Ben Stein misses his own point
posted at 5:35 pm on April 30, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
John Derbyshire finds a rather disturbing comment from Ben Stein in an interview he did with TBN earlier this month, promoting his new film Expelled: The Movie. In explaining his reaction to researching the Holocaust by visiting Dachau and Hadamar, Stein railed against the distortions of Darwinian theory that led to the systematic eugenics murders and genocide of the Nazi regime. However, Stein misses the target by a mile when he says this at about the 28-minute mark:
Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [i.e. biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you.
Crouch: That’s right.
Stein: …Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.
Crouch: Good word, good word.
I found a lot to recommend about Expelled, but this leaves me wondering if Ben Stein missed the point of his movie. Science does not lead to Dachau; ideology perverting science led to Dachau. The Holocaust occurred when raving anti-Semites and materialists latched onto scientific theory as a philosophy, making it into a rationalization for what they would have done regardless.
How could Stein say this without a hint of irony? The best themes in Expelled take Academia to task for the same destructive sin. Instead of pursuing all paths of scientific pursuit, the academics have imposed their philosophy and their ideology against religion as a means to keep anyone from testing the theories of random, accidental beginnings of life. In a similar manner to what’s seen in the global-warming debate, dissenting voices are excoriated as heretics and idiots, rather than letting the science speak for itself.
Instead of making the proper point that Stein makes in the movie, he now suggests that science itself is evil. That’s absurd. Scientific knowledge has for centuries gone hand in hand with the quest to come closer to God through understanding His creation, as Stein’s own movie argues. The application and expansion of science has led to huge advances in life, health, knowledge, and living standards. Can evil acts come from scientific advances, and can some scientists be evil? Of course — as with any other profession, but the acts come from overt human actions, not from the science.
The pure scientific method ignores ideology in favor of reproducible results, which leads to knowledge — not genocide. Expelled wants Academia to stop applying ideology to science, which is absolutely correct. Stein’s quote above discredits that message and makes the effort sound like an argument against science altogether, and Stein’s broad accusation against scientists is grossly unfair. It sounds like Stein is applying his own ideology instead of supporting the scientific method.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 … 12 »
I’m not sure THAT statement is entirely correct, either. Theories have applications and those applications involve one’s understanding or interpretation of the word or data. The understanding becomes the meaning.
I would agree that Bible thumping literalists and Darwinian book burning disciples are at odds with each other.
maverick muse on May 1, 2008 at 5:23 PM
Geezlouise, I don’t worship science, I worship God but the ability to amass knowledge about our surroundings and use it to better our lot is one of the gifts God gave us. It is also a challenge to us to make proper use of that knowledge. If Hitler said 2+2=4 then you’d abandon math? The math itself isn’t to blame for his evil, he is.
The belief that species evolve doesn’t mean one is inevitably led to become a mass murderer. In fact, I think evolution is a far more elegant proof of the genius of God than that he snapped his fingers and a static world was created. Science is bereft without God and belief is blind ignorance without knowledge. One shouldn’t grunt and throw rocks at the light fixture because it lights the dark and must be the work of evil gods, it is merely a light fixture.
jnelchef on May 1, 2008 at 5:25 PM
You are pulling something out of a response to a specific point dominigan made at 12:39 PM. You may disagree with his/her explanation of ID but that’s what I was responding to.
Look at the post. He/she argued that since we can’t create or even understand something as simple yet complex as a single cell and the statistical chance of it happening randomly is essentially zero so there must have been an intelligent force behind it’s development.
Now, there maybe good arguments for ID but that isn’t one and that’s what I was responding to.
So you are saying it could be a natural phenomenon responsible for ID and not God? I am not saying you have done this but a lot of people (including Stein in the quote that started this yesterday) have argued that evolution=atheism and that’s dangerous. Can ID lead to a non-God creator and if so, isn’t it just as amoral as evolution?
Drew on May 1, 2008 at 5:27 PM
Main Entry: 2forensic
Function: noun
Date: 1814
1: an argumentative exercise
2plural but sing or plural in constr : the art or study of argumentative discourse
3plural but sing or plural in constr : the application of scientific knowledge to legal problems; especially : scientific analysis of physical evidence (as from a crime scene)
Doc Mike on May 1, 2008 at 5:28 PM
WTF?
That would make an excellent name for a punk band, but what on earth are you talking about?
Doc Mike on May 1, 2008 at 5:30 PM
24 hours and we’re finally nearing the 600 comment mark. Hmmmmm. I’m thinking were behind the Lizard Heads on this.
Nyog_of_the_Bog on May 1, 2008 at 5:55 PM
So, Darwinism and Evolutionists have a legal problem???
Sultry Beauty on May 1, 2008 at 5:57 PM
Yes. We are being stalked by morons.
Doc Mike on May 1, 2008 at 5:59 PM
Yes Doc Mike, Debater Extraordinaire, you are being stalked by a moron. I’m glad evolution has taught you this kind of respect for a lady. But I digress…
Sultry Beauty on May 1, 2008 at 6:02 PM
They proved 50 years ago Neanderthal man was human in every respect, it was an old man with arthritis. Every one of the bits of evidence that has been used for this like Lucy or Neanderthal man, all of them have been proven wrong. They’ll keep something like that in the textbook for years, like the Nebraska man was in there for 40 years, alls they found was one tooth. One tooth! They built the entire man out of plaster of Paris and imagination, then they built him a wife too. In the textbooks for 40 years as evidence for evolution, later it turned out to be the tooth of a pig. Making monkeys out of man
In the first place I would point out going, I don’t believe this at all, but going from an ape to a human is a relative minor change, compared to going to a rock to a human. And ultimately the evolutionist, at least the atheistic evolutionist, must believe that everything started off from a rock and the rock came from nothing. And I said, like I said, I don’t care if somebody wants to believe that, but I resent that being paid for by my tax dollars and I resent the students being taught that as if it is science.
apacalyps on May 1, 2008 at 6:17 PM
I’ll admit, it doesn’t seem fair that you have to financially support an idea that goes against your deeply held beliefs. If the only way to get around it is to scrap the entire public school system, though, I think I can live with it.
