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 »
Because I am talking about certain fields of biological research and you keep claiming that I am talking about studying biology. Studying biology is not the same as performing research.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Wow, look at all the scoffers here today drooling over their keyboards, scoffing at God’s creation. Attention all Christians! You have the right to remain silent, anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 2:27 PM
evolution is a religion, it has a worldview, a materialistic worldview, and even evolutionists admit this:
“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.” (Biology: Discovering Life, by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st edition, D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; emphasis in original)
and we’ve lived with its terrible implications for the past century or so. little wonder it was so bloody.
right4life on May 2, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Yes, yes you do.
the goddess anna on May 2, 2008 at 2:29 PM
I am talking about performing research. So you have proven my point, and I am not misrepresenting you. What research requires belief in a common ancestor?
Rose on May 2, 2008 at 2:29 PM
If she rejects some of the fundamental facts need to perform that research then she will simply be unqualified for that research job.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 2:29 PM
It is absolutely appalling how stupid otherwise intelligent people can be when it comes to the belief in God and their religion.
It is also very telling how defensive and hateful religious people are when it comes to atheists. Anybody who feels threatened by an atheist is so insecure in their own faith that they have to lash out in anger. They have no choice because deep down they know how stupid they are. There is no other reason why an atheist would bother them so much.
So all you religious people who get so angry at atheists really need to stop and ask yourself why we they bother you so much.
It’ll come to you.
Sandor on May 2, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Sorry, my post at 2:29 is for Mr. Splicer.
Rose on May 2, 2008 at 2:30 PM
I’m sorry, but I don’t see the links to any sources to back up your claims. That means your claims are not backed by anything factually recorded in history but just your wishful thinking.
You can all it what you will or make up whatever excuses you feel you have to but, if it were a historical fact and so obvious then you would be able to provide resources that back up your claim.
Again, you cannot therefore your claims are hollow and are simply untenable.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 2:32 PM
ask the atheists why they hate christians so much. I never notice such anger directed towards muslims from the atheist community.
ask why they have to sue, harass, and silence, their opponents, ala sternberg?
right4life on May 2, 2008 at 2:33 PM
oh ok so you say Sharia law is unrelated to the religion of islam??? uh huh.
do I need a reference to say the sky is blue? laughable.
right4life on May 2, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Since our posts crossed, I will ask you again GS, what research, besides that which attempts to prove evolution, requires belief in a common ancestor?
Rose on May 2, 2008 at 2:35 PM
No, you stated studying biology and you have misrepresented my claims. A high school student studies biology as does a college student as does anyone who chooses to but that is not research.
According to you, none so why bother asking. You are convinced that a person should be able to enter into a field of research even if that person actively rejects some of the fundamental facts that the research operated on
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 2:38 PM
I was being charitable when I said that “Intelligent Design”, aka Creationism, was a pseudo science.
Maybe I am just imagining things, but I sure seem to see a lot of words from creationists/ID’ers here. And yes “Intelligent Design” and “Creationism” are just two term for the same basic thing. “Intelligent Design” just sounds better on the surface so someone came up with that new term, that’s all. Kind of like “Global Warming” going to “Climate Change”.
MB4 on May 2, 2008 at 2:40 PM
The right but clearly not the ability.
ronsfi on May 2, 2008 at 2:42 PM
whats funny about this is that evolution is useless in research. as Jerry Coyne said:
To some extent these excesses are not Mindell’s fault, for, if truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of `like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7106/full/442983a.html
right4life on May 2, 2008 at 2:42 PM
You still haven’t answered my question, so I guess I’ll have to leave it at that. I still don’t see why belief in a common ancestor is required to be a research scientist.
Rose on May 2, 2008 at 2:43 PM
You are either ignorant of your own theory or you are a liar. All you need to do is read a public school textbook and see that all six meanings below are part of what is taught as evolution theory.
The subcategories are as follows:
1. Cosmic evolution - the origin of time, space & matter. Big Bang.
2. Chemical evolution - origin of all the chemicals, hydrogen & helium, etc.
3. Stellar and planetary evolution - Origin of stars and planets.
4. Organic evolution - Origin of life from non life.
5. Macroevolution - Origin of major kinds of animals.
6. Microevolution - Variations within kinds of animals.
Here’s your chance to do some good for a change Mike. If you agree this should not be in the school books, why don’t you help us get it out???
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 2:43 PM
You assume hatred based upon your negative view of atheists.
Then you are either ignorant of that struggle or lying.
Some of the biggest critics of Muslims are atheist.
