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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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 »
Ciao.
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 1:04 AM
Unknown, and, frankly, irrelevant. I give evolutionists 4.5 trillion years and it’s still impossible. Forensic science cannot determine age of the earth. Too many variables and assumptions required. We’ve studied radiometric dating for a little over 60 years, which is a very short amount of time. How can we assume that the rate of decay hasn’t changed? How we know the ratio of parent/daughter elements has not changed?
Again, the “when” question is irrelevant to the ID. “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.” (Discovery Institute) Now, I would differ from the Discovery Institute in that, as I said before, time is irrelevant in terms of whether design occurred or not.
Now, did the designer design all at once or with each individual species. An ID proponent would say it’s, again, irrelevant. A Biblical Creationist would state that God followed the 6-day creation model laid out in Genesis. Scientifically speaking, it’s irrelevant.
The questions of “how” and “where is the designer” are interesting. How? Ex nihilo. The reason for this is because of the law of cause and effect. Every effect must have a cause, ergo there must be a First Cause. Or as Aristotle put it, an “unmoved mover.” “Where is the designer?” In some senses, this is much like asking the temperature of “red”. Through many an ontological argument, the Designer is greater than His designed work. Because of the property that the Designer is infinite, the Designer cannot be the work that it created, ergo God is not “in” all things (pantheism is out.) It’s more of a transcendent relationship. If the Designer created our 4-dimensional system as we know it, then that designer must be greater than that system. The Designer is outside of the 4-dimensional system, yet can still interact with it. Much the same that I can interact with the 1, 2, or 3 dimensional; however, I am greater than, transcendent to those dimensions.
I hope that helps.
Send_Me on May 2, 2008 at 1:20 AM
Have a great night, folks. Sleep is calling. Thanks again for the intellectually stimulating, and civil, exchange. One of the reasons I’m proud to be an American.
Send_Me on May 2, 2008 at 1:25 AM
Another drive-by poo-flinging by the creationist liar apacalyps. As has been pointed out ad-nauseum on this thread, Evolution deals strictly with the development of life, not its origin.
Indeed. Think for a moment about how blind and/or ignorant the author of those words is. How willfully obtuse he is to ignore the fact that the Theory of Evolution has NOTHING to say regarding the origin of life, much less the universe, despite the fact that this has been repeatedly pointed out to him.
This is the level of willful ignorance scientists who study Evolution have to deal with. No wonder they seem cranky in Ben Stein’s propaganda film.
Doc Mike on May 2, 2008 at 1:25 AM
The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.
- Delos B. McKown
MB4 on May 2, 2008 at 1:27 AM
An atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support.
- John Buchan
MB4 on May 2, 2008 at 1:28 AM
The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.
-King David
labrat on May 2, 2008 at 1:40 AM
Apacalyps can believe at least six impossible things before breakfast. As for Ben Stein, professionally speaking now, he has clearly gone off his toot.
Sigy on May 2, 2008 at 1:42 AM
I see a pattern here: irrelevance.
Then again, perhaps this is evidence that you are genetically related to squids. When threatened, you squirt out a screen of ink an run away.
Doc Mike on May 2, 2008 at 1:43 AM
Faith is believing what you know ain’t so.
- Mark Twain
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen Roberts
MB4 on May 2, 2008 at 1:47 AM
Lesser designers have greater designers to create ‘em,
And those greater designers have even still greater designers to create ‘em and so ad infinitum.
And in turn, the even greater designers themselves have lesser designers to create, while these lessor designers again have still lesser designers to create, and so on.
- Augustus De Morgan
MB4 on May 2, 2008 at 2:04 AM
Sorry Mr. Clemens, that ain’t faith:
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
labrat on May 2, 2008 at 3:16 AM
To be an atheist requires an indefinitely greater measure of faith than to recieve all the great truths which atheism would deny.
-Joseph Addison
Fervid atheism is usually a screen for repressed religion.
-Wilhelm Stekel
A little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion.
