a hint, they're not crazy "wackjobs" like myself that believe in Creation, nor is it people searching for anyway to get God back (was he ever there?) in the classroom.
 
[quote name='XxFuRy2Xx']You sure about that one camoor? To me the Earth and all of its systems are pretty damn amazing.[/quote]

My post was definitely tongue-in-cheek.

However I don't think one can deny that there are things in this life that seem to be fundamentally unfair (such as children who develop cancer, innocent casualties of war, people born into abject poverty...)

If you take an exclusively human viewpoint and imagine a world created by several different gods with different abilities and objectives, IMO the end result of a world like ours makes more sense. That's why I'm always surprised by the adherents to Creationism.

Of course these are fanciful musings, ultimately I believe in the scientific theory of evolution.
 
Creationism brings with it the fall into sin in Genesis 3 as well, which accounts of all the messed up, unfair, crap that happens to you, me, and others in this world.

Its one of the reasons that Creation is not just a part of Christianity, it's an essential component of it. Without Creation, the whole thing falls to pieces (even apart from obvious contradictions it then adds to the Bible). One of the attractive qualities of evolution is that it works to get rid of the nagging moral accountability that we're all born with. If we're all animals and are just a rest stop on the evolutionary highway, we don't have to answer to anyone. Not God, not really the government, not even to our own consciences.

Biblically speaking, creation was perfect at first, but then sin entered in. Through sin we got physical and spiritual death. As a result we got diseases like cancer, parents losing their children to miscarriages and SIDS, hate, pain, anger, all the things that make this world generally unpleasant to live in. Enter God's plan to save us from our own stupidity and sin. Thus the plan of salvation through the promises of the Messiah and the realizing of those promises through Christ's death to pay for sin and his resurrection from the dead to prove that what he did "worked," that our sins have been paid for. As a result, those who rely on Christ for forgiveness rather than their own "good enough" lives will spend an everlasting life in perfection--in the "new heavens and new earth" as it is described often in the Bible.

Pulling the creation leg out from underneath that table very obviously destroys the whole of it. In the faith of evolution, there is no supreme being, no accountability, no sin, no results of sin, and nothing after this life. So you make the most of some 70 years in this overall pretty terrible existence and then you're done.

It's not an argument for creation or against evolution. Just wanted to point out both sides' accounting for the crap in this life, and what the end result of that is.
 
[quote name='daroga']Its one of the reasons that Creation is not just a part of Christianity. Without Creation, the whole thing falls to pieces (even apart from obvious contradictions it then adds to the Bible). One of the attractive qualities of evolution is that it works to get rid of the nagging moral accountability that we're all born with. If we're all animals and are just a rest stop on the evolutionary highway, we don't have to answer to anyone. Not God, not really the government, not even to our own consciences.[/QUOTE]

You are saying that if no one took the trouble to construct and indoctrinate people with creation myths most people yourself included would be out looting, raping and killing.

I have no idea what rests in the deepest parts of your psyche but I and others do not need stories to keep from being bad people.

In the faith of evolution, there is no supreme being, no accountability, no sin, no results of sin, and nothing after this life. So you make the most of some 70 years in this overall pretty terrible existence and then you're done.
Click to expand...

I pity you.
 
[quote name='daroga'] So you make the most of some 70 years in this overall pretty terrible existence and then you're done.

[/QUOTE]

Daroga, I don't agree with you in literal translations of the bible (not sure how anyone could, once you study how the bible came to be and what was thrown out, and by who - but that's another discussion). But I do agree with you on many things, especially the above.

When I get in these types of discussions with people, I have realized there are essentially two brands of people:

1) The people that consider themselves very educated. They literally do not believe in anything that can't be reproduced, studied in a lab, and proven to anyone elses five senses easily. They do not believe anything outside of those requirements exists, or can exist. These are your die-hard evolutionists, typically. They acknowledge they do not have all the answers, but they have faith that through the scientific method, all answers can be found.