While, in their view, you can be converted or live under Dhimmi, people like me are to be executed in the most painful of manner they can envisions.
Again, if you seek to force religion, mythology and superstition into the classroom and due so by abuse of elected powers, then a laws suit is the only resort we have.
Our action are defensive to your actions.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 2:43 PM
evolution is atheism masquqerading as ’science’. it is not testable, or repeatable, does not exist in the fossil record, and cannot be falsified. no matter what fact comes along, evolutionists tell a ’story’ to incorporate that fact into evolution. it relies upon the faith of it’s adherents
right4life on May 2, 2008 at 2:44 PM
And speaking of arguing against Muslims, there are many podcasts, including mine, that argue about them and against extremism from any religion all the time.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 2:44 PM
I guess I need to learn to quote.
Rose on May 2, 2008 at 2:44 PM
I like you. People say I’ve got no taste, but I like you.
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 2:46 PM
It seems as though in this thread, if you are not Christian (or I suppose, not Jewish or Muslim, the other two of the Abrahamic faiths), than one is an atheist. There are people who are neither one of the Big Three nor atheists who believe that evolution is true. I’m not talking about agnostics either.
the goddess anna on May 2, 2008 at 2:47 PM
oh yeah right, Dawkins, Hitchens et. al just LOVE christians!!
why don’t you go check out the amazon board on religion for example? the athiests are unrelenting in their criticism of christianity, but are silent on islam. guess they’re afraid of losing their head….
I’ve noticed the most secular ‘liberal’ societies (europe) tend to bend over backwards for islam….look what happened to bridgette bardot in france, for example.
but its ok for you to impose athiesm (evolution) in the classroom!! some pigs are more equal than others….
right4life on May 2, 2008 at 2:47 PM
And I like MB4, even if this person does like to quote dead white guys, or maybe that’s why I like her (or him).
Rose on May 2, 2008 at 2:48 PM
You stated that even Greeks and Romans based their laws on religion, then you resort to talking about the modern monotheistic religions and related societies. That is a bait and switch.
Again, provide sources that back up your claims that Greece and Rome based their laws on their pagan polytheistic religion.
If you cannot, then our claim is simply not one of fact but one of personal belief.
No, because, unlike your claim, that is directly observable by all. Your claim is not.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 2:48 PM
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 2:46 PM
I like you too. And I did have my daughter say a prayer for you - I told her you were a computer friend. She called you alpaca lips, but she meant well. ; )
the goddess anna on May 2, 2008 at 2:48 PM
How did you get in here? Did someone leave your cage open?
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 2:49 PM
what about extremism in evolution? As Dawkins said:
No self respecting person would want to live in a Society that operates according to Darwinian laws. I am a passionate Darwinist, when it involves explaining the development of life. However, I am a passionate anti-Darwinist when it involves the kind of society in which we want to live. A Darwinian State would be a Fascist state.
and wasn’t Nazi Germany a fascist state?
right4life on May 2, 2008 at 2:50 PM
Rose
Since our posts crossed, I will ask you again GS, what research, besides that which attempts to prove evolution, requires belief in a common ancestor?
And I will answer, again. Are you going to remember it this time or ignore it?
Certain fields of genetic research specifically, but I have read and been told that most if not all the biological sciences rely upon common descent to some degree.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 2:50 PM
The order that the proponents of ID cite continuously as justification for their beliefs is a relative phenomenon which we see because we are part of the portrait and our survival depends on finding such order. If we could live at the sub atomic level it is certain that we would perceive pure chaos since our senses are not adapted for what we would experience.
The real universe is a much stranger, and yet more wondrous, place than mythical gods like Yahweh, Allah or Vishnu seem to have imagined if one reads their sacred books. For example, the uncertainty principle in Quantum Mechanics implies that particles can come into existence for short periods of time even when there is not enough energy to create them. In effect, they are created from uncertainties in energy. One could say that they briefly “borrow” the energy required for their creation, and then, a short time later, they pay the “debt” back and disappear again. Since these particles do not have a permanent existence, they are called virtual particles. Thus, at the quantum level, we have created effects without discernible causes.
Annar on May 2, 2008 at 2:53 PM
I know you already answered, our posts crossed again. You don’t have to be rude.
Rose on May 2, 2008 at 2:54 PM
Patience Rose. You are not the only person I am talking to.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 2:54 PM
You got that right GS. I, an atheist, very much liked Pope John Paul II, for many reasons, and he was someone who sure seemed to be a fellow evolutionist I might add.
You got that right too GS. I am an atheist and who quotes Pope Urban II more than I do? Who says Muslims will never be able to build a democracy, anything like what we consider democracy to be like anyway, in Iraq more than I do?