-Francis Bacon
labrat on May 2, 2008 at 3:27 AM
the Theory of Evolution has NOTHING to say regarding the origin of life, much less the universe
I think the problem is, and as far as I know I’m the first person to point this out, that there isn’t one Theory of Evolution, there’s a whole bundle of theories there.
Usually when people talk about the ToE, they really mean the Theory of Common Descent (short version: first there was one bacterium; it reproduced, its children reproduced, etc.; evolution took place, speciation events occurred, and it hasn’t stopped since)
But there are a lot of other theories associated with evolution, many of which are related to CD, but don’t completely rely on it. For example, the idea that successive organisms can improve in small increments over time as a result of increased fitness (what Creationists sometimes call “Microevolution”) isn’t really dependent on Common Descent. It would be true even if God created all species independently, and they started evolving a little bit on their own from there, but not enough to result in a new species.
So the first step is, figure out which theories you’re talking about, instead of referring to THE Theory of Evolution, because there’s no such thing.
Some people (Creationists and otherwise) include the “Big Bang” in THE ToE. Some people (Creationists and otherwise) include the origin of the first cell in THE ToE. That just shows the folly of claiming that there’s only a single theory. Really, it’s a bundle of theories (any of which may be disproven without necessarily disturbing the others).
daryl_herbert on May 2, 2008 at 4:42 AM
42 is indeed strange, one would have expected a perfect number, like 28.
Annar on May 2, 2008 at 6:02 AM
Are you drinking heavily?
For your sake, I hope so.
Squiggy on May 2, 2008 at 6:25 AM
Let’s see…. What was the name of that little book that Charlie-boy wrote? “On the origin of species”?
I love how evolutionists know everything about ID, but seem to know nothing about their own Philosophy. At least have the intellectual honesty to admit your hatred of the idea of God.
Squiggy on May 2, 2008 at 6:33 AM
You, and many others, make reference to the first cause “proof” for the existence of god. This idea originated with Aristotle and was reborn with Thomas Aquinas. Basically the argument is:
1. Everything is caused by something other than itself
2. So the universe was caused by something other than itself.
3. The string of causes cannot be infinitely long.
4. Implying that there must be a first cause.
5. This first cause is god.
This argument is self-refuting since, by 1 god would have to be caused. If you amend 1. to exclude god the argument would be invalid since it would be begging the question.
Note that not every sequence of events has a starting point. One might say, as a model, that given an integer N in the collection of all integers, positive and negative. its integral successor will always exist and can be obtained by adding 1 and its predecessor, by subtracting 1. Obviously there is no “first integer.” In a sense we can say that N+1 was caused by M with addition as the means. In this model there is no first cause.
Annar on May 2, 2008 at 6:53 AM
Correction: caused by M –> caused by N (typo)
Annar on May 2, 2008 at 6:56 AM
ok, explain to me evolutionary ethics. what is right, and wrong, in evolution? of course there is no right and wrong in evolution, there is no God in evolution, so anything goes. as we have seen.
right4life on May 2, 2008 at 8:46 AM
“…there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems … there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”
[Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]
http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp#second
http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/article.html
right4life on May 2, 2008 at 8:53 AM
thats really what evolution is ALL about.
right4life on May 2, 2008 at 8:55 AM
good quote…add to that this:
romans 1:
19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
right4life on May 2, 2008 at 8:57 AM
Did Stein his points by rubbing bushes together? No. He himself is guilty of using science. Now that he has “shot” a film, is he complicit in the holocaust?
www.culturism.us
culturism on May 2, 2008 at 9:45 AM
No, Squiggy. Read it again.
The ‘origin of species’ is not the same as the ‘origin of life’.
And the implication that those who don’t believe in ID are ‘god-haters’ is merely a cheap shot on your part.
There are plenty of scientists (Catholics, Jews, etc.) who do not believe in ID, yet find no conflict regarding their belief and occupation.
guitarguy on May 2, 2008 at 9:55 AM
Sigh.
Here we go.
Can you show then how your wizard created anything? Can you you document the act of creation? What was his methodology? Where is your evidence of the wizard? Where is your wizard? Where does the wizard live?