RightOFLeft on May 1, 2008 at 6:20 PM
DNA testing wasn’t available 50 years ago. Are you saying the DNA results conducted in the last 2 or 3 years are wrong? Fabricated? What exactly?
And what about radiocarbon dating that shows a lot of things much, much older than 6,000 years of age?
Drew on May 1, 2008 at 6:23 PM
If I were you I would get out of that dangerous philosophy Drew. The evolution theory as taught in our schools is one of the dumbest and dangerous religions in the history of planet earth. When you get a chance, sit back, have a bite to eat, and watch this video. It’s one of the best. 100 Reasons why evolution is stupid Didn’t you say you were open to changing your mind? I think that’s a good sign. Don’t lose that. Aside from that, I guess you subscribe to the Big Bang theory. That nothing exploded and became everything we see on earth today. Is that correct? P.S. I’m sincerely asking.
apacalyps on May 1, 2008 at 6:26 PM
So you have not quote mined and misrepresented anything? Right. And that is why you make the fallacious claim that seeking to explain something via a natural process versus a divine process is equal to atheism.
This simply means you are not that vested in science other than to abuse or distort it.
And what exactly is “darwinaic” supposed to mean? That term appears to be a one of your creation.
That appears to be a comment about yourself than reflective of me. I know what evolution is and I don’t need a charlatan or intellectually dishonest poser like you to tell me what it is. There is enough factually scientific documentation to support evolution while all you have to debate it is your theism, blind devotion to faith and religion and dishonest tactics used to make claims.
And where did I lie? You have used quote mining and have twisted or distorted anything you can to support your claims. Again, you try to misrepresent a comment about finding a natural source instead of a divine one as equally to atheism.
One could only come to such a conclusion if you were operating in the presumptional argumentative mindset. In other words, you have a conclusion and seek any and all bit and pieces you can use to support it while ignoring that which does not support your claim.
Considering the weakness of your claims and the base level of your debating tactics, I think you are the last to call anything laughable.
You are free to believe what you will, be it faith based religion or your theologically based pseudoscience of ID and CS, but in the end, unless what you claim can stand up to scientific scrutiny, then all of your complaint amount to naught.
Yes, I know you keep porting the claim that evolution is not science, but in the end, that is all you have is your hollow claims.
The sheer volume of biological sciences that have supported and continue to support evolution carry far more weight than the faith-based claims of someone who is threatened by the facts science has discovered versus the mythology they prefer and find comforting.
Gene Splicer on May 1, 2008 at 6:26 PM
The Hovind channeler would like everyone to accept the Bible and his guru’s interpretation of said book as absolute truth and all argumentation should start from there. It is a true waste of time to debate with such people. There are atheists and religious people who think evolution is a valid scientific theory and in spite of those who see an equivalence between evolution and atheism, many Christians and Jews would disagree.
Neither Evolution nor Science are what one would call a religion which is a belief in or worship of a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny.
Annar on May 1, 2008 at 6:27 PM
Praytell Oh Smart One: How long shall these forensic science investigations go on before we are allowed to say that Evolutionist haven’t proven their theory? And can you tell me where the stuff of life came from, like proteins and genes? Another thousand years? That’s really convenient for you Truth Tellers.
Meanwhile:
Sultry Beauty on May 1, 2008 at 6:31 PM
Maverick, what Scriptural evidence do you have that God used evolution? A god that has to use suffering, misfits, death, a god that doesn’t know what he wants the first time and can’t make it right in six days like He said, that is a retarded god. Such a god is certainly not the God of the Bible.
apacalyps on May 1, 2008 at 6:33 PM
Sultry Beauty on May 1, 2008 at 6:34 PM
I am not a biologist, a physicist or scientist of any sort nor do I even pretend to play one on the internet but I’ve read what you’ve written and watched some of the Hovind video through your link and I have a hard time taking them seriously.
I respect your faith but I do not share it nor do I think it remotely stands up as science compared to what I’ve said my understanding of these issues is.
As I said, I am not physicist but my understanding of the Big Bang isn’t that there was not an explosion but a rapid expansion from and infinitesimally small origin. There is measurable evidence to support this theory (background radiation, the fact that galaxies continue to move away and the abundance of helium and some other elements that are consistent with the theory).
Obviously the Big Bang can’t be directly observed or replicated and there are still some outstanding issues (some significant ones no doubt) but I think it’s a lot more on the right track and verifiable than creationism is.
And quite honestly I find the idea that the Earth is 6,000 years old quite simply not serious.
Drew on May 1, 2008 at 6:42 PM
Here’s the problem: we can’t observe the supernatural (unnatural? non-natural?). Without the “naturalistic axiom” there can’t be an “observable axiom.”