MB4 on May 2, 2008 at 2:54 PM
all societies do. you stated that we didn’t need religion to create laws. and you state that the Greeks and Romans did not, but you offer no proof.
It has been suggested that the ancient roots of the Roman Law derive directly from the Etruscan religion, which puts great emphasis on the rituality and is rather formality-centred concerning its nature. [3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_law
but its SO obvious. you are basically stating that the romans and greeks were atheists, which is very doubtful, but atheism is a religion.
you want me to provide proof, but you provide none. let me guess you’re a ’scientist’
right4life on May 2, 2008 at 2:55 PM
And I still think that it is not necessary.
Rose on May 2, 2008 at 2:57 PM
According to whom? Hovind and his ilk? If what you say is true, then a large amount of people spend time, effort and money on the pursuit of research that is based upon nothing but unproven and untestable assumptions.
Odd how the ID cause lacks the credentials and fact to back up their claims. And simply denouncing evolution does not make it so.
ID has been taken on and tested, as far as it could be and it was found lacking.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 2:59 PM
To act as if Charles Darwin didn’t have atheistic leanings that went into The Theory of Evolution is to be disingenous. To say that the people who influenced Darwin’s belief system were not doing so based on atheistic beliefs is also disingenous. To say that a theory doesn’t have to completely confirm itself in every aspect of its hypothesis to be considered fact is ridiculous. I’m supposed to assume it’s true until I’ve proven the hypothesis incorrect. How about this, you assume there’s intelligent design until you can proven there’s not.
BTW~ I find it interesting in all this, I still haven’t gotten an explanation as to how it is that homo sapien is the only animal that can transmit concepts and information to even the remotist regions of the planet. I mean, why is that the Maori now have words for car, airplane, oil tankers, and the gorillas in Africa don’t? When evolution explains intelligence or lack of it then I’ll be a believer. Until then, there’s still only one ‘animal’ that has dominion over all the rest, just like the Bible says.
Sultry Beauty on May 2, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Be very careful about him as he may be lulling you into a false sense of security and for all you know he could be the anti-Christ.
Sigy on May 2, 2008 at 3:01 PM
according to Jerry Coyne, whom I just quoted.
if ID has been tested, then it is a science because according to you it is falsifiable.
right4life on May 2, 2008 at 3:05 PM
So if one atheist hates xian all do? That is rather closed minded and simplistic. Do you always operate under such broad brush notions?
And these boards were talking about what? Context seem lacking in your claim as does a link for your example.
And you forget that in the western societies, atheist are threatened more often by xians than any other faith.
Again, context.
So are you operating under the equally broad brush that all atheist are liberal?
Only if you are biased or ignorant enough o equate atheism with evolution.
Atheist represent so little of the population yet according to you we have soo much power. You sound like a very paranoid person.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 3:06 PM
Sigy, you have a point, but the anti-Christ is deceitful and MB4 is pretty straight forward in his anti-Christianess. (I know that’s not a word.)
Rose on May 2, 2008 at 3:06 PM
Actually thanks to the liberal courts and the ACLU the atheists have more power than the Christians.
Rose on May 2, 2008 at 3:07 PM
First of all, based upon your questionable quote sources, provide a link.
Secondly, Dawkins does not speak for all atheist or people who support evolution.
Lastly, I prefer a more libertarian society.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 3:10 PM
I answered that question over a page ago and you asked me again.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Rose, just thought I’d stop by to let you know that you’re awesome. May the good Lord Jesus bless you forever.
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 3:12 PM
as I said, check out the religion forum of amazon.com
you need a link for the amazon.com religion forum? can’t you look up anything for yourself? the ‘context’ is rather simple. the hatred for christians POURS out of every atheist’s post.
oh yeah you’re just a poor persecuted minority. boo hoo laughable. thats why we don’t let people like Dawkins have a public position….er ah we do…nevermind.
you have to be ignorant not to be aware of the obvious. and the evolutionists themselves do. please. I’ve quoted several, do I need to do it again?
its rather obvious you do, or we wouldn’t have prayer banned in schools for example.
right4life on May 2, 2008 at 3:14 PM
ID is speculative philosophy, not science. If it were science it could be tested and falsified, at least theoretically. Any theories the ID/creationist crowd propounds cannot be tested or falsified because the ID proponents can simply bring in a unobservable and untestable creator to fill in the holes and gaps in their theory. Therefore ID does not belong in science class and to place it in science class would require one to abandon the modern western notion of science. The modern religious scientists cited by the ID proponents on this board (eg. Newton) did not succumb to this. Their theories could be tested empirically. This is why they were able to make all the advancements that would have confounded the ancients. This new notion of science, as Derbyshire points out in his orginal piece, is an extremely important part of our cultural patrimony as Westerners and one that has been responsbile for many of our advancements. Other cultures have engaged in speculative philosophy but remained technically and theoretically stagnant because they lacked the innovation of this new science. Theoretical progress was absent because there was simply no empircal arbiter from which one could pick one theory over another: One’s preferences dependent solely on one’s a priori principles.