One can track the transitional forms in the fossil record and see the hand of evolution. Your argument is essentially, “provide living examples of each”. Laughable. Again you seem to believe that you can find an example that doesn’t seem to fit the theory and in true cultish form, assuming all is black and white, claim the entire 99.9% must be thrown out. So if we apply your standard to your mythological explanation of our origins, since you can’t produce the wizard, or show his methods, well then. We must throw out the whole thing.
ronsfi on May 2, 2008 at 9:58 AM
“The relationship of limbed vertebrates (tetrapods) to lobe-finned fish (sarcopterygians) is well established, but the origin of major tetrapod features has remained obscure for lack of fossils that document the sequence of evolutionary changes.”
(Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin, and Farish A. Jenkins, “A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan,” Nature Vol 440: 757-763 (April 6, 2006))
you darwnists should really keep up with the science.
right4life on May 2, 2008 at 10:26 AM
That is a strawman claims since I have said you did have to.
And if it were posted in detail, would it matter? You seem to have already made up your mind regardless of what is posted.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 10:36 AM
So you take a theory that is not applicable to evolution in order to disprove is. Again, common argument that does not hold up to rational examination.
And what basic laws of probability?
According to who? People who used non-applicable theories or who make claims like “violated the basics laws of probability”?
Darwinists have come to an impasse in their inability to explain the critical role of “information” in the laws of thermodynamics.
Considering the laws of thermodynamics deal with energy and a closed system(s), they are simply not applicable.
And that babbling claim is just more proof of why what you claim is not backed by anything other than your claims. It is simply nonsensical.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 10:42 AM
Wow. Just that easy for you to dismiss it.
And after you claimed that I made several comment I did not and you demanded answers to a litany of questions, this is the only thing you reply to?
Nice selective applications of standards.
I hope this clears this up a bit.Clears up what? You failed to provide a link to a peer reviewed study from a legitimate research organization to back up your claims.
So I guess you couldn’t find where I said you wrong as you claimed I had.
I guess it helps to make sue you keep your arguments straight.
And that whole claim about ID and evolution not being mutually exclusive was just brushed over as well.
Again, nice selective reply.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 10:55 AM
So without a god looking over you and making you behave, you wouldn’t?
You may need such an idea as a god to make you behave, but considering that making is older than the xian faith, it would appear that mankind was able to create law and civilization without religion.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 11:00 AM
So if we apply your standard to your mythological explanation of our origins, since you can’t produce the wizard, or show his methods, well then. We must throw out the whole thing.
You’re making the mistake that tends to feed this fire, the other explanation of our origins are, at this point, also mythological.
Defense Guy on May 2, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Where is the link to the original article this portion was quote mined from?
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Intelligent design poses a greater threat to religion than evolution ever could. Faith is evidence of things unseen, yeah? Yet here we have supposedly devout Christians building a philosophical tower of Babel. What gives, Christians? It seems like you’re just giving up on the Holy Ghost. Intelligent design has the unique goal, if it is to be considered in any sense scientific, of plucking the almighty Christian God from heaven and laying Him on the examination table. And do Christians really trust the institution of science not to make an autopsy of it?
Think your kids are confused after learning evolution? There’s a big difference between things unseen and things only mostly unseen. Here are some of the exciting questions you can expect when your kids come home from learning intelligent design - So we know there was a designer, scientifically (not really, but that’s what ID claims), was it really God? And by the way, mom/dad, which God was it? If God left scientific proof he exists, why didn’t he leave scientific proof he’s the same guy in that crazy book on my nightstand? What’s the point of faith, anyway? Was it God at all? Gods? Aliens? Where do we go from here - we know something created us, is it still even out there? Is it already drawing up blueprints for the next big thing, for after we’ve joined the dinosaurs in the fossil record? And so on…
Isn’t it simpler to explain that evolution isn’t the whole story, and you just have to have faith in whatever inner voice led you to Christ?