RightOFLeft on May 1, 2008 at 6:42 PM
Isn’t that the God who created Eden and cast man out, who subsequently destroyed all mankind and the animal kingdom (save for one boatload), who had to send his son to be crucified so that his human creation might finally find its way back to his eternal love? I don’t think God is retarded, but he did create a world that requires a lot of suffering and starting-over.
dedalus on May 1, 2008 at 6:42 PM
The Bible never claims that the world is flat. It does, however, claim frequently that the earth was made by a Creator God. The Bible tells us clearly in Exodus 20:11, God made everything in six days. Everything in heaven, and earth, the sea, and all that in them is. And if the average layman cannot understand that verse, then the Bible is incapable of being understood. What is your position?
apacalyps on May 1, 2008 at 6:43 PM
How exactly is ignorance of the origin of life a flaw of Evolution - a theory relating to the development of life?
Is hydrodynamics a flawed science because it does not address the origin of water?
Doc Mike on May 1, 2008 at 6:46 PM
As long as it takes for a theory which better fits the evidence to emerge. ID/creationism does not fit the bill.
Doc Mike on May 1, 2008 at 6:52 PM
Excellent point.
Doc Mike on May 1, 2008 at 6:54 PM
RightOFLeft, evolution is a religion too. You must realize that. When they teach long ago and far away there was a big bang where nothing exploded and produced everything, that’s where they have just left science and gone into their religion. They have to believe that happened. There is no proof. This is not science. Secondly, you don’t have to scrap the whole school system, just get them to take all the lies out of the textbooks. now if that means they have nothing left to support their evolution theory then, oh well. And as far as there being no danger…. you said, “I think I can live with it”, meaning live with them teaching evolution to your children. I wouldn’t be so sure about that RightOFLeft. Since 1963 is when prayer and Bible reading was taken out of the American school system everything has gone downhill. In 1963, diseases began to climb. That is for kids 10-14 years of age. 1963 is when divorce rates began to go up. 1963 is when violent crimes began to increase. Nearly a 1000% increase. 1963 is when unwed pregnancies began to increase. SAT scores have dropped off incredibly since 1963. Teen suicide rate went crazy. etcetera, etcetera. I’ve post this before, I’ll post it again for those who have not seen. The Day They Kicked God Out Of School
apacalyps on May 1, 2008 at 7:01 PM
The Big Bang Theory is a separate theory from evolution, as is abiogenesis, as you have already been told a number of times before.
Watcher on May 1, 2008 at 7:06 PM
Typical of your ilk. You are using what is called an ad hominem argument. An ad hominem is when an individual attacks the man, not the argument (a personal attack). When you can’t defeat the message, take a shot at the messenger. I’ve provided several examples to support my arguments. What have you provided to support your argument? Talk is cheap Annar. Give us your best example for evolution.
apacalyps on May 1, 2008 at 7:10 PM
.
When theist blind to reason and science abuse their elected positions and insist on putting mythology into the classroom as science, then the only resort is through legal means.
Gene Splicer on May 1, 2008 at 7:19 PM
Ahh. The felon “Dr.” Kent Hovind water in orbit around the Earth, ice asteroid burying the Mastodons theory of creation.
Gene Splicer on May 1, 2008 at 7:31 PM
What about all the great things we’ve done since the 60s? Off the top of my head - we put a man on the moon, beat back communism from Eastern Europe (I can assure you there was no school prayer in the soviet satellite states), ended Jim Crow (still work to do on that), and I’m sure there’s much, much more. That’s not too bad.
We live in a more sexually permissive culture than in the 50s, and we’ve incurred some social costs. That’s a whole different discussion. If you think prayer will make a difference, then feel free to pray. It might not hurt to consider secular solutions to America’s problems, too.
RightOFLeft on May 1, 2008 at 7:32 PM
apacalyps on May 1, 2008 at 7:10 PM
The pseudoscience you and Dr, Dino are peddling has already been amply refuted both here (see, for example, the posts by Dr. Mike) and elsewhere. Since real science is beyond your understanding perhaps these easy to understand videos may answer your questions, but I have little hope.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16BaFvKt0QA
http://www.kent-hovind.com/matson/
Annar on May 1, 2008 at 7:37 PM
Sorry, I forgot the second video.
Annar on May 1, 2008 at 7:43 PM
Are you familar with the Conservation of Angular Momentum? Picture a merry-go-round with kids on it and the merry-go-round gets spun really fast, the kids try to hold on but eventually fly off, they spin through the air in the same direction the merry go round was spinning. That’s the Conservation of Angular Momentum. Here’s a demonstration. If pieces fly off a spinning object they tend to spin the same direction, because the outer part is already spinning faster than the inner part. Evolution teaches that billions and billions of years ago this tiny little matter about the size of a period at the end of this sentence was spinning super fast and exploded (big bang theory). If the whole universe started from a big bang, according to the law of Conservation of Angular Momentum, everything should be spinning the same way. It should all be going the same direction. Sir, if it all started with a big bang, how did 2 planets get to going backwards? Venus and Uranus spin in the opposite direction than everything else. Not only that, but 8 of the 91 moons are spinning the wrong way as well. Furthermore, Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune have moons spinning in both directions. Would you please explain that? Why do we have all of this happening in our little solar system, plus who knows what else? If it all started from a big bang, it should all be going the same direction.
apacalyps on May 1, 2008 at 7:59 PM
God created man with free will dedalus. It could be no other way, or else we would be robots. The Bible says in Jeremiah 17:9 that “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.” We can’t even trust our own hearts we are so wicked. These troubles we have on this earth are a result of man. We seperated ourselves from God in the Garden of eden, fortunately, the Lord sent Jesus’ on the Cross as a way back to Him. This is why Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” John 14:6
apacalyps on May 1, 2008 at 8:09 PM
apacalyps on May 1, 2008 at 7:59 PM
The solar system, our solar system, was not created during the Big Bang. Also, when large objects collide with other large and rotating objects, the force of the collision can reverse the spin of the struck object. I’m sure someone out there has the actual science behind this, I just wanted to butt in because your original premise is wrong (that our system was created at the same time as the universe).
the goddess anna on May 1, 2008 at 8:11 PM
Apacalyps, the universe was not spinning at the time of the Big Bang. Furthermore, it was not the size of a period. It was a singularity; a zone of infinite density. Stop spreading your misinformation.