I believe there remains an important role for speculative philosophy in our civilization, but call it what it is, and don’t advocate that it replace modern science. If we do replace modern science with specualtive philosophy, we risk losing our patrimony and endangering our future.
phronesis on May 2, 2008 at 3:15 PM
look it up yourself. please. I’m sure next you’ll be denying he said life could have originated from space aliens that of course evolved on their own planet…sigh…
I don’t particularly like Dawkins, but what he says MATTERS about evolution, far more than someone on a message board.
right4life on May 2, 2008 at 3:16 PM
My point EXACTLY! This is the lameness of the arguements going around here. The Theory of Evolution doesn’t have anything to do with the Origin of Life. YES! But Ben Stein is dealing with what is taught in school not the Theory of Evolution itself. That’s not all that’s being taught in school and what is amounts to a backdoor attempt at teaching my children to be Atheists.
People who don’t acknowledge the ORIGINS of The Origins of Species being taught in school in the form it is are just a bunch of Snakeoil salesmen. They stick their left hand up in the air saying watch this here, all the while their right hand is moving around the pieces on the chessboard while they keep screaming they aren’t.
Sultry Beauty on May 2, 2008 at 3:16 PM
I am not anti-Christian. In fact, although I don’t think that he was the son of what doesn’t exist, I think that Christ had a lot of very good qualities, unlike many of his followers.
MB4 on May 2, 2008 at 3:19 PM
Sorry Gene but I don’t remember you giving a specific answer, it was more general. You didn’t actually say why belief in a common ancestor was essential to a specific scientific study. I was looking for clarification. I just don’t see how it is relevant to any specific study since great scientific advancements have been made in the past by scientists who believed in God. That is why I think that the scientific community is denying itself a great pool of talent with their bias. But you have given your answer, so I will NOT ASK AGAIN! (That was for emphasis, I’m not yelling.)
Rose on May 2, 2008 at 3:21 PM
The anti-establishment clause is also a factor in not having official school prayer. Many of the Deist founders were wary of organized religions having a role in the state.
dedalus on May 2, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Yeah, I don’t hate you or the other evilutionists here Anna. I don’t think you’re the enemy, you’re just working for him. Oh, on the prayer from your daughter, ordinarily I would say thank you because prayer does work. The Bible says in 1 Thessalonians 5:17 to “Pray without ceasing” (ie, repeatedly, frequently). However, considering your username and this debate, I must ask who did your daughter pray to on my behalf?
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 3:24 PM
Correct, and well done. You go girl…
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 3:26 PM
My daughter is Lutheran. As is her father and his family. We don’t take the boys to church services anymore, as they’ve reached that age where they can’t sit still for more than three nanoseconds.
Heck, I get bored too, but that’s why I have games on my cell phone.
the goddess anna on May 2, 2008 at 3:28 PM
Weren’t you the one accusing others of ad hominem attacks yesterday? Since you are fond of quoting scripture:
phronesis on May 2, 2008 at 3:28 PM
I stated that the common laws that have existed throughout time were created due to our human nature. The most recent incarnation is the pagan based common law that out legal system is based upon.
Prior to that claim, it was stated that without god, there would be no order or that we just get to do what we want. So you are trying to argue that all laws come form religion and you provide nothing to back up that claim.
So obvious that you still have not provided proof of your claim. “It is suggested” does not mean “it was”. So where is the proof that the laws originated form religion? And what of the Greeks? Sumerians? Other pagan societies?
And for you to claim that I am stating that the Greeks and Romans were atheist illustrates not only your simplistic polarized outlook but your ignorance of pagan societies.
The relationship between the ancient people and their pagan gods was not akin got the overbearing and dominating monotheistic ones we are accustomed to today.
And, like so many ID supporters, you simply quote mine to support your POV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_law#The_Twelve_Tables
Again, you are defending the claim that without god, or a religion I supposed, there would be no law. That claim was what prompted my reply to begin with.
So again, provide proof of your claim or it is hollow.