RightOFLeft on May 2, 2008 at 11:24 AM
So, have any of the evolutionists read Mein Kampf lately?
corona on May 2, 2008 at 11:37 AM
right the under the quote. how could you miss it?
when darwnists say ‘quote mined’ they mean ‘inconvenient truth’
right4life on May 2, 2008 at 11:37 AM
This is so standard, and so lame. how would even know what is right and wrong? hmmm? oh yeah you atheists decide for yourselves, you are your own little gods, deciding right and wrong.
this is historically laughable. so you think greece, rome, persia, china, etc were all atheist?? please. all of these ancient civilizations had religions which guided their making of laws, customs, etc.
right4life on May 2, 2008 at 11:39 AM
The link you provide do no lead to the original article that that quotes were taken from. One does lead to a site were you copied the quote from, but the source article is not linked.
No, when I say quote mined, I mean exactly that. You have a partial quote as indicated by the leading, inclusive and trailing use of “…”.
When you see such usage, finding the source article is the only way to verify it was used in proper context.
Where is the link to the original source document?
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 11:55 AM
oh sorry, I don’t know, I doubt it is online since it is from 1980. try looking it up.
right4life on May 2, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Actually, yes and human nature has produced a repeating pattern of laws and social “norms” for lack of a better term that indicated that mankind is quite capable of created a structured and moral society without the need of a punishing father figure to watch over us.
And I never claim to be a god or anything supernatural. If you have to resort to such ad hominem, then perhaps you are not simply too emotional to rationally debate this issue.
And is it not also a fundamental principle in your faith that everyone has freedom of will and choice? So even in your faith, people decide for themselves what is right and wrong or what they will follow and accept.
Where did I claim they were atheist? You seem to be reading into my comments what you want and not actually comprehending them.
Really? Then you should be able to find a source to illustrate how in pagan and polytheistic societies such as Greece and Rome how the laws were derived form their religion.
The presence of a religion or gods does not mean that the laws and civilization was founded upon them especially in the case of the polytheistic and pagan civilizations.
But I’m sure since you think your claim is true that you can find a few sources to back up your claims regarding Greece and Rome and their laws.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 12:06 PM
You cannot back up the claim of your argument or post the source for a partial quote most likely taken and used out of context and then tell me to go look it up.
Like I said, quote mining to support a claim. You may call that and “inconvenient truth”, but considering you cannot even find the source material for your claim, the truth is that your claim is highly suspect to say the least.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 12:09 PM
I still don’t see why you have to believe in a common ancestor to be a scientist. So all scientific discoveries before darwin were not really scientific discoveries because the scientists were not aware of the common ancestor theory? Isn’t that what this is all about? If a scientist does not accept Darwinism then it is assumed that it is impossible for him to be a true scientist and the scientific community automatically rejects him.
Rose on May 2, 2008 at 12:19 PM
I never said you did have to.
Are you here to actually debate rationally or to make irrational post?
Where did I state anything about science prior to Darwin?
Did you even bother to follow the link regarding the human chromosome I listed?
If a scientist who seek to work in the fields of say biology were to reject the proof that say genetic research provides, then that person simply does not belong in research.
It would be like a doctor who rejected the fact of blood types in favor of the superstitious claim of “bad blood” complained that he or she was not allow to practice due to persecution along similar lines as claims by supporters of ID and CS.
Personal faith is one thing, but trying to demand that science and medicine bow down to the unfounded claims of people vested in religion who might take offence to the facts discovered by science is quite another.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 12:28 PM
They are wrong.
They are wrong.
No, that just shows the folly of ignorant people talking about things they don’t understand. Words mean things, especially in science where precision and clarity is paramount. Darwins Theory of Evolution has distinct, well documented parameters that DO NOT address the origin of life or the origin of the universe.
Creationists want to undermine any and all modern science that in any way conflicts with the literal interpretation of the Biblical account of creation in genesis. This is their real agenda.
Look through this thread and you will see creationist attacks on not just biology (based as it is on Evolution) but also on cosmology, geology, physics and anything else that gets in their way. “Evolution” is apparently their code word for the body of work that is modern science.
I want to make this clear.
Doc Mike on May 2, 2008 at 12:38 PM
You are trying to prove something that cannot be proven. There is no common ancestor. All you have are conjectures. You do not have to believe in a common ancestor to be a biologist. You only have to believe in a common ancestor to be an evolutionist. You can be any other scientist and still believe in a creator.
Rose on May 2, 2008 at 12:40 PM
There is no such thing as “evolutionary ethics” because evolution is a scientific theory, not a religion.
There is no such thing as “biblical chemistry” because Christianity is a religion, not a scientific theory.
See the difference?
There is no right and wrong in Einsteins Theory of Relativity either. Do you then believe that all Physicists are evil?
Doc Mike on May 2, 2008 at 12:51 PM
You can believe in the Theory of Evolution and a creator; most “evolutionists” are also theists, and see evolution as one of the “mysterious ways” in which God works.
Doc Mike on May 2, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Cannot be proven according to whom?
According to you or similar mindsets that ignore anything they find to be challenging to their faith?
If it were only that simple. There is a mountain of proof and evidence that you simply choose to ignore.
Actually, you would have to in some areas of research or you would simply not be able to perform your work properly.
Again, not so.
And I have not claim anything to challenge that. You seem to think that there exists a simplistic and polarized choice of have one or the other. In reality, mankind and the real world are much more complex and interesting that that limited outlook.
There are many who carry a deep faith, be it xian or other, and who accept and support evolution, or as it was called by at least one closed mined theist on this forum, evilution.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 1:00 PM
You can believe in evolution within species (such as adaptation) but you cannot believe in a common ancestor. Or I guess you can, but your God would be a strange one.
Rose on May 2, 2008 at 1:00 PM
The deluge of profuse illogic pouring out of many creationists could drive a priest to drink.
MB4 on May 2, 2008 at 1:01 PM
That’s so very convenient of you now isn’t it. Unfortunately, you really can’t dissect one from the other and use the Origin of the Species to discount ID.
Even Evolutionary God Himself understood that:
I don’t know how evolution explains homo sapiens being the only “animals” on the face of the planet to establish Ford Motor cars and spread that idea/concept all over the world so that even the Maori in New Zealand use them:
Why are we the only ones and how does Darwin’s theory explain this?
You realize the Bible states there were other humanoid beings on the earth before Adam and Eve in the Garden right? (Neanderthal?) But God/Creator gave Adam and Eve’s descendents dominion over all things. As I see it, Neanderthal (which looks a lot more like an ape than homo sapien) went the way of the wooly mammoth and, you can’t deny, that homo sapiens have complete dominion over all things.
Sultry Beauty on May 2, 2008 at 1:04 PM
God is dead. RIP.
MB4 on May 2, 2008 at 1:05 PM
Again, cannot according to whom? To each his own as far as religious faith goes.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Sorry, but I still do not see proof that a one celled organism underwent enough positive mutations to become a human being with a respiratory system, circulatory system, reproductive system, muscles, tendons, bones, etc. You are talking about an enormous amount of positive mutations. The proof is just not there.
Rose on May 2, 2008 at 1:07 PM
How could somewhat hate what is pretend?
And why is it that when people make up a god it is usually one with the manners and morales of a beast?
MB4 on May 2, 2008 at 1:08 PM
And again, according to whom? Just because you chose not to believe it does not mean the proof is not there.
You choose not to accept the research. Others, including those actually researching, have the proof they need and it evidently can be and has been backed up over time.
If ID or Cs were true, then the same standard could be met. The fact they cannot shows that ID and CS simply untenable from a scientific point of view.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 1:12 PM
So, have you read the koran lately?
MB4 on May 2, 2008 at 1:12 PM
Another problem even with the adaption part of evolution, why is it that man is the only mammal to have lost his outer protection (fur or hair) considering that man did not have heaters and were in the same environment as the animals who retained theirs? That would seem a little backwards. And why does it take so long for human offspring to walk when other mammal young are able to get around almost immediately? I don’t see how that was a benefit.
Rose on May 2, 2008 at 1:16 PM
Members of The Cult of “Intelligent Design” make members of The Cult of “Global Warming” seem almost downright sober and that is no easy task.