B26354 on May 1, 2008 at 8:17 PM
I think you are going a little far a field with this. The universe we see today conforms to a lot of the elements of the Big Bang. And as the goddess anna points out our solar system is a lot younger than the Universe and not the direct product of the Big Bang.
There’s far more observable and measurable evidence for the Big Bang than there is for ‘God did it 6,000′ years ago. As I’ve said and think I’ve demonstrated, I respect the idea of faith but it simply does not hold a candle to science in explaining the world (and universe) we see.
Science doesn’t claim to have all the answers. That’s why there’s research going on as we sit here on Hot Air. If they claimed to know it all, they’d be out of work but they don’t.
Now about the Neanderthals…you’re sticking to the perfectly normal human with arthritis? Okay, how do you explain the DNA testing showing humans and Neanderthals split off from each other genetically 300,000 years ago?
Also, you’ve never addressed the issue that radiocarbon dating has put the age of a lot of things a lot older than 600 years ago?
And what evidence is there that people used to live upwards of 900 years? I am sorry but that’s hard (actually impossible) to swallow.
Drew on May 1, 2008 at 8:19 PM
In the flood did God kill the mothers with children too? Where the 2-year-old toddlers who were swept away by the flood waters also wicked?
I can see Darwin explaining the death of a young offspring as nature’s way. It isn’t very appealing. Yet, a claim that the Biblical God acts in a more precise, less cruel, manner requires looking past some broadly delivered death.
dedalus on May 1, 2008 at 8:22 PM
Carbon dating:
1) Only good to 75,000 years.
2) To accept radiocarbon dating, one must make many assumptions, such as that the decay rate has stayed constant and that the ratio of C12 and C14 has stayed constant (about 1 to 1 trillion.) Dr. Libby himself recognized that the atmosphere was not at equilibrium, but he attributed this to experimental error due to his evolutionistic predispositions.
Send_Me on May 1, 2008 at 8:24 PM
When was the last time you checked the public school textbooks? Of course they teach the Big Bang theory as part of the evolution theory, and that life came from inanimate matter. The Merrill Science - First Grade Science Book, states: Earth has changed, since its formation four and a half billion years ago. It says “Since its formation four and a half billion years ago, earth has changed.” (Merrill Science- Second Grade Science Book, 1989 Teachers Edition, page 26.) They also add a paragraph later, “Life too, has evolved on earth”. Sounds like they’re teaching living organisms are created from nonliving matter to me.
apacalyps on May 1, 2008 at 8:30 PM
So you are trying to disprove or argue a book written for first graders to understand?
You really need to get away from Hovind and his disproven claims.
Gene Splicer on May 1, 2008 at 8:33 PM
Hey, Gene, have you been drinking Darwin’s Magic Potion again? They got ya believing you came from a rock? Great great great great great great great great great great grandpa was a monkey swiniging from a tree??
Man, you got taken by this one.
apacalyps on May 1, 2008 at 8:34 PM
Well, you’ll need to take the 75,000 year thing up with apacalyps and his young Earth theory.
Have you noticed that every ID/Creationist supporter relies on every scientist being wrong and every scientific method being flawed? Reading this stuff over the last day, some one might think we were still in the Dark Ages and that there’s been no scientific progress.
I get that your opinions are based on faith but that’s very different from science. You have no proof for your position so you are playing defense and trying to poke holes in every scientific advance in an effort to preserve your beliefs.
Drew on May 1, 2008 at 8:38 PM
I will include you in my prayers (not kidding) that one day soon you will realize that each human cell is more complicated than a space shuttle and they do not come from rocks. What Darwin Didn’t Know
apacalyps on May 1, 2008 at 8:42 PM
You are still quoting the erroneous claims of a felon charlatan.
Is that ad hominem the only rebuttal your learned mind can come up with?
Your material is not even your own. If you are going to resort to parroting someone, pick a better source.
Gene Splicer on May 1, 2008 at 8:43 PM
Hey, heres a hint. If I don’t answer you the first 25 times, what makes you think the next 25 will work?
apacalyps on May 1, 2008 at 8:47 PM
I asked no question and expected no answer. In any case your frame of reference excludes rational debate.
Annar on May 1, 2008 at 8:57 PM
(pounds head on desk)
Misspelled apocalypse, you are one thick tool.
For the Nth time, the Theory of Evolution deals with the development of life. That’s it. Not the origin of life, not the origin of the earth, and certainly not the origins of the bloody universe!
The more you continue with these lies, the more you make yourself and your cause look foolish, bitter and dishonest.
Doc Mike on May 1, 2008 at 9:00 PM
That is ridiculous. You’ll believe anything to support this stupid theory of evolution. And then they will say 4.6 billion years ago the earth cooled down and developed a hard rocky crust, and then it rained on the rocks for several billion years and then finally it turned into soup and the soup came alive about 3 billion years ago. And then this early life form, slowly developed, evolved, into all the different life forms that we have today. So to simplify in a nutshell, everything alive today came from a rock.
apacalyps on May 1, 2008 at 9:04 PM
The goddess anna, huh?
Eve, her Fall
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
“And the serpent (devil) said unto the woman (Eve), Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” Genesis 3:4-6
apacalyps on May 1, 2008 at 9:13 PM
LOL. Put this in layman terms for everyone here.
apacalyps on May 1, 2008 at 9:30 PM
apacalyps on May 1, 2008 at 9:13 PM
Cute. I like your style.