These people also typically have a very low tolerance for anyone that thinks differently. They think of anyone believing in a different approach to understanding the world around us as inferior, and mostly based in ignorance - Because they were taught in their many years of overpriced schooling that this is really the only way valid to approach understanding the universe. This makes them often come off as elitist. (this leads into another discussion about the true value/danger of modern education)

2)These folks generally believe there is far more to this world, the universe, and especially people than can ever be fully understood using just critical thinking, logic, labs and the scientific method. They accept the scientific method, and it's theories, as great tools. They feel the theory of evolution and Darwinism are great tools and starting points. But they do not believe that the universe, and all truths, can ever be understood by only adhering to them. They believe that there are valid experiences that can only be had on an individual level that can reveal truth just as valid as the scientist in his lab. These people generally have open minds to any theory. They don't need to see it reproduced in a lab to believe it all the time. When confronted with a wild claim based on someone's personal experience, they are skeptical, but refuse to outright dismiss it.

I have found, generally, almost everyone falls into one of the above categories. And it's not hard to see just about every poster in this thread fitting into one or the other (mostly one).
 
[quote name='daroga']One of the attractive qualities of evolution is that it works to get rid of the nagging moral accountability that we're all born with. If we're all animals and are just a rest stop on the evolutionary highway, we don't have to answer to anyone. Not God, not really the government, not even to our own consciences.[/quote]

I don't know that that's so attractive, most Americans would associate that with nihilism. IMO for the average man it's much more attractive to believe that if you follow the rules you get a heavenly reward after you die, no matter what your social position or material situation is in this life.

What is the ape to man? A laughing-stock or a painful embarrassment. And just that shall man be for the superman: a laughing-stock or a painful embarrassment.
- Nietzsche
Click to expand...

Nietzsche was one of the few that reasoned an alternative to nihilism with his concept of the Superman - a man who is liberated from all values he doesn't deem worthy. A man whose values represent the strength and creativity that can only come from true freedom. A man whose will to power doesn't only apply to others, but to himself as well. This dovetails nicely with Eastern philosophies.

He who controls others may be powerful, but he who has mastered himself is mightier still.
- Lao-tzu
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='daroga']One of the attractive qualities of evolution is that it works to get rid of the nagging moral accountability that we're all born with. If we're all animals and are just a rest stop on the evolutionary highway, we don't have to answer to anyone. Not God, not really the government, not even to our own consciences. [/quote]

You're better than this.

In the faith of evolution, there is no supreme being, no accountability, no sin, no results of sin, and nothing after this life. So you make the most of some 70 years in this overall pretty terrible existence and then you're done.
Click to expand...
There is no "faith of evolution". There is atheism, if you'd consider that a faith, but that came before and has nothing to do with evolution. You've already given examples of how God could exist along with the concept of evolution and many people believe that.

It's not an argument for creation or against evolution. Just wanted to point out both sides' accounting for the crap in this life, and what the end result of that is.
Click to expand...
The end result is that for most of the history of the Earth, and most likely for the rest of the history of the Earth, most people have been religious and have maimed, killed, and destroyed for their religion and/or regardless of it. The idea of evolution didn't change any of that anymore than the teachings or death of Jesus did.

And if you think the ID movement has nothing to do with getting God into the classroom you haven't followed it very well. I don't blame you, it's not that interesting, but while the ID movement has attracted some people that just want "alternatives" or whatever the hell they think since they don't understand how science works, its creation and intent was to get more religion (specifically their version of Christianity) into school because they think that this evolution idea public schools started teaching less than 100 years ago is the cause of all the problems in the world and we need more Jesus to fix it.
 
[quote name='Msut77']You are saying that if no one took the trouble to construct and indoctrinate people with creation myths most people yourself included would be out looting, raping and killing.[/quote]That is the end of the line in evolutionary thought. Maybe not looting, raping, and killing, but rather total self-preservation at all costs. Maybe largely based around a community (think of a pride of lions, the symbiotic relationships found in nature, etc.), but ultimately it is about looking out for number one.