And your contempt for scientist seems as bad and your contempt for atheists.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 3:29 PM
apacalyps,
Thank you for your kind words.
Rose on May 2, 2008 at 3:30 PM
And that person would still be barred form that position then. Simple fact of reason.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 3:30 PM
It is wrong.
Rose on May 2, 2008 at 3:31 PM
oh yeah all those ‘deist’ and ‘atheist’ founders of ours didn’t have a problem with prayer in school.
right4life on May 2, 2008 at 3:32 PM
All those deist and atheists didn’t have a problem with prayer before congress. But, I’m not going to get into a debate about prayer in school. I would be happy if they would just be neutral. But they are not.
Rose on May 2, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Darwin didn’t deal with the origin of the first species. His scientific contribution was showing how natural selection is a mechanism for transmitting change over time and creating new species.
Many ID’ers allow that having ID taught in science class would require a modification to what we consider to be natural science. The issue they have isn’t exclusively with Darwin’s two major theories but with the way science itself is defined.
dedalus on May 2, 2008 at 3:37 PM
hate to tell you, but paganism IS a religion. but go ahead and post your proof that common law is based upon paganism.
yeah that has been proven with those wonderful athiest people’s paradises!!
again paganism is a religion. please. you’re just proving my points, thanks.
again, because you say so? please.
and like so many evolutionists, you just quote mined to support your point of view.
again, like a normal evolutionist, you have to misrepresent my position. there would be law, obviously in an atheistic ssociety, because atheism is a religion, it would just be whatever whoever is in charge wants. because in atheism, you are your own little god. thats why atheistic societies are so bloody.
right4life on May 2, 2008 at 3:41 PM
right, and evolutionists want to define science as atheism.
right4life on May 2, 2008 at 3:42 PM
Don’t know if there was an atheist among the founders, but many of them were wary of the role organized religion could play in the government. They weren’t wary of belief, in fact they recognized it as important, but they were wary of what conflict between Christian religions had done to Europe for the two centuries before our independence.
dedalus on May 2, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Not all atheists hate all Christians… but I can certainly understand why they might hate you, seeing as how you consider anyone who doubts Young Earth Creationism to be some kind of Nazi, or at the very least not a “real” Christian.
Watcher on May 2, 2008 at 3:46 PM
more proof that evolutionists have no problem using lies to advance their position
right4life on May 2, 2008 at 3:47 PM
.
And he is?
Wow. You really don’t understand science do you? There is a big difference between falsifiable and falsified.
Phrenology has been falsified while psychology is falsifiable. ID has bee falsified (i.e disproven) while evolution is falsifiable.
It was tested and failed.
Link? Not my job to go looking up your sources.
Again, not my source or my place to find the information for your argument. In a debate, if you make a claim then it falls upon you to back it up.
And again, in context. If it was just xians debating atheist who grew up in the western nations, that is one thing. It also depends on the topic.
Like the recent military officer persecuted by his xian commanders?
http://www.jbs.org/node/7941
Or how about an atheist girl driving out of school by the xian majority?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTRDRP2n4Sk
LOL. Yes, I’m sure you see hatred everywhere.
Yes, just as obvious as your claim that all laws come form religion. Still waiting for proof of that one.
Do what?
Quote mined perhaps and spun the quotes to your ends.
LOL. Prayer was banned due to the establishment clause and the separation of church and state. So are you going to argue that the founders were atheist? After all, they were secularists. And isn’t it also a xian “fact” that secular equal atheism?
Not my job to look up your quotes. If you are too lazy to properly support your claims, that is not my fault either.
Ah. You mean the other quote mined comments form Steins documentary. His skills At such must be making Moore very proud.
No, the researchers matter more and people like me matter just as much as least since without us supporting him, he has no sway.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 3:47 PM
They want to restrict science to the natural world. Many scientists are people of faith, but they aren’t allowed to use supernatural explanations in their work–any more than a tax accountant could.
dedalus on May 2, 2008 at 3:48 PM
And if I did, would it matter? You have your mind made up on a topic you seem not to know that much about.
And that is why. You don’t know.
Not bias but a requirement to do the work. Sorry if this fact is something you have a problem with.
Not a problem.
No, it is proper. Again, would you allow a doctor to operate who denied the fact that germ cased disease and he refused to wash his hands?
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 3:51 PM
How many times have you violated Godwin’s Law, just this morning alone?
Watcher on May 2, 2008 at 3:52 PM
look it up for yourself. try it! if you ever go to college, you might find it useful!
its obvious you do not.
first you evolutionists say ID is religion, which cannot be disproven, then you turn around and say it has been disproven, which would make it a science, so which is it?
if it can be tested, and disproven, then its science, unlike evolution, which can never be falsified.
no my job to prove the obvious to the willingly ignorant.
but you don’t practice what you preach. like all evolutionist/athiests you think your word is from on high!
you tube? oh please those are your ’scources’?? laughable….ask Sternberg, or Gonzales about you ‘tolerant’ atheists.
just as you do.
LOL but our ‘atheist’ founders didn’t think it violated that clause, not until we had some real atheists on the supreme court. for 150 years it did not violate the constitution, and all of sudden it does…yeah that atheist ‘logic’ for ya!!
you’re obviously too lazy to do your own research. you’ll have problems when, and if, you get to college!
yeah ‘quote mined’ from a film….you atheists just can’t handle the truth, and have to use this little dodge…too funny!!
yeah all you atheists are legends in your own minds!
right4life on May 2, 2008 at 3:57 PM
You keep saying that not believing in a common ancestor is like not washing your hands. That is a false analogy. The doctor could kill someone. But not believing in a common ancestor does not hinder scientific study unless you are studying evolution. I don’t know why you keep saying it is. Many scientists in the past have had great scientific discoveries while believing in God. Belief in a common ancestor is not essential in discovering new medicines or cures or inventing new diagnostic machines. You are showing a bias. The first one to study genetics was Mendel, a priest.
Rose on May 2, 2008 at 3:59 PM
they want to restrict science to philosphical naturalism, ie atheism. looking for design in radio signals is ’science’ SETI, looking for design on earth is ’science’ archeology, but looking for design in biology is ‘religion’ sure….
right4life on May 2, 2008 at 4:01 PM
Wow. You seem to not know about paganism either. That would explain a great deal. You do know that paganism is what any non-xian religion is normal called, right?
Sure, right after you post proof that the Romans and the Greeks based their laws on their pagan and polytheistic religions.
Did they base laws against murder on the commandment of Zeus? Or was it one of the other multitude of gods they worshiped? See, the is the point. You assume that if a religion existed, the all the laws came form that religion.
And again, you seem not to know anything about paganism or you would not make the laughable claim that paganism is a religion when paganism covers so many religions and so many gods.
Oh, so we are going to resort to the untenable claims that the Nazis and Russia were all atheists? LOL. So you simply drank Stein’s kool-aid. I mean I guess it matter not that Hitler was a xian and all the Nazis had God on their belt buckles.
More like you are illustrating your ignorance. Again, paganism covers a multitude of religions and gods. It is not a religion.
No, history records it as such. But, then again, you think paganism is just one religion. You must be confusing modern paganism with the religions of old. So you don’t know that much about history either it appears.
And where have I done so? I can cite my course with proper links in full context. You grab one line or quote full of gaps.
Wow. You must have a kool aid drip. You spout so many untenable claims it is simply sad. Atheism is not a religion no matter what Hovind and Stein claim.
And again, where do you get the idea that I think I am a god? It is because I reject mythology and superstition?
Right. Hitler was a xian and he was not bloody at all.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 4:07 PM
A lot of scientists don’t consider SETI real science.
dedalus on May 2, 2008 at 4:09 PM
During the revolutionary period among the founding fathers and their close companions, Thomas Paine was the closest to being an outright athiest. For the record, he was a pantheist which at that time was considered no different than being an atheist.
Two quotations from his Age of Reason.
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church.
Take away from Genesis the belief that Moses was the author, on which only the strange believe that it is the word of God has stood, and there remains nothing of Genesis but an anonymous book of stories, fables, and traditionary or invented absurdities, or of downright lies.
His closest friend was Thomas Jefferson who is usually classified as a deist (no personal god). He wa not far from Paine as evidenced by these quotes;
The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.
Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.
Annar on May 2, 2008 at 4:10 PM
where do you get such fantasies at? why don’t you go tell a muslim their religion is paganism, and see what happens.
uh I did. you refuse to accept it, and have no proof that they did not.
yeah because thats how human societies work…you really need to learn something about history.
paganism
n : any of various religions other than Christianity or Judaism
or Islamism
http://dictionary.die.net/paganism
do you ever read anything except atheist talking points? maybe when you get your GED we can talk.
communism is atheistic. you know that whole thing about religion being the opiate of the masses…and yeah I quote mined that!!! smirk!
you are amazingly dense. paganism, whatever form it takes is a religion…you have just defeated your own arguments…too funny!!
where you quoted the next paragraph after the one I quoted from wikpedia…not that you could look it up for yourself of course!