Yes, apacalyps, I conceed to your superior knowledge and acknowledge your brand of religion is the only and correct one. You convinced me when you attacked my screenname with scripture from your holy tome.
I’m probably decended from Lilith anyway - at least, that’s what the family says.
the goddess anna on May 1, 2008 at 9:36 PM
It’s hard to reply to an ad hominem attack such as this. The irony would be funny if this weren’t about such a serious matters. Suffice to say, I believe in philosophy and science. Not all who believe in God are knuckle-dragging, superstitious reason-haters. To say so would imply that Newton, Mendel, Faraday, Pasteur and Kepler were all non-scientists who took blind faith to get them through life.
What is faith? Nothing more than our outlook upon the future based upon that which we know through reason and experience. I have faith, for example, that this chair in which I am sitting with hold me up. Why? Because of previous experience and the physics behind the equalization of forces between my body, gravity, and this chair.
My proof for a designer, versus naturalism, is, as I’ve stated before, the following: the prerequisite for a “First Cause.” (Yes, I know, I’m mentioning origins, which evolutionists choose not to discuss, but it is necessary for my theory, which is counter to naturalism.) If every effect has a cause, then what was the first cause? This necessitates a designer.
2) The absence of transitional forms in the fossil record points us to believe that all species, preexisting and present, are separate from one another, with no relationship beyond a common designer.
3) Genetics shows us that there are limitations within a species. People cannot grow wings, for example. There is no genetic information for such things to occur.
4) A dog is a dog. A finch is a finch. No matter how many times they breed, no matter how many billions of years you have, they cannot transform into any other species. “Survival of the fittest” merely states how something has survived. It does not say how any new information entered the equation.
5) If there is no mechanism by which macro-evolution can take place, nor evidence that it has taken place in terms of geological or biochemical terms, then, logically, we must assume that all species have always been as they are now (or as they were when they went extinct.)
An evolutionist has faith that he is correct based upon what reason tells him, yes? I, as a design theorist, have faith that what I believe is correct based upon what reason tells me.
I realize it’s much easier to marginalize design theorists as anti-reason than it is to defend your own theory with reason against reason-based attacks, but it really does not move us forward in the debate, hence the problem with all fallacies.
Send_Me on May 1, 2008 at 9:36 PM
It’s not an ad hominem. For the claim of ID and CS supporter to be true, all other sciences and scientist must be in error.
Gene Splicer on May 1, 2008 at 9:45 PM
The Lords of Kobol shall smite him.
phronesis on May 1, 2008 at 9:46 PM
Hey, Gene, have you been drinking Darwin’s Magic Potion again? They got ya believing you came from a rock? Great great great great great great great great great great grandpa was a monkey swiniging from a tree??Man, you got taken by this one.
apacalyps on May 1, 2008 at 8:34 PM
ronsfi on May 1, 2008 at 9:47 PM
My post was struck down by God.
ronsfi on May 1, 2008 at 9:48 PM
I dunno. The Cylon God might get him first. I’m rooting for him/her now anyway.
Cylon God is already ticked at ronsfi, look at that post!
the goddess anna on May 1, 2008 at 9:51 PM
This really is an outrages statment Drew and probably where I’ll end it for now. And quite frankly, I’ve answered many of the questions you’ve asked in other debates, particularily regarding Carbon Dating. They don’t date fossils by Carbon Dating or Potassium Argon dating, they date them by their position in the Geologic Collumn. They find an area in the ground and conclude it was so many thousands of years ago and so the fossil must be that old too. And theirs only one place in the wolrd the the Geologic Collumn can be found — in the textbook. The Geologic Collumn does not exist any place in the world.
“Ever since William Smith (1769-1839) at the beginning of the 19th century, fossils have been and still are the best and most accurate method of dating and correlating the rocks in which they occur. Apart from very ‘modern’ examples, which are really archaeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils.” Agar, Derek V., “Fossil Frustrations,” New Scientist, vol. 100 (November 10, 1983), p. 425. (Emphasis added)
And as for Neanderthal man, you keep trying to insinuate we evolved from apes, or we have a common ancestry with them… lol… it’s ridiculous. Read the book, “Icons of Evolution”.
apacalyps on May 1, 2008 at 9:54 PM
How do you appease the Cylon God?
ronsfi on May 1, 2008 at 9:55 PM
Most people reject God because of their lifestyle. Not because they don’t believe He exists. You’re what they call willingly ignorant (that means “dumb on purpose”). And the Bible warned us that was going to happen. In 2 Peter chapter 3 it says, “Knowing this first, there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts .” Let me pose a question. Suppose you found out today that there really is a Creator God, and that He made the Universe, and that He has rules for life (Things like don’t lie, don’t lust after others, etc.). Would that change how you live?
apacalyps on May 1, 2008 at 9:56 PM
Read the Origin of Species.
ronsfi on May 1, 2008 at 9:56 PM
Now you have to move on the God having been shown to be a foolish in your other assertions. I can respect a persons belief in God but your God out of your science and your science out of your God. You’ll be better for it.
ronsfi on May 1, 2008 at 9:59 PM
Yeah, I’m still working out the details on that one. I’ll let you know after tomorrow night.
Nope. I’m not ashamed of how I live.
the goddess anna on May 1, 2008 at 10:01 PM
Again, Hovind’s claim are old, tired and have been proven wrong. Unless you are operating on blind faith about what he claims, then that is a different matter.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD101.html
1. The existence of the entire column at one spot is irrelevant. All of the parts of the geological column exist in many places, and there is more than enough overlap that the full column can be reconstructed from those parts.