MB4 on May 2, 2008 at 1:16 PM
Have you ever taken a college level biology course? What is he extent of your knowledge of Evolution? It is a vast and complex subject, but the proof is there if you choose to look for it.
Doc Mike on May 2, 2008 at 1:18 PM
If I were to construct a God I would furnish Him with some way and qualities and characteristics which the Present lacks. He would not stoop to ask for any man’s compliments, praises, flatteries; and He would be far above exacting them. I would have Him as self-respecting as the better sort of man in these regards.
He would not be a merchant, a trader. He would not buy these
things. He would not sell, or offer to sell, temporary benefits of the joys of eternity for the product called worship. I would have Him as dignified as the better sort of man in this regard.
He would value no love but the love born of kindnesses conferred; not that born of benevolences contracted for. Repentance in a man’s heart for a wrong done would cancel and annul that sin; and no verbal prayers for forgiveness be required or desired or expected of that man.
In His Bible there would be no Unforgiveable Sin. He would
recognize in Himself the Author and Inventor of Sin and Author and Inventor of the Vehicle and Appliances for its commission; and would place the whole responsibility where it would of right belong: upon Himself, the only Sinner.
He would not be a jealous God — a trait so small that even men despise it in each other.
He would not boast.
He would keep private His admirations of Himself; He would regard self-praise as unbecoming the dignity of his position.
He would not have the spirit of vengeance in His heart. Then it would not issue from His lips.
There would not be any hell — except the one we live in from the cradle to the grave.
There would not be any heaven — the kind described in the world’s Bibles.
He would spend some of His eternities in trying to forgive Himself for making man unhappy when he could have made him happy with the same effort and he would spend the rest of them in studying astronomy.
– Mark Twain,
MB4 on May 2, 2008 at 1:22 PM
If you had actually read anything regarding the theory of evolution, you would not be continually asking these basic questions.
Again, if you choose not to believe it, that is your choice, but if you wish to actually debate the topic, then please read up on the topic first. And I would recommend picking a legitimate source. The likes of Stein and Hovind are not such sources.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 1:23 PM
You do not have to believe in a common ancestor to study biology. I don’t understand what that has to do with it. You can study life science, you can study plants, insects, animals. You can understand the world we live in and how the environment works and relates and how all living things interact and depend on each other. My daughter is brilliant, high IQ, straights A’s, scores so high on her achievement tests she’s getting letters from prestigious colleges, excels in science, could do anything she wants. And she does not believe in a common ancestor.
Rose on May 2, 2008 at 1:24 PM
A despicable thing to say. Homo Sapiens have been believing in the concept of a higher source ever since they could go into caves and spit colored mud through a reed. Global Warming and Evolution have been around for a small amount of time. So now if I don’t ‘believe’ in evolution, I’m not sober? Don’t insult me. When evolution explains the existence of life on one planet in the totality of the planetary system as we know it so far and not merely energy becoming protein and genes and mutating into every living life form based on some unknown factors we don’t believe we need to address then I’ll take you calling me drunk. Until then, I think you need to sober up.
Sultry Beauty on May 2, 2008 at 1:24 PM
You are not reading my posts or not comprehending them. I did not say you could not study biology if you did not believe in common decent.
Great for her. She can be a closed minded as she likes, but if she wants to become a researcher in certain field of biology and chooses not to believe in common decent, she will not be able to perform that job.
So quit misrepresenting what I am saying in my posts.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 1:27 PM
Darwin:
“…I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.”
Sultry Beauty on May 2, 2008 at 1:29 PM
How many times does it have to be stated? Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. You are demanding that evolution answer something it simply does not address.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 1:39 PM
Did I make post 666?
corona on May 2, 2008 at 1:40 PM
You daughter sounds like she could be the savior of mankind. So when do you think that your daughter’s wittings will surpass those of Mark Twain’s? If she choses the scientific field rather than choosing to become a writer then we should be able to look forward to a cure for old age then or at least a cure for cancer or something.