atheism is a religion, no matter what atheists say. you atheists doth protest too much!
all atheists are their own little gods, your inflated opinion of yourself is just an example of this.
right4life on May 2, 2008 at 4:16 PM
A lot of scientists don’t consider SETI real science.
right4life on May 2, 2008 at 4:20 PM
As I said in an earlier post, advocating that ID/creationism be taught as science precludes the modern concept of science in favor of the concept of science as speculative philosophy. The religious practioners of modern science did not embrace science as speculative philosophy. Indeed advocating ID entails the very rejection of the methods of both the religious and non-religious practioners of modern science because it invokes a concept which is untestable, unobservable and unfalsifiable (The creator/designer). It denies the would be scientist its empirical arbiter and thus renders science impossible.
phronesis on May 2, 2008 at 4:25 PM
This is a lie. Textbooks teach that each of the layers of earth is a different age. They even asign names like (Jurassic) and “index fossils” to these layers. This entire “geologic collumn” was invented in the early 1800’s primarily by Charles Lyle, a Scotish Lawyer. It does not actually exist anywhere on planet earth except in the textbook and the imaginations of some evolutionists. If the collumn actually existed in one place it would be 100 miles thick.
“Eighty to eighty-five percent of earth’s land surface does not have even 3 geological periods appearing in ‘correct’ consecutive order… it becomes an overall exercise of gargantuan special pleading and imagination for the evolutionary-uniformitarian paradigm to maintain that there ever were geologic periods.”(Woodmorappe, 1981, p. 47-71)
It is easy to prove the layers are not different ages. All over the world thousands of petrified trees have been found standing up running through many of the rocks. Here are some examples. And here (scroll down).
It should be quite obvious to anyone that the layers formed very rapidly. Trees don’t stand up for millions of years after they die, simply waiting for rock to form around them. A gigantic flood is the only explanation for that. Obviously, the layers formed within weeks or months before the tree could rot. These layers are not different ages, by billions of years, like the books say. Someone isn trying to brainwash you!!
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 4:25 PM
your fellow evolutionist, gene splicer, just admitted that it was tested and falsified…so which is it?
evolution cannot be falsified. the evidence doesn’t matter, the ideology is the key
right4life on May 2, 2008 at 4:27 PM
Evolution is science, right and wrong are morals. There are no ethics to the science of evolution just as there is no morality to 2+2=4. A nuclear bomb CAN be used to kill millions, whether it is is determined by those who wield it. God teaches us the morality of how we use our knowledge. Science without morality (God) can be a terrible thing. Faith without knowledge can also be a terrible thing. That’s why the Taliban teach the Koran by rote rather than teaching their students to read. If they could read, they might actually read something the mullahs don’t like and can’t control. I believe that ignoring the truth is an affront to God. He gave us inquisitiveness as a gift and a test, otherwise Adam and Eve would never have been kicked out of Eden. Unless you think God made a mistake?
jnelchef on May 2, 2008 at 4:27 PM
phronesis, How does what you are saying relate to my post? Men who did not believe in a common ancestor made great scientific discoveries. You do not need to believe in a common ancestor to make great scientific discoveries. That is all I am saying. It is bias to believe otherwise. Apparently science was not impossible for these earlier scientists.
Rose on May 2, 2008 at 4:33 PM
Again, not my job to find your sources. Very lazy on your part. I guess you never learned the rule or proper form of a debate.
Right. Not like I claim that false scientific claims are falsifiable.
You are understandable confused since you do not understand what makes a scientific theory. ID is religion since it is nothing more than repackaged CS. Now while you cannot disprove the supernatural god, you can examine the claims of the religion that fall well into the realm of the natural world.
ID seeks to do just this and its claims can be examined from a natural point of view that science can test.
Wow, wrong on both account again. It has been tested and proven to be erroneous. That does not make it science. That makes it has been falsified or proven wrong.
Evolution is still falsifiable. All you would have to do is to come up with a theory that is supported by the facts better than evolution is now.
So in other words, you have nothing to back up your claims. Again, learn the rules of a debate. Just because you cannot or will not provide a link to your sources, if any, does not mean the other person is at fault.
Yes I do. I have cited sources for my claims. I am still waiting for you to back up your all laws claim.
Wow. So you skipped over the story of the military member being persecuted by xian officers.
Did you bother to look as the video? So rather than follow the link and view a report by John Stossel, you take the intellectually dishonest rout and denounce YouTube. Let me guess. Stossel is not credible?
Again, I posted full paragraphs and a link. You did not. Cite where I have quote mined.