Breaks in the geological column at any spot are entirely consistent with an old earth history. The column is deposited only in sedimentary environments, where conditions favor the accumulation of sediments. Climatic and geological changes over time would be expected to change areas back and forth between sedimentary and erosional environments.
2. There are several places around the world where strata from all geological eras do exist at a single spot — for example, the Bonaparte Basin of Australia (Trendall et al. 1990, 382, 396) and the Williston Basin of North Dakota (Morton 2001).
Gene Splicer on May 1, 2008 at 10:03 PM
LOL. So it has gone from a subject of rejecting the unsubstantiated claims of ID and CS to now being told that you our anyone who reject the xian god is doing so due to our indulgence in a “lifestyle” that xians and their god forbids.
And calling everyone such is not seen as an ad hominem?
Gene Splicer on May 1, 2008 at 10:10 PM
Again, another fallacy. The premises do not necessitate the conclusion. You have not addressed my arguments. You’ve only told me that I am wrong. Like many who have responded, you only state that I’m “wrong.” Others have said that no matter what they said that I would not listen. I listen to logical arguments. Please, using reason, show me how ID is a flawed theory. Just saying that if ID is true, then “all other sciences and scientist(sic) must be in error,” does not prove a thing. How does ID violate any law of science? Have you acknowledged the fact that naturalism breaks the law of biogenesis? Again, I bring this up because unless you’re a theist, you must break this law in order for atheism to work. Do you acknowledge that without a deity that naturalism breaks the First Law of Thermodynamics? Do you acknowledge the limitations of genetics? Do you acknowledge that there is no mechanism for evolution to work? Do you acknowledge that “Survival of the Fittest” is a tautology? Do you acknowledge that no mutation has ever resulted in an increase in genetic information? Do you acknowledge that there are no transitional forms found anywhere?
Send_Me on May 1, 2008 at 10:15 PM
Well, I’ve had enough of this for tonight. My daughter and I are going to bed. When she says her prayers, I’ll ask her to pray for you, apacalyps. You sound like you need a little more love in your life, and my daughter believes that the Christian God is a loving one indeed.
the goddess anna on May 1, 2008 at 10:19 PM
You really need to read more just one article before you go and make yourself look foolish.
Contents
PART I has FISHES TO FIRST MAMMALS & BIRDS:
1. Introduction:
1. Types of transitions
2. Why are there gaps?
3. Predictions of creationism & evolution
4. What’s in this FAQ
5. Timescale
2. Transitions from primitive fish to sharks, skates, rays
3. Transitions from primitive fish to bony fish
4. Transition from fishes to first amphibians
5. Transitions among amphibians
6. Transition from amphibians to first reptiles
7. Transitions among reptiles
8. Transition from reptiles to first mammals (long)
9. Transition from reptiles to first birds
PART 2 has transitions among mammals (starting with primates), including numerous species-to-species transitions, discussion, and references. If you’re particularly interested in humans, skip to the primate section of part 2, and also look up the fossil hominid FAQ.
1. Overview of the Cenozoic
2. Primates
3. Bats
4. Carnivores
5. Rodents
6. Lagomorphs (rabbits & hares)
7. Condylarths (first hoofed animals)
8. Cetaceans (whales & dolphins)
9. Perissodactyls (horses, rhinos, tapirs)
10. Elephants
11. Sirenians (dugongs & manatees)
12. Artiodactyls (pigs, hippos, deer, giraffes, cows, etc.)
13. Species transitions from other miscellaneous mammal groups
14. Conclusion:
* A bit of historical background
* The major features of the fossil record
* Good models & bad models: which theories match the data best?
* The main point.
15. References
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IAtransitional.shtml
ronsfi on May 1, 2008 at 10:37 PM
Here’s more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
ronsfi on May 1, 2008 at 10:38 PM
OK. “The universe at the time of the Big Bang was a little more dense than apacalyps. But not much.”
B26354 on May 1, 2008 at 10:49 PM
That should heighten your curiosity enough to cause you to learn more about the other claims. With little effort you locate volumes of information which shows them to be at best unlikely.
“Every time we have carefully looked into the way the universe works and assumed it is telling the truth about itself, the truth appears to be that naturalism holds, and that the supernatural, if it exists, has no discernible effect on our understanding of it. The postulate of objectivity has passed every test against it. In fact, it is the single most-tested hypothesis in all of human history. The probability that any god or any other supernatural force either exists or interferes with the world is vanishingly small, and getting smaller.”
Lucia Hall at the
San Diego Association for Rational Inquiry Meeting
Sunday, May 23, 1999
ronsfi on May 1, 2008 at 10:56 PM
I am not sure what was so outrageous about that statement but that’s your choice.
How exactly do you think geologist date the age of strata they find something in? Do you think they are simply assigning arbitrary dates to things?
Again, this simply doesn’t address the fact that samples have been independently dated and repeated with the same results. Isn’t that a major hurdle for a scientific claim?
I’ve never said such a thing. I’ve simply asked you a couple of times to explain your contention that Neanderthals were not as you claim, “human in every respect, it was an old man with arthritis” when DNA testing proves they were a separate species. What accounts for such divergent contentions other than some sort of bad faith on the part of the people who accept the DNA explanation?
Drew on May 1, 2008 at 11:09 PM
No, this is simply fact. If the ID claim that life was designed is true, then the modern science and understanding of genetics, biology and medical research would all be in error since so much of them are based upon theories that originate on common ancestry as described by the theory of evolution.
You claim is in error as I have cited.
I addressed your claim. Your arguments are the same tired and disproven ones that Hovind and the like use.
Please cite exactly where I stated you were wrong.
Again, please cite where I have stated you were wrong.
And now you are evidently attributing actions to me that I have never taken or claims that I have never posted.
You listed talking point that have been proven erroneous.
If you think they are true, then by all means, post the scientific research that supports your claims. Provide links to the research organization and peer reviewed literature that illustrates how ID a valid theory.
Remember, these are your claims and it falls upon you to prove them.
Nor does your arguments or your misclassification of my comment.
You ignore the fact that both cannot be true since the claims of ID, if true, would undermine not just evolution but every scientific pursuit that has been built upon the idea of common descent.
It is not a valid theory. It is not testable and relies upon a nebulous “opinion” of differing observers.
It is not falsifiable as all theories must be and it can make no predictions as all theories must and do, unless you consider a prediction that “more designs will be found” is a valid scientific prediction. .
In what manner?
Again, in what manner?
And this is another typical argument used by ID supported that has been proven and illustrated as such on this very debate.
The laws of thermodynamics do not apply to information and only apply to closed systems.
In what manner? You keep making claims but I see no details. Considering I have yet to debate you about these claims of yours, more details of your claims would be pertinent.
As defined by who? Hovind? You?
I assume you mean circular reasoning which is again another tired ID or theistic argument against evolution.
Again, your claim is open ended and very open to misrepresentation and spin.
Increased in what way? Again, this is another open ended and tired argument that has been proven in error. You use the nebulous term in meaning of information.
If mutations do not add information, then we would never see adaptations of bacteria.
Take the following for further examples: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
You can parrot that particular hollow claim all you like, but again, it is a disproven one.
Every lifeform on this planet is a transitional form. Then there are the established transitional form of Archaeopteryx. Now are you going to post the often heard lie that Archaeopteryx was a hoax?
Here is a link to a rather long list on the subject: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
The Dark Age comment is unfortunately applicable to anyone who would have to willingly turn a blind eye to the huge amount of facts in favor of a supernatural and mythological based claim of anything and everything.
Have you ever even looked at the genetic proof of how humans and the great apes are related? Specifically, chromosome #2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)
If we are designed as the ID proponents claim, then our designer was a very unoriginal intelligence since our genome appears to have been reused over and over and over in large part.
And again, if you can provide that peer reviewed and scientific examination(s) of the theory of evolution that backs up your claims, that would be great. Otherwise your claims are just claims with nothing to back them up.
Now that may sound harsh, but in a debate or in science, if your claims cannot be backed up by verifiable facts, then your claims are considered erroneous at best.
Gene Splicer on May 1, 2008 at 11:10 PM
Evolutionists always talk about adaptation. But I don’t think they will ever be able to explain how a blood cell evolved or a umbilical cord, or amniotic fluid. Even the placenta or the pancreas. To say that we know they evolved but we can’t explain how is not science.
Rose on May 1, 2008 at 11:10 PM
No, this is simply fact. If the ID claim that life was designed is true, then the modern science and understanding of genetics, biology and medical research would all be in error since so much of them are based upon theories that originate on common ancestry as described by the theory of evolution.
You claim is in error as I have cited.
I addressed your claim. Your arguments are the same tired and disproven ones that Hovind and the like use.
Please cite exactly where I stated you were wrong.
Again, please cite where I have stated you were wrong.
And now you are evidently attributing actions to me that I have never taken or claims that I have never posted.
You listed talking point that have been proven erroneous. If you think they are true, then by all means, post the scientific research that supports your claims. Provide links to the research organization and peer reviewed literature that illustrates how ID a valid theory. Remember, these are your claims and it falls upon you to prove them.
Nor does your arguments or your misclassification of my comment. You ignore the fact that both cannot be true since the claims of ID, if true, would undermine not just evolution but every scientific pursuit that has been built upon the idea of common descent.
It is not a valid theory. It is not testable and relied upon a nebulous “opinion” of differing observers. IT is not falsifiable as all theories must be and it can make no predictions as all theories must and do, unless you consider a prediction that “more designs will be found” is a valid scientific prediction.
Gene Splicer on May 1, 2008 at 11:14 PM
In what manner?
Again, in what manner?
Do you acknowledge that without a deity that naturalism breaks the First Law of Thermodynamics?
And this is another typical argument used by ID supported that has been proven and illustrated as such on this very debate.
The laws of thermodynamics do not apply to information and only apply to closed systems.
In what manner? You keep making claims but I see no details. Considering I have yet to debate you about these claims of yours, more details of your claims would be pertinent.
As defined by who? Hovind? You?
I assume you mean circular reasoning which is again another tired ID or theistic argument against evolution. Again, you claim is oen ended and very open to misrepresentation and spin.
Increased in what way? Again, this is another open ended and tired argument that has been proven in error. You use the nebulous term in meaning of information.
If mutations do not add information, then we would never see adaptations of bacteria.
Take the following for further examples: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
Gene Splicer on May 1, 2008 at 11:15 PM
You can parrot that particular hollow claim all you like, but again, it is a disproven one. Every lifeform on this planet is a transitional form. Then there are the established transitional form of Archaeopteryx. Now are you going to post the often heard lie that Archaeopteryx was a hoax?
Here is a link to a rather long list on the subject: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
The Dark Age comment is unfortunately applicable to anyone who would have to willingly turn a blind eye to the huge amount of facts in favor of a supernatural and mythological based claim of anything and everything.
Have you ever even looked at the genetic proof of how humans and the great apes are related? Specifically, chromosome #2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)
If we are designed as the ID proponents claim, then our designer was a very unoriginal intelligence since our genome appears to have been reused over and over and over in large part.
And again, if you can provide that peer reviewed and scientific examination(s) of the theory of evolution that backs up your claims, that would be great. Otherwise your claims are just claims with nothing to back them up.
Now that may sound harsh, but in a debate or in science, if your claims cannot be backed up by verifiable facts, then your claims are considered erroneous at best.
Gene Splicer on May 1, 2008 at 11:16 PM
Let’s say you take the components of a computer, put them in a box and shake them up to simulate the so-called “primordial soup”. Then, on the 1 chance out of 10 to the 123rd power (which is the mathematical probability of amino acids coming together to form a protein molecule) the parts all fall into place to form a computer.
Besides the statistical impossibilty of that happening; will the computer work?? No. Why not? That’s right, no software. Without the introduction of software or information, by a “conscious being”, into the system, the computer is “dead”.
To say that the first cell, much less the first protein molecule, came about by such coincidence is pure fantasy.
labrat on May 1, 2008 at 11:17 PM
Exactly what science is dependent on the theory of common descent?
Rose on May 1, 2008 at 11:17 PM
First you must explain in detail what ID theory entails. What is the timeline? When was the design put in place; at the creation of the universe, or periodically throughout history? How was the design implemented? Was there one creation event or one per species? Where is the designer? Who created the designer? These are just a few basic questions that ID proponents seem reluctant to discuss.
Evolutionary theory has been expounded and laid out for all to see in countless books, articles, essays, dissertations and television programs. A big target for critics to aim at.
ID seems to be nothing but a rehash of creationism - a disjointed series of atavistic attacks on modern science. Like a guerilla army, you snipe from the bushes, set ambushes and seek to spread chaos, but you don’t really seem to have a plan for taking and holding ground. If ID is ever going to be a serious challenger to Evolution, at some point you will have to take some ground, plant your flag and make a stand.
So let’s hear it.
Doc Mike on May 1, 2008 at 11:21 PM
Very common but very bad argument. You cannot compare a static non-organic construct such as a chair, piano or computer with dynamic and organic components.
Gene Splicer on May 1, 2008 at 11:22 PM
But where did the organic components come from?
Rose on May 1, 2008 at 11:24 PM
In varying degrees, the biological sciences. Genetics, for example, has played a huge role in proving evolution.
Again , specifically, chromosome #2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)
Gene Splicer on May 1, 2008 at 11:25 PM
So 600 comments later … did you guys sort out the Great Mysteries of the Universe yet?
Professor Blather on May 1, 2008 at 11:26 PM
Organic compounds have been found to exists in the near vacuum of space including amino acids.
Gene Splicer on May 1, 2008 at 11:27 PM
It is clear from reading this, and the previous thread sparked by Stein’s movie, that the religious anti-evolutionists know vanishingly little about biology, evolutionary theory, and scientific method in general, and are not interested in learning.
For a while this thread did take an interesting turn, by asking how human morality could have evolved without divine intervention. Sociobiologists have attempted to account for the origin of altruism in social creatures like humans by appealing to genetic self-interest, with some success, but this reductionist approach leaves many unsatisfied. It is arguable that what we might call the ‘moral sensibility’ arose together with language and culture, but the origins of these distinctly human abilities are still a mystery.
The suggestion, apparently made by Stein, that the ’social Darwinism’ of the 19th and early 20th centuries, including the vicious theories of the Nazis, had anything to do with biological science, aside from culling a metaphor and Darwin’s name, is absurd.
Enough already. There is no point in reading further, as the few stragglers are just repeating themselves, to no effect.
Oh, by the way: The cosmological theory of the Big Bang has nothing to do with evolutionary biology, aside perhaps of attempting to account for the distribution of elements in the galaxies and stars. The alternative idea of a Steady State universe would not affect the biological history of the Earth one bit.
MrLynn on May 1, 2008 at 11:32 PM
You do not need to believe in a common ancestor to study science.
Rose on May 1, 2008 at 11:39 PM
And I haven’t heard any theories about how a blood cell evolved or a umbilical chord. You must know all the stages of their evolution since you believe it is a fact that they did indeed evolve.
Rose on May 1, 2008 at 11:43 PM
42
Drew on May 1, 2008 at 11:51 PM
Yes sir, it’s a common argument. Why? Because it aptly demonstrates the brick wall that Darwinists have run into in terms of how evolution theory violates even the basics of the laws of probability. The magnitude of the impossibility put forth in evolution theory is mind-boggling. Darwinists have come to an impasse in their inability to explain the critical role of “information” in the laws of thermodynamics.
You have matter and energy. But, without information or intelligence directing that energy, the matter lays decaying in the sun.
labrat on May 1, 2008 at 11:55 PM
As has been pointed out by CREATIONISTS on this thread, we do not yet know how to create, or even accurately model a living cell. If that is the case, how can anyone presume to know what the laws of probability have to say about life functions?
No, creationists have been at an impasse in their inability to understand that the laws of thermodynamics apply to closed systems and refer to energy states, not “information”.
Doc Mike on May 2, 2008 at 12:21 AM
*Sigh and smile* Well, here we go. First, a general response to your implied assertions of a gradual, branching “tree of life,” as Darwin put it: One cannot infer that physical similarities originate from genetic similarities. On the same token, genetic similarities do not necessitate physical similarities among creatures. In order for the animals to truly be similar, then they must be genetically and physically similar. Secondly, the fossil record does not provide for your gradual changes. How do you explain when one supposed “earlier” version of an animal is found in a higher strata, even right next to a modern-day horse?
The lack of