Of course, that's not really what we see among humans most of the time. Most people have a moral compass. Most people care about other people in the abstract even if they've never met them. Morals, rational thought, societal progress. These a pretty fundamental differences between mankind and the rest of nature. It almost makes one wonder if there's something more distinguishing us from them than just our DNA...

[quote name='Msut77']I have no idea what rests in the deepest parts of your psyche but I and others do not need stories to keep from being bad people.[/quote]No, you don't, because you have a moral code instilled in you from birth. Murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, rape is wrong, lying is wrong. It's not something you had to learn, you've always known it; we all know it. Societies don't exist because of they made these rules; they exist because of these rules.

Along with that moral code is this feeling that the times we go against that and violate our conscience, we're going to have to answer to someone. That's the time the religion and/or philosophy steps in to try to answer some of those questions.

[quote name='Msut77']I pity you.[/quote]And I, you, more than you would ever acknowledge or than I could ever really express to you. I don't sit here typing and reading to win an argument. I do it because I care for each one of you and am concerned about you and would like everyone to at least pause and think what their way of thinking has and might entail in the future.

[quote name='SpazX']There is no "faith of evolution". There is atheism, if you'd consider that a faith, but that came before and has nothing to do with evolution. You've already given examples of how God could exist along with the concept of evolution and many people believe that.[/quote]I think camoor's quote above is dead on. He "believe in the theory of evolution." As long as there are components that cannot be proven, it is faith. Faith != God. Faith = adherent trust in things that cannot be known.

[quote name='SpazX']The end result is that for most of the history of the Earth, and most likely for the rest of the history of the Earth, most people have been religious and have maimed, killed, and destroyed for their religion and/or regardless of it. The idea of evolution didn't change any of that anymore than the teachings or death of Jesus did.[/quote]And you're better than this. There are always religious extremists. But to single out those who desire conversion at sword or gun point and define religion in that way isn't accurate. The crusades don't embody Christianity; those who speak the truth and leave it at that do. Religious people aren't immune from ignoring that baseline moral code. In fact, no one is or can be. It's called sin. It infects us all.

[quote name='SpazX'] And if you think the ID movement has nothing to do with getting God into the classroom you haven't followed it very well. I don't blame you, it's not that interesting, but while the ID movement has attracted some people that just want "alternatives" or whatever the hell they think since they don't understand how science works, its creation and intent was to get more religion (specifically their version of Christianity) into school because they think that this evolution idea public schools started teaching less than 100 years ago is the cause of all the problems in the world and we need more Jesus to fix it.[/quote]Yeah, I think I overstated that case. Let me put it this way, my desire and I think the desire of many people is not to get God into the classroom. Although I wouldn't go so far as to say that people who want ID don't understand how science works. That makes you sound very close-minded with your fingers in your ears whenever anyone voices an idea that runs contrary to yours. Is it not possible that someone may understand every facet of evolution and find it lacking? Or the questions it leaves unanswered unacceptable?
 
[quote name='daroga']I think camoor's quote above is dead on. He "believe in the theory of evolution." As long as there are components that cannot be proven, it is faith. Faith != God. Faith = adherent trust in things that cannot be known.[/quote]

I don't know in what way camoor meant his belief comment, but a scientist accepts that which has the best evidence as being most likely to be true. All things require further examination, of course, but just because we don't know everything about gravity doesn't mean we shouldn't accept its existence.

And you're better than this. There are always religious extremists. But to single out those who desire conversion at sword or gun point and define religion in that way isn't accurate. The crusades don't embody Christianity; those who speak the truth and leave it at that do. Religious people aren't immune from ignoring that baseline moral code. In fact, no one is or can be. It's called sin. It infects us all.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about religious extremists I'm talking about almost every human who has lived. Almost every murderer, thief, rapist, and liar has been a person with a religious faith. Those who don't have any religion are few and far between. There are those extremists who do horrible things in the name of their religions and those who do horrible things for other reasons, but neither of those remove the fact that they had religious beliefs, were taught religious morals, probably went to a good number of religious services, etc. I know that religious people are no different from those who are not and that is why I said the end result isn't any different from your beliefs or from someone who accepts evolution as a scientific explanation of the origins of different species. Before Jesus and after Jesus, before evolution and after evolution, people have been the same.

Yeah, I think I overstated that case. Let me put it this way, my desire and I think the desire of many people is not to get God into the classroom. Although I wouldn't go so far as to say that people who want ID don't understand how science works. That makes you sound very close-minded with your fingers in your ears whenever anyone voices an idea that runs contrary to yours. Is it not possible that someone may understand every facet of evolution and find it lacking? Or the questions it leaves unanswered unacceptable?
Click to expand...

They don't understand science not because of their opinions but because their opinions don't have evidence. You can't just think up an alternative and say it should be taught because people believe it. If you do the science and evidence backs you up, then you present the alternative. The ID people want the alternative presented regardless of the fact that they don't have evidence for it and all the evidence from multiple scientific disciplines points towards evolution. A lack of complete knowledge about the workings of every living thing does not mean that you have alternative theory. You can't say "this doesn't explain this" and have a competing theory, you have to explain it first.

The workings of evolution are not fully understood and there have been modifications and even oppositions to Darwinian gradualism (punctuated equilibrium), but those are based on evidence and have explanatory power. The ID people are saying "this doesn't explain this and therefore the entire concept of evolution is destroyed" and that's just a ton of shit. There can be legitimate concerns and changes to the understanding of evolution, but frankly the concept of evolution is too well backed by evidence to be so easily dismantled. They have their religious beliefs and that's fine, but you can't base science on religious belief, that's not the point of science and that's why they don't understand it.
 
I've noticed something about religion and science and it always seems to prove true. With time, people slowly start to abandon religious explanations for things in favor of scientific ones. People used to think that natural disasters were controlled by the gods, the word "volcano" comes from the name of the roman god "Vulcan." Now of course, we know that is ridiculous, but is that really any different than some of the things in the Christian bible? If it's ridiculous that volcanoes are caused by Vulcan, why isn't it ridiculous that Jesus rose from the grave? They're equally ridiculous notions.
 
[quote name='daroga']That is the end of the line in evolutionary thought. Maybe not looting, raping, and killing, but rather total self-preservation at all costs. Maybe largely based around a community (think of a pride of lions, the symbiotic relationships found in nature, etc.), but ultimately it is about looking out for number one.

Of course, that's not really what we see among humans most of the time. Most people have a moral compass. Most people care about other people in the abstract even if they've never met them. Morals, rational thought, societal progress. These a pretty fundamental differences between mankind and the rest of nature. It almost makes one wonder if there's something more distinguishing us from them than just our DNA...

No, you don't, because you have a moral code instilled in you from birth. Murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, rape is wrong, lying is wrong. It's not something you had to learn, you've always known it; we all know it. Societies don't exist because of they made these rules; they exist because of these rules.

Along with that moral code is this feeling that the times we go against that and violate our conscience, we're going to have to answer to someone. That's the time the religion and/or philosophy steps in to try to answer some of those questions.[/quote]

There is the theory that, on a macro scale, our nobler traits exist because they are useful in an evolutionary sense. For example - let's say that Tribe A is attacked by Tribe B. It's in the interest of Tribe A's men to defend their tribe's women and children, even though it may mean their death, because the victors will be able to pass on their DNA. If Tribe A's men run away their women will be stolen, their children may be killed, and their chance to spread DNA will be diminished.

It's said that one of disgraced Enron exec Jeff Skilling's favorite books was "The Selfish Gene". What I think strictly scientific minds routinely underestimate is the psychological impact of a Theory of Evolution without God. Adherents of this theory are set adrift, and there are necessarily going to lead to many spectacular failures before the next rung on the evolutionary ladder, the ubermensch, appears. Is it any wonder that, looking at these failures, people would rather believe in a paternalistic creator God?