MB4 on May 2, 2008 at 1:42 PM
Sorry, I think the closed minded one is you. But you can believe what you want, but when the scientific community rejects those who do not bow to their assumptions and theories they lose out on a lot of talent. And I have read some of your links and they are full of assumptions.
Rose on May 2, 2008 at 1:42 PM
MB4, well according to atheists such as yourself she will not be allowed to find that cure because she does not bow to Darwin.
Rose on May 2, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Sultry Beauty on May 2, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Well I have figured out this much: Apparently however many times it is stated, it is not enough times.
MB4 on May 2, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Your reasoning is most uncorodinated.
MB4 on May 2, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Your reasoning is a veritable torrent of illogic.
MB4 on May 2, 2008 at 1:48 PM
Is that a misspelling or should I look it up?
Rose on May 2, 2008 at 1:48 PM
Again I say, that’s quite convenient for you. However, you can’t have one without the other. Are you trying to tell me that The Origin of the Species locks up the connection between every living thing with no unexplainable gaps? Or do you want me to quote Darwin in his own words that stating the time elapse is just to unfathomable for my mind to wrap around the entirety of the concept and you can’t expect me to give you every connection because that’s just impossible but go with here… DOH!!!
Sultry Beauty on May 2, 2008 at 1:48 PM
It’s hilarious how some of the most obnoxious evolutionists don’t even know the dogmas of their own pseudo-science. On NRO’s the Corner, John Derbyshire made this same claim - that evolutionism isn’t supposed to explain the origin of life. Guess what - a student of evolutionism at a university set him straight. Did Derb apologize, or admit that he was flinging BS all the time? Do I really have to answer that question?
corona on May 2, 2008 at 1:48 PM
Yes, I’m sure you do, but I base my views regarding this matter on proven science and not the blind faith of religion. You are denouncing that which you do not understand and, judging by your questions, have yet to actually read up on.
And your ignorance again leads you to condemn that which you choose not to learn about. It makes no sense to accept a person into certain fields of biological research who choose not to believe fundamental facts of that research.
In what way? Considering you lack even the basic understanding of that which you condemn, I would be interested to see what assumptions you claim exists.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 1:49 PM
How is it illogical? Scientists who do not believe in common descent are rejected from research. So intelligent people who have a lot to offer the scientific community are unable to do so.
Rose on May 2, 2008 at 1:50 PM
And these quotes are supposed to mean what exactly?
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 1:51 PM
The old - If all else fails look for a typo - ruse I observe.
MB4 on May 2, 2008 at 1:55 PM
It was an honest question, MB4, maybe it was an insult that I had never seen before.
Rose on May 2, 2008 at 1:55 PM
According to the demands of who? You demand or think that it has to address abiogenesis. That is not how this theory or other theories operated.
Did I make such a claim? Gaps in the material support is not a weakness of the theory or a reason to throw the theory out. Theist often demand such an end. Lack of knowledge is not a weakness in science as it is in religion.
Care to make a coherent comment first?
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 1:57 PM
Please furnish examples of this “black listing” and not anecdotal.
MB4 on May 2, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Some form that have at it base the fact of common descent, yes. What is so difficult about that concept?
Would you not demand the rejection of a medical student who refused to believe in germs causing infections so he or she refuses to wash their hands?
If they are ignorant or blind enough o reject fundamental facts of biology, then yes they will not be able to pursue that career.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Are you saying that you have to believe in a common ancestor to believe in germs? Surely you’re not that close minded. I’m sure that is not what you meant but you do not have to believe in a common ancestor to study biology. You still have not given me a good reason why that is not true.
Rose on May 2, 2008 at 2:03 PM
BTW, although I largely believe in evolution, as apparently did Pope John Paul II, although I prefer the “Punctuated Equilibrium” variety, I am not absolutely “wedded” to a common ancestor for all life on earth, as life may have “sprung up” in more than one place on earth.
MB4 on May 2, 2008 at 2:06 PM
MB4, that is what Mr. Stein’s movie is about. Scientists who dare to question evolution are ridiculed and not taken seriously, just as you are seeing on this thread.
Rose on May 2, 2008 at 2:07 PM
Evolution doesn’t negate intelligent design nor a Creator. If it’s just the Origin of the Species holding out a ‘concept’ of how living things formed being taught in school, well I guess that’s where we’re at now. Leave it at that, this is how we believe species developed over time. Nothing more nothing less. Leave your atheism at the door and we’ll leave our religioucity at the door.
But, if you teach that along with concepts that go hand and hand with the likes of Organic Evolution then we have problems. As stated, you can no more define the Origin of Life than can someone expousing Intelligent Design. YET… Organic Evolution is being taught in schools to MY CHILDREN as fact! And Intelligent Design is not allowed to even be spoken.
Atheism is a religion: ism; meaning Way Of Life. The schools are teaching my children Atheism and Global Warming hysteria to the point that my son comes home scared that California’s gonna be an island soon. Thanks Earth Awareness Week, you’ve created a kid who now believes in the Apocalypse and he’s not even allowed to believe in God and read Revelations. WOW!!!
Sultry Beauty on May 2, 2008 at 2:07 PM
I live in California too. It is really nuts here, isn’t it. I’ve lived here all my life and I can’t imagine leaving the weather but there must be more sane places to live that aren’t that bad weather wise, or is there?
Rose on May 2, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Sure:
Whine away there Darwin on how we shouldn’t expect him to fill in the gaps. Like Darwin implies, ‘Just work with me here. We’ll prove it in another million years.’
Sultry Beauty on May 2, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Are you trying intentionally to be this intellectually dishonest?
It was a comparison of how a person would not be able to perform a job if he or she rejected one of the basic facts that the particular job operated on.
And again, I never said that you need to believe in a common ancestor to study biology. You keep parroting a claim I never made. Are you trying to be a troll or are you just ignoring what I have posted?
Why what is not true? You cannot even follow or honestly represent what I have posted here.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 2:14 PM
You keep saying that if someone is “ignorant or blind enough to reject fundamental facts of biology (I’m assuming you mean evolutionary “facts”) then they will not be able to pursue that career”. So how am I misrepresenting you?
Rose on May 2, 2008 at 2:20 PM
So since science cannot address all of the questions so far, we must bow to the demands that mythology and superstition be taught in schools.
It is not rational to teach the supernatural or mythology as fact, especially in a science class. Yes, I am sure you see evolution as mythology, but that is due to your willing ignorance and preference for mythology and superstition.
Right. When all else fails, make the opposition as equal to you as possible. Atheism is no more a religion than bald is a hair color.
It is illegal to teach atheism in your school or any school that is public. Please cite how they are violating the law.
The topic of evolution is separate from the topic of the ideology of climate change.
Again, please cite where it has been made illegal for your child to believe in god or where he or she has been prohibited in believing in god?
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Questioning some of the particulars of Darwinian evolution is one thing, lots of scientists do that, rejecting the whole thing for some faith based pseudoscience is quite another matter.
MB4 on May 2, 2008 at 2:23 PM
You also said that if my daughter is “close minded” concerning evolution then she couldn’t be a scientist. I don’t see how I am misrepresenting you.
Rose on May 2, 2008 at 2:23 PM
And this was in response to?
You really need to learn to quote and post relevant replies.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 2:24 PM
MB4, it is not pseudo science. That is the point, they are not even being allowed to state their objections and observations. You only hear what the evolutionists want you to hear about the ID arguments. You need to hear both sides but that is not being allowed.
Rose on May 2, 2008 at 2:25 PM
actually no, human nature has not. Historically all societies derive their laws from their religion, whether that religion is islam, christianity, or atheism (and yes atheism IS a religion)
And I never claim to be a god or anything supernatural. If you have to resort to such ad hominem, then perhaps you are not simply too emotional to rationally debate this issue.
Where did I claim they were atheist? You seem to be reading into my comments what you want and not actually comprehending them.
you need a reference for this? its not obvious? please, look at sharia in the lands of islam, look at judaism, and the mosaic laws. to think that we just come up with our laws in some vacuum is ridiculous.
right4life on May 2, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Comment pages: « 1 … 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 »