Actually, you are wrong. Jefferson though separation of church and state was constitutional and did many other since the were not xians but diests.
Again, your claims therefore you need to back them up. Telling someone to go look it up is not how a debate functions.
Like you have been? If you ever did go to college, you would have learned the proper rules for a debate. You would not be telling people to go look it up or be lazy in posting links that go back to the original article.
You misunderstood my statements again. The comments Stein used in his film are quote mined and is the selective editing in the same dishonest fashion as Michael Moore.
So instead of following the link I provided or backing up your own claims, you tell me to go look up that which even you cannot find, you erroneously claim that paganism is “a” religion, dismiss the source of one of my links, John Stossel, completely ignore a story you cannot face and close with and ad hominem.
I hope you see why ID and CS are treated as the failed scientific claims they are.
When pressed for facts to support your claims, you resort to “going negative” as it were.
But please, keep posting and do no change your style one bit. Such is material proof of exactly why mythology and superstation need to be kept out of the science classroom.
Worship what you want and in the manner you wish, but do not demand tha thte rest of the world or people involved in scientific and medicals research bow to your faith, superstition and mythology and be limited by it.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 4:33 PM
phronesis on May 2, 2008 at 4:36 PM
That got messed up.
I believe he quoted someone saying it was falsified as far as it can be, not that it was falsifiable. It isn’t falsifiable because the unobservatble Designer can be invoked to reconcile any paradox, explain any evidence. Note that if God were empirically verifiable or falsifiable, faith wouldn’t be a neccesary part of religion.
phronesis on May 2, 2008 at 4:38 PM
Muslims MUST pray in Arabic. As to Qur’an memorization it’s just as well that they can’t understand what they are committing to memory (even the Urdu (Pakistan) and Pashtu (Afghanistan) clerics don’t do Arabic too well). I know someone who did memorize the whole thing while a kid in Pakistan but today he has been deprogrammed and is a happy atheist so there is hope.
Annar on May 2, 2008 at 4:41 PM
I’ll never forget the first time we messaged each other - although I’ll keep trying.
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 4:42 PM
The evolutionist Genie talks about babbling and not backing up his claims with proof?! Well, I’ve just about seen it all.
“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.” 1 Timothy 6:20-21
“Profane and vain babblings” (that is, secular and pointless philosophy) are to be utterly avoided, not in the sense of fleeing from them, but rather of not being influenced by them, and rendering them void, and refuting them with truth. “Science falsley so called” is, literally “pseudo science” in the Greek. This pseudo science is nothing more than evolutionism, which has been in opposition against God as Savior and Creator, and against the world and His creation, since the beginning of time.
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 4:57 PM
Hey, Gene, when did you register at hotair. How long ago?
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 5:00 PM
What a moron. Folks, what he lacks in intelligence he makes up for in ignorance. Speaking of biology, Mike, tell me something…. answer me this. Do you believe in Embryology?” Meaning that an embryo growing in humans has gill slits?
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 5:06 PM
You’ve got no proof. It’s a shell game with one problem: the problem is that there is no pea under any of the shells. Nobody has the evidence — it’s a joke!
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 5:13 PM
Stop feeding the troll, it’s a waste of good electrons.
Annar on May 2, 2008 at 5:18 PM
Put this in laymans terms for everyone here Gene. You keep using your magic word, “abiogenesis” I understand what you’re saying, and you’re either ignorant of the evolution theory or you’re lying. But, explain it for those who don’t know. Explain what you mean when you say “abiogenesis”.
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 5:18 PM
Well said. Ol’ Genie here thinks evolution is not science. It is a belief. Sir Arthur Keith, the scientist who wrote the preface for the 100th anniversary edition of The Origin of Species, said, “Evolution is unproven and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation and that is unthinkable”. These scoundrals peddling this fairytale here are conmen of the highest order.
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 5:22 PM
Exactly. It is one of the laymest arguments going around here. Contrary to what snake oil salesman like Genie and Doc Mike are peddling here, there are indeed six different meanings to the word evolution starting with the Big Bang. Here, look at this. On the BBC Science & Nature page, front and center. Here’s a snippet:
“The Big Bang teyGylls us how the Universe began and is evolving. … it is a theory that was created to explain two facts that we know about the Universe - it is gradually expanding and cooling. In the 1920s, Edwin Hubble found that galaxies far from our own Milky Way are moving away from us. In fact, the further away galaxies are, the faster they are receding. So he concluded that the whole Universe must have been expanding. Working backwards this means that at one stage the Universe must have come from a single point.”
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 5:42 PM
Comment pages: « 1 … 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 »