[quote name='daroga']I think camoor's quote above is dead on. He "believe in the theory of evolution." As long as there are components that cannot be proven, it is faith. Faith != God. Faith = adherent trust in things that cannot be known.[/quote]

I'm fine with the word belief, but faith is too far. There's nothing transcendent or fixed in my belief in the Theory of Evolution. In the future, if I judge there to be a better, more scientifically valid theory out there I will jump to it.

[quote name='SpazX']I'm not talking about religious extremists I'm talking about almost every human who has lived. Almost every murderer, thief, rapist, and liar has been a person with a religious faith.[/quote]

Which faith did Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot belong to?
 
[quote name='camoor']Which faith did Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot belong to?[/quote]

I dunno, I'll tell you when the word "almost" is redefined to include everyone :p.
 
[quote name='daroga']That is the end of the line in evolutionary thought. Maybe not looting, raping, and killing, but rather total self-preservation at all costs. Maybe largely based around a community (think of a pride of lions, the symbiotic relationships found in nature, etc.), but ultimately it is about looking out for number one.[/quote]And that, my friend, is where we get the is-ought fallacy. Science describes things as they are, not as we should strive to make them be. Deriving your morality from natural selection makes about as much sense as deriving it from the principles of heat exchange.

[quote name='daroga'] Of course, that's not really what we see among humans most of the time. Most people have a moral compass. Most people care about other people in the abstract even if they've never met them. Morals, rational thought, societal progress. These a pretty fundamental differences between mankind and the rest of nature. It almost makes one wonder if there's something more distinguishing us from them than just our DNA...

No, you don't, because you have a moral code instilled in you from birth. Murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, rape is wrong, lying is wrong. It's not something you had to learn, you've always known it; we all know it. Societies don't exist because of they made these rules; they exist because of these rules.

Along with that moral code is this feeling that the times we go against that and violate our conscience, we're going to have to answer to someone. That's the time the religion and/or philosophy steps in to try to answer some of those questions.[/quote]Camoor beat me to this. Evolution can explain quite easily the existence of any sort of inborn moral code in our species.

[quote name='daroga'] I think camoor's quote above is dead on. He "believe in the theory of evolution." As long as there are components that cannot be proven, it is faith. Faith != God. Faith = adherent trust in things that cannot be known.[/quote]We've been over this before. I believe that Carey Price will rebound and my Habs will win their game tonight. I also believe that the sun will come up tomorrow.

Do you see the difference?

[quote name='camoor']
Which faith did Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot belong to?[/quote]
What was the point of that question? Spaz is talking about groups, not individuals. He isn't saying "Barbarosa/Calvin/whoever was a really mean guy. He was also a Christian. Therefore, Christians are bad." He is simply saying that religion is not a buffer against "immorality".
 
[quote name='camoor']There is the theory that, on a macro scale, our nobler traits exist because they are useful in an evolutionary sense. For example - let's say that Tribe A is attacked by Tribe B. It's in the interest of Tribe A's men to defend their tribe's women and children, even though it may mean their death, because the victors will be able to pass on their DNA. If Tribe A's men run away their women will be stolen, their children may be killed, and their chance to spread DNA will be diminished.[/quote]How does that primitive man's attitude differ from any other animal in nature? How did we make the jump to the self-preservation of DNA to universal attitudes to all people?

Crotch, "believe" carries with it a notion of uncertainty or unprovability. You wouldn't say "I believe the sun will rise tomorrow." You say "I know the sun will rise tomorrow." If you guys want to express absolute certainty that you seem to have in these theorizes processes, avoid "believe." It casts a shade of doubt when you're trying to assert things you can supposedly prove.

We've been skirting around it for a bit, but I'm pretty sure we've reached our impasse that was inevitable. As always, aside from a few bad eggs now and then, it's was an informative and good discussion. I'll keep my eye on the thread in case someone thinks there's more things to discuss :)
 
[quote name='daroga']That is the end of the line in evolutionary thought. That is the end of the line in evolutionary thought.[/QUOTE]

Not at all, you seem to have "evolutionists" confused with Objectivist Randroids. Your view of others is either ignorant or you are being dishonest when you state what you think others believe. Some of the absolute worst people I have known in my life have been deeply religious, they seem to feel that their faith is a get out of jail free card for their rotten behavior.

No, you don't, because you have a moral code instilled in you from birth. Murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, rape is wrong, lying is wrong. It's not something you had to learn, you've always known it; we all know it. Societies don't exist because of they made these rules; they exist because of these rules.

Along with that moral code is this feeling that the times we go against that and violate our conscience, we're going to have to answer to someone. That's the time the religion and/or philosophy steps in to try to answer some of those questions.
Click to expand...

You do not need religion to have a moral code. Looking at the last part you seem to have acknowledged this, are you cutting and pasting your responses?

Is it not possible that someone may understand every facet of evolution and find it lacking? Or the questions it leaves unanswered unacceptable?
Click to expand...

Considering that ID and well all anti-evolution arguments tend to fall into argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument from credulity when they are not being outright dishonest and the fact there is a very real correlation between education and rejection of creationism then no it is not really possible.

I do it because I care for each one of you and am concerned about you and would like everyone to at least pause and think what their way of thinking has and might entail in the future.
Click to expand...

We, well I at least are not the ones in need of more self examination. People like the expelled crowd and its fans who are upset that their beliefs are not accepted unthinkingly are the real problem.

And I, you
Click to expand...

I cannot imagine why. I am not the third rate sophist here, the idea that you are going to be given a flock
to instruct really sickens me.
 
[quote name='daroga']Crotch, "believe" carries with it a notion of uncertainty or unprovability. You wouldn't say "I believe the sun will rise tomorrow." You say "I know the sun will rise tomorrow." If you guys want to express absolute certainty that you seem to have in these theorizes processes, avoid "believe." It casts a shade of doubt when you're trying to assert things you can supposedly prove.[/quote]

Nothing in science is proven, it's always tentative. Some things are just easier to accept than others. It's certainly possible that the sun won't rise tomorrow as the Earth for some reason could stop spinning or the sun itself could somehow vanish. There's just sufficient evidence that the sun will rise and none or very little to suggest that it will not. The convenience of that assertion would be that it could be accurately tested within 24 hours, and testing is normally the hard part.
 
[quote name='daroga']We've been skirting around it for a bit, but I'm pretty sure we've reached our impasse that was inevitable. As always, aside from a few bad eggs now and then, it's was an informative and good discussion.[/QUOTE]

Are you referring to thrusts impersonation of the leave Britney alone guy?

Because that was pretty pathetic.
 
[quote name='daroga']
The more we learn and study, the more complex and organized everything becomes. Even to the point of water molecules breaking the norms of chemistry so it has a freezing and boiling point in a region that would actually support life.

Like I said, camoor, give the documentary a watch. It's not going to change your mind, but I I think it does dispell some widely-held misconceptions about those who would seek to investigate ID. I'll give you a hint, they're not crazy "wackjobs" like myself that believe in Creation, nor is it people searching for anyway to get God back (was he ever there?) in the classroom.[/QUOTE]

The more we learn and study, the more things make sense. Looking at evolutionary biology we no longer have to look at something and go "look, that's amazing, I wonder how it could have come to be." We can, and are, doing that right now. Is it really any coincidence that every structure proposed as being irreducibly complex has been shown not to be?

This documentary shows that these people are "wackjobs." The entire premise of the movie is that people are being expelled from the scientific establishment for their beliefs. This is not true. These people are trying put religion where it has no place. No matter what any of them claim, ID is creationism, there is nothing to investigate. These people are trying to undermine the foundation of science education in this country. I'm sorry, but that is fucking insane. These people are liars, plain and simple.

Why should anybody take the time to watch a documentary full of outright lies? What could we possibly gain?
 
[quote name='SpazX']Nothing in science is proven, it's always tentative. Some things are just easier to accept than others. It's certainly possible that the sun won't rise tomorrow as the Earth for some reason could stop spinning or the sun itself could somehow vanish. There's just sufficient evidence that the sun will rise and none or very little to suggest that it will not. The convenience of that assertion would be that it could be accurately tested within 24 hours, and testing is normally the hard part.[/quote]That's fair enough. Of course that flies in the face of what a lot of science teachers say in their classes, and that what a lot of people have said in this very thread, the the theory, as it stands, is fact.

I have a feeling that for many of them, they mean exactly what you said, but simple don't word it properly. If you could give them a few language lessons, that'd be super. ;)
 
[quote name='SpazX']I dunno, I'll tell you when the word "almost" is redefined to include everyone :p.[/QUOTE]

You missed his point. Up until the last 120 years, all people were religious whether they knew they were or not, because science and religion were the same thing. So it's unfair to point out that mass murderers have all been doing it in the name of the religious.

But if you just go back in time since your "scientific" thought and total abandonment of religion for science has started to occur in recent history - you see as much, if not more, atheistic mass butchers.

I challenge you to start at about the mid 1800's, tally up all the dictators and geoniciders, total their death counts, and then sort them out according to religious or anti-religious.
 
[quote name='StealthNinjaScyther']

Why should anybody take the time to watch a documentary full of outright lies? What could we possibly gain?[/QUOTE]

Ask the people showing Al Gore's movie in schools ;).
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']You missed his point. Up until the last 120 years, all people were religious whether they knew they were or not, because science and religion were the same thing. So it's unfair to point out that mass murderers have all been doing it in the name of the religious.

But if you just go back in time since your "scientific" thought and total abandonment of religion for science has started to occur in recent history - you see as much, if not more, atheistic mass butchers.

I challenge you to start at about the mid 1800's, tally up all the dictators and geoniciders, total their death counts, and then sort them out according to religious or anti-religious.[/quote]

I'm not going to say religious people or atheists commit fewer or more crimes, but to think that religious people have the high ground wouldn't be accurate.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I'm not going to say religious people or atheists commit fewer or more crimes, but to think that religious people have the high ground wouldn't be accurate.[/QUOTE]

Oh I would never argue that either. I just get really sick of the "religion only has ever caused the world suffering" argument. It's really weak.
 
[quote name='daroga']That's fair enough. Of course that flies in the face of what a lot of science teachers say in their classes, and that what a lot of people have said in this very thread, the the theory, as it stands, is fact.[/quote]Earlier on in this thread, Dawkins was quoted as answering a question with an "I don't know." This was presented as a Very Bad Thing, as a scientist who admits that they don't know the answer to a question is obviously not a very good scientist.

Of course there is room for doubt, change, etc. - without falsifiability, you probably aren't doing science. The problem is that 1: most people don't really know a lot about science, and 2: a lot of people like to exploit this.

"You mean you're not 100% certain? Then why are you putting this in schools?"

"It's a theory! Theories aren't facts!"

"You don't know, Mr. Dawkins? So what you're saying is is that it's equally likely that we are right as it is that you are? Your theory is really no better than our theory, is it?"

Anything resembling uncertainty is pounced upon by certain "less-than-scrupulous" creationists and quote(mine)d for all its fucking worth. Qualifying every statement with "as far as we know" creates false skepticism among the general public.

And aside from that, as far as theories go, evolution is one of the - ah - more solid ones out there.
[quote name='daroga'] I have a feeling that for many of them, they mean exactly what you said, but simple don't word it properly. If you could give them a few language lessons, that'd be super. ;)[/quote]To be fair, I've heard many "evolutionists" balk at using the word "believe". "Accept the evidence for" is more accurate, but that's some pretty frigging cumbersome phrasing right there, so don't expect that to catch on.

EDIT: [quote name='thrustbucket']Oh I would never argue that either. I just get really sick of the "religion only has ever caused the world suffering" argument. It's really weak.[/quote]
I'll admit it - I skim from time to time. Where, when, and by whom was this argument brought up in this thread?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top