Ben Stein withdraws as UVM commencement speaker after outcry over intelligent design
posted at 8:54 pm on February 3, 2009 by Allahpundit
Ben Stein described the brouhaha over his selection as commencement speaker at the University of Vermont as “laughable” on Tuesday called the whole episode “pathetic.”…
“I am far more pro-science than the Darwinists,” Stein said later in an e-mail. “I want all scientific inquiry to happen — not just what the ruling clique calls science.”
Stein’s comments came a day after UVM President Dan Fogel announced that Stein, whom Fogel had invited to address UVM’s commencement in May, would not be coming after all. Fogel said that his selection of Stein generated an intense protest, that he received hundreds of angry e-mails over the weekend, and that after he shared these “profound concerns” with Stein, Stein “immediately and most graciously declined our commencement invitation.”…
Stein called the university’s response to the furor “chicken sh**, and you can quote me on that.”
“I like Dr. Fogel,” Stein wrote, “and feel sorry he is caught in the meat grinder of political correctness. My heart goes out to him. He’s a great guy trying to do his best in difficult circumstances.”
I don’t care that he’s a creationist any more than I’d care if he were a phrenologist. It’s goofy, but so long as he doesn’t turn the speech into a lecture on the subject, I’m willing to tolerate his eccentricity. What I wouldn’t tolerate is his egregious bad-faith attempt to equate Darwinism with social Darwinism. Why would an audience filled with scientists and science majors want to be addressed by a guy who believes “science leads you to killing people”? Better yet, why would that guy want to address them? It’d be like inviting a liberal who believes conservatism is inherently racist to guest-blog on Hot Air. I get enough flak for linking HuffPo occasionally in Headlines that I can imagine how that’d go down with our readers.
Exit question: Can it really be that we’re creeping up on 9 p.m. on the east coast without a post yet on this from LGF?
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: « Previous 1 … 11 12 13
MB4: Again, you are arguing that all religion is equal. That’s false. That’s like saying that since Communism and dictatorships are both forms of government, they are the same.
Would I rather live in an Islamic state or Secularized Europe? It depends. Right now, if secular Europe was like San Francisco, and openly hostile to my particular faith, I fail to see really any difference. Islam, for the most part, is not a bad faith. Many of it’s morals are good. Lots are not, true, but it is eminently possible to be a good person and Islamic. Would I want to live in palestine? No. Turkey? Probably not bad. The Maldives? Sure, I’d like it there.
Vanceone on February 4, 2009 at 5:30 PM
By “it,” I mean speciation, and I think it has been proven that fixed, natural laws produced the diversity of species on Earth.
God is irrelevant to science. As you said, no one can prove anything one way or the other about God with science. So why would we teach about God in a science classroom, and why would Christians be offended that we don’t? It just seems like a common sense policy for good science education.
RightOFLeft on February 4, 2009 at 5:32 PM
I’m no biologist, let alone a professional one. Behe and his detractors mostly converse in a language I don’t understand. So I have no particular opinion of Behe’s work. But when I’ve tried to find refutation of Behe, I see muscular guffawing, and boisterous poo-pooing, but don’t really see a lot of meat on the bones. I’ve long wondered about things like the leap to multi-celled creatures, the development of organs (why are there no proto-organs in existence today?) — Behe’s basic premise seems, to this layman, to make sense. I’m not wanting to be convinced of something that’s not true; but I don’t want to fall for “debunking” of something that IS true, either.
RegularJoe on February 4, 2009 at 5:32 PM
Ahh. I wish you all well. Believers & unbelievers.
I am returning home to my heaven on Earth to feed my domestically evolved animals some domestically evolved ‘grass’.
As I unroll each bale from the safe confines of my pick-up, I will think of you all & the amazing discussions we had here.
BTW-I discussed our ‘conversations’ here with my 10th grade biology class today.
They were intrigued (I have at least 2 VERY religious kids)
& I believe with the proper guidance, they can all be trained to critically think for themselves.
Dear God I hope I’m up to the task!
Bye bye!
Badger40 on February 4, 2009 at 5:33 PM
There’s a difference between teaching something, and admitting that it is not out of the question. I don’t advocate a public school teaching that God exists, I just don’t want them teaching that he DOESN’T exist, either.
RegularJoe on February 4, 2009 at 5:34 PM
RightOFLeft on February 4, 2009 at 5:03 PM
OK RightOFLeft, I read parts of the page you sent me to last night as I promised, very heavy reading, I’m not a biologist. But I think I scanned their overall arguments in relationship to its relevance to evidence for evolution.
Please tell me, what did you find so compelling as an evidence for macro-evolution on that page.
Maxx on February 4, 2009 at 5:35 PM
I am an atheist. Allahpundit is an athiest. Einstein seemed to be pretty much an atheist (he certainly did not believe in a personal God or life after death). Mark Twain was an atheist. Even mother Teresa seemed to have her atheist moments. Exactly why do you think that none of us rampaged across the earth?
MB4 on February 4, 2009 at 5:36 PM
oh please…its been ‘disproven’ because some darwiniac like miller tells a ‘just-so’ story…hate to tell ya but irreducable complexity and ID has not been disproven…
ID is not about ‘proving’ a creator…you set up straw men..
right4life on February 4, 2009 at 5:38 PM
Eh, God created Satan, so even in that you could arguably blame God.
Esthier on February 4, 2009 at 5:40 PM
Vanceone, recall the Gospel stories where Jesus rebukes the Pharisees about building monuments to the prophets. This lesson is about human violence and how we are so so blind to our own propensities to hate-filled violence.
.
I’ll summarize and say that Jesus warns the Pharisees and then demonstrates that just when one is most assured of one’s own moral superiority over one’s benighted predecessors of faith one is most vulnerable to recapitulating the vicious hate-filled violence of one’s benighted predecessors.
.
Modernist critics of “old-time religion” fail here no less than did the 1st Century Pharisees.
.
It is interesting how Islam is blind to the anti-violence message of Jesus’s critique of the Pharisees and then how Islam appropriates rhetoric of Jesus’s critique and employs it as its own signature critique of the Jews and thereby recapitulates upon Jews the very vicious violence that Jesus warns about.
.
The old religions employ “the Sacred” to place limits on human propensity for violence. Atheism has no sacred. Therefore atheism has no indigenous/internal way of stopping unlimited retributive violence … this is how Atheism racked up such an enormous body count during the 20th Century.
.
In regards to “the Sacred”, Christianity BTW is anthropologically one of the worlds two anti-religions. The other more or less is Judaism …
Mike OMalley on February 4, 2009 at 5:40 PM
MB4: Not all people are bloodthirsty tyrants. Allah does enjoy stirring the hornet’s nest, though….. Twain did too.
I don’t know you or your personal attitudes, but I want to tell you one of my best friends is atheist. It does have a logical consistency. It also is a rather despairing philosophy.
Regardless, you and most others recognize (dimly, if nothing else) that there are universal moral laws. How to be happy isn’t that hard, really. But saying that God doesn’t exist as fact really eliminates a major reason to not give in to that urge to stick an ax into that person who just cut you off…..
Vanceone on February 4, 2009 at 5:41 PM
arrogant presumption…to think you are more intelligent than those men…
evolution is nothing more than an atheist fairy tale..
right4life on February 4, 2009 at 5:41 PM
good point…by evolutionists own logic natural selection would get rid of anything that evolved that didn’t have an immediate use…and unless you think very complex systems such as blood clotting evolved all at once..there is no way an incremental approach such as evolution could work….
right4life on February 4, 2009 at 5:44 PM
I can’t be doing that again as I have never done that in the first place.
As a matter of fact I have very much made the opposite point on numerous occasions. For example, a “blast from the past” -
MB4 on February 4, 2009 at 5:45 PM
I don’t think anyone is saying that just because you don’t believe in God that you are going to become a megalomaniac.
Maxx on February 4, 2009 at 5:49 PM
Well, then don’t say my choice is between Atheistic states such as the Netherlands and Islam. Some religion is better than Atheism, some is worse. I’d certainly not like to be a Molech worshipper, for instance.
Vanceone on February 4, 2009 at 5:50 PM
then you should read Humphrey’s starlight and time…
you sound like you think something is HARD for God to do…He rested on Sunday…the seventh day, if you will..but of course He could have done it in the blink of an eye…do you think He has difficulties with anything??
right4life on February 4, 2009 at 5:50 PM
Allah hates you this I know
For the Koran tells me so
Infidels Christians and Jews we bomb
They are weak but we are strong
Yes Allah hates you! Yes, Allah hates you! Yes, Allah hates you,
The Koran tells me so.
Allah hates you, you will die
Blow your ass up to the sky
Say the salat, chop off head,
Eat falafel, go to bed.
Yes, Allah hates you! Yes, Allah hates you! Yes, Allah hates you!
The Koran tells me so.
Aleph on February 4, 2009 at 5:53 PM
Anyway, gotta run. Pick up the wife and head home. Good luck all, with this discussion!
Vanceone on February 4, 2009 at 5:53 PM
All of it, but most especially:
RightOFLeft on February 4, 2009 at 5:56 PM
Not totally convinced you haven’t.
Esthier on February 4, 2009 at 5:58 PM
Sidebar – point of order:
I didn’t say that was your choice. In direct, in kind, response to what you said I said that if that was your choice.
MB4 on February 4, 2009 at 5:58 PM
RegularJoe on February 4, 2009 at 5:34 PM
Which god’s existance would you want the United States public schools
preachingteaching about? My son in laws’s parents would want Vishnu taught. I also have an acquaintance who believes in Ahura Mazda.Pelayo on February 4, 2009 at 6:02 PM
Well we all had another vote just last week at our periodic heathens meeting and the no to rampaging across the earth won by one vote. Normally the no’s have it by 2 votes, so no guarantees for the future.
MB4 on February 4, 2009 at 6:02 PM
A science class is not an appropriate place for that discussion. It would confuse students about the limits of scientific inquiry and waste instructional time on an irrelevant discussion. Also, no public school in America teaches that God doesn’t exist. Teaching evolution does not teach that God doesn’t exist.
RightOFLeft on February 4, 2009 at 6:02 PM
Hehe…lucky I missed that meeting.
ronsfi on February 4, 2009 at 6:12 PM
.
ID/Creationism are an abscess that must be excised from the GOPs backside and locked back in the attic where it belongs.
ronsfi on February 4, 2009 at 6:18 PM
Hey, make sure my yes vote gets counted. I’m sure I mailed my absentee ballot in before the deadline. I’m always down for a good rampaging.
Anna on February 4, 2009 at 6:21 PM
RightOFLeft on February 4, 2009 at 5:56 PM
Right, that is exactly the same theme I picked up on throughout the text. The point they are pushing hard is that all lifeforms have similar gene coding, sections of code that do the same things across the entire spectrum of life.
And their explanation for that is a common ancestor.
But couldn’t the explanation just as easily be a common Creator? A basic blueprint for biological life and similar systems that perform similar functions.
Think about it, don’t all internal combustion engines have basically the same components without regard to their size, or horsepower or what system they are providing power to?
Furthermore, the fact that the systems are similar argues against a random process bringing them all into existence.
If this is suppose to be one of their rally big and powerful /convincing arguments in favor of macro-evolution, its beyond lame.
Maxx on February 4, 2009 at 6:21 PM
Okay, let me say this again: I don’t want the school teaching that God doesn’t exist. It is not appropriate for a government school to teach or unteach religion. If a kid comes to school a Hindu, the school should leave him a Hindu. If he comes to school a Buddhist, the school should not try to “fix” him. If he comes to school believing in Jesus, the school shouldn’t try to make him un-believe. That’s why I said
You’re right, a science class is not a place for that discussion. Acknowledge that science neither proves nor disproves God’s existence, and move on with no further discussion. If a student says “I believe [insert God of your choice here] created the universe”, the answer is typically something like “take your fairy tales about sky-gods back to church”; when it should be “Science can’t really say for certain why these things happened or if there was any intelligent design behind it; maybe there was, maybe there wasn’t.”
But that’s not good enough for most scientists, because they are determined to crush belief in God. And for government schools to allow them to do so violates that famous wall between church & state. But it’s okay to do it that way. Right?
RegularJoe on February 4, 2009 at 6:29 PM
It’s pretty technical, so there’s a subtle point that might not be coming through. Yes, simple similarity is consistent with a creator who didn’t want to “reinvent the wheel.” It would also be consistent with common ancestry. But in this case the genes are defective, so there’s really no reason to reuse them.
I’ll revisit this, because I think you’re being too glib in your dismissal, and I want to think about the clearest way to make my argument. Gotta go now, unfortunately.
RightOFLeft on February 4, 2009 at 6:38 PM
Ok, one more thing. Keep in mind, this is just one part of a comprehensive body of evidence for evolution. Taken individually, some of the evidence can look ambiguous. Taken all together, it’s just not reasonable that speciation occurred by any other means.
RightOFLeft on February 4, 2009 at 6:42 PM
The fact that you dismissed an argument with a snotty statement, shows that you do not understand the argument. You don’t need to put “God” under a microscope…you put his creation under a microscope.
I doubt you even have the faintest understanding of Dembski, or of Behe’s predictions (whose biggest critics are, philosophers of science, not scientists).
If you read my post you would better understand…I am not the one saying the other does not exist, cannot happen…you are the one with the narrow closed mind.
Why are is there no evidence of transition of species to another…you look at from an already preconceived absolute, most of us look at it and really wonder why. Is there an answer? Let’s find out, until then we can’t rule out either one of the two…if you are objective, and you are not.
We know adaptation exists, we know some species are similar to others, but we have never found that one key that really shows that evolution does exist…it is a theory, just a theory.
right2bright on February 4, 2009 at 6:47 PM
Yes, but I thought you pointed to this particular text because you thought is was so compelling. If the arguments can be deconstructed as easily as this one, then your “body of evidence” is no more than vapor.
A gene segment that is “defective” across the broad spectrum of life? If that is the case, then the argument would have substance. But are they sure the genes are “defective” or is it that they just haven’t determined this segment’s purpose yet?
Maxx on February 4, 2009 at 6:54 PM
Ever wonder how long that took?
VekTor on February 4, 2009 at 6:55 PM
Likewise for those viewing the page on an iPhone. =P
VekTor on February 4, 2009 at 7:03 PM
Just give me a heads up, and I’ll stay out of your way.
Esthier on February 4, 2009 at 7:06 PM
You are so full of anger, that you don’t read the posts.
Easy turbo, it was a little levity, no it wasn’t “hard”, I don’t like to apply our senses on to God, hard, easy, etc. does not apply to Him, but those are words we understand, and I did not say hard, but he didn’t in a “blink of an eye”, he took days, and like I said, he still didn’t finish on time.
, then He rested. Even He had a problem with time management….there just isn’t enough time in a day, even for the One that made the day.
You never mentioned about “setting the lights” and not explaining the earth’s rotation or the rotation around the sun…so He just “set” them? No, he put them in motion, why didn’t He say, I put them in motion (ego yood noon samech, for you Hebrew guys).
And no I don’t think He had a problem with anything, even evolution if He wanted it, maybe just for fish, if He wanted to…nothing you can do about it, it was His world not yours, or your pastors, or your priests, or your theologian, or your scientists.
That is why you cannot discern how God made the earth, nor can you for sure tell us what process He used…did He use Craftsman tools? Maybe His hands? Did He have hands? Maybe he twitched his nose?
The fact is, it is so far beyond us (but apparently not you), and he may have put a little trigger in there where a fish becomes a mammal…are you saying he couldn’t do that, or wouldn’t do that?
That doesn’t diminish what He “accomplished” pretty good work for 6 days and a few overtime hours on Sunday (hope he got time and 1/2).
right2bright on February 4, 2009 at 7:10 PM
I try not to wonder about things like that while I’m sober.
Esthier on February 4, 2009 at 7:10 PM
Tiiiimmmeee was on his side, yes it was, I said Tiiiiiime was on his side…
Mick knew that years ago…
right2bright on February 4, 2009 at 7:14 PM
This is a classic case of evidence that isn’t. It’s just like the supposed proof of the evolution of a horse. You find fossils of similar extinct animals, arrange them in an increasing order of complexity, and declare that you’ve proved that one evolved from another.
To be actual proof, you would have to show the evolution occurring, not just list the examples and fill in the blanks.
Evolution can be defended as a scientific theory of how things could have happened. The problem is, it can also be criticized as a scientific theory. But the constant attempt to claim that evolution is proven and beyond dispute is not supportable with the evidence we have.
Which is exactly why evolution should not be defended as if it were a religion. The attempts to expel those who don’t accept it, the dis-invitation of Stein for the offense of arguing against it, the attempt to ridicule those who raise objections: these are all the mark of religious fanatics. You claim evolution is science, but your actions declare it is more.
tom on February 4, 2009 at 7:17 PM
Same old saw.
Other “Just Theories”
Germ Theory
Atomic Theory
Cell Theory
Circuit Theory
Plate Tecktonics
General and Special Relativity.
All “Just Theory”
Evolution is a fact. The specifics of the process is Theory
ronsfi on February 4, 2009 at 7:17 PM
Rampaging just isn’t good enough…Conan has the answer:
right2bright on February 4, 2009 at 7:18 PM
since evolution is a fact…why don’t you give me the exact sequence of mutations that led to an eye..in order of course.
don’t worry, I won’t hold my breath…
right4life on February 4, 2009 at 7:22 PM
I get so tired of these psuedo-psychiatrists….please, give me a break. you are clueless.
I don’t even know where you get this fantasy at…you’re saying God failed….not a chance. He wouldn’t be God if He did. and you say you are a christian??? please.
this borders on delusional…ok its passed the line…
He didn’t explain how to create a nuclear bomb either…so?
oh please, you cannot prove evolution from the bible, so you have to come up with these fantasies…ya got nothing, sorry.
you may want to seek professional help though…
right4life on February 4, 2009 at 7:27 PM
Wiki is great for quick and dirty overview of some subjects…and many can be just made up.
I don’t consider them an absolute authority on very much.
Try these:
Here
Here
I think if you do more research then just Wiki, you will find that evolution is a theory, not a fact…the fact is, it is not taught by any real university as fact, but as theory with supporting facts.
They “hope” that they will find the facts to finally prove it…we will see, they haven’t yet.
The drive isn’t to prove evolution, it is to destroy religion.
right2bright on February 4, 2009 at 7:29 PM
uh yeah sure…thats why miller put this in a textbook:
philosphical materialism is atheism.
right4life on February 4, 2009 at 7:30 PM
When will we learn to separate belief from scientific research?
OldEnglish on February 4, 2009 at 7:34 PM
ask dawkins.
right4life on February 4, 2009 at 7:36 PM
.
Yes I have done the research and your condescension betrays your weak argument. Evolution is fact.
The wiki is a good list and illustrative. Also the old attack the source when you can’t touch the substance is par for the course for Evolution Deniers.
Here is a link for you research and I know of no more comprehensive source.
Good nuf?
ronsfi on February 4, 2009 at 7:38 PM
Thanks for making my point.
I gave you the bible verse where God finished up his work on day seven. Are you saying the Bible is inaccurate?
No, you silly boy, I was pointing out your anger, you said He finished and rested, I was saying He finished on the seventh day…how could He fail, it was His time schedule…you little nutty guy you.
He didn’t mention the nuclear bomb, he mentioned the sun and the moon…my point was, and I will type real slow…He did not explain everything that He did…so you don’t know whether he threw in an ol “fish to mammal” move.
And if you notice, if you actually read my posts, I am a creationist, but not a blind creationist…I know My God can do anything, and He has pulled some pretty good miracles, and events, out of His “hat” (yes, I know He didn’t wear a hat, and if He did, He would have looked like John Wayne).
Now go back and read your bible where it says he finished on the seventh day, then he rested on the seventh day, and apologize to me….
That’s a joke, you were wrong but you never apologize…
right2bright on February 4, 2009 at 7:39 PM
still waiting for the list of mutations that created the eye…
but in the meantime since evolution is FACT…then it is reproducable…why don’t you take a bacteria, and evolve it into a multi-cellular animal…should be simple, since evolution is all in all…praise Darwin, the hairygod of evolution!!
right4life on February 4, 2009 at 7:41 PM
I’m saying you’re delusional.
well its pretty obvious He didn’t. but this has nothing to do with evolution, which is a totally secular theory. dawkins would find your arguing evolution from the bible as ridiculous as I do…no doubt.
I think you need a course in bible interpretation 101…
right4life on February 4, 2009 at 7:44 PM
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&client=firefox&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=JHD&q=evolution%20of%20the%20eye&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv#
ronsfi on February 4, 2009 at 7:45 PM
Fact
ronsfi on February 4, 2009 at 7:45 PM
There is a name for that argument tactic, probably Latin for Scheisskopf.
Pelayo on February 4, 2009 at 7:46 PM
Fact
ronsfi on February 4, 2009 at 7:47 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOtP7HEuDYA
ronsfi on February 4, 2009 at 7:48 PM
I know the site, read it many times, it is an pro-evolution site.
The sites I gave you were a balance (one was the scientist of the Dept of Energy)…I was hoping you would catch that.
Here is one of the main subjects on your bias site:
Notice, even an evolutionary site calls it a theory.
You will find very few real scientist calling evolution a fact and not a theory…you calling it that does not make it so, what doctorate do you have in this subject?
I won’t bore you with any creation sites, you won’t read them nor would you really want to see any facts that dispute what you believe…God forbid that.
You have made up your mind…
right2bright on February 4, 2009 at 7:48 PM
Here’s a purdy picher fur ya
http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/43/79543-004-C3F00EE8.jpg
ronsfi on February 4, 2009 at 7:49 PM
No S@#$! If I sent you to MIT would that be pro Engineering and so disqualified. Jeeze what is your point?
ronsfi on February 4, 2009 at 7:52 PM
I am familiar with the major creationist/ID sites and all the discredited claims.
I am done now since this is the point where in defeat the ID trolls start slinging insults.
ronsfi on February 4, 2009 at 8:02 PM
You seem like a King James kind of guy so here is a little quote.
Now what do you think it means when it says “on the seventh day God ended his work”, do you think that on the seventh day he finished? Then he rested…or did the interpreters make a mistake? and mean on the sixth day he finished?
Notice the transposition of the verbs and nouns? A common error… it transposed before consonant and forms a diphthong…he finished on the seventh day…but it doesn’t matter to the intent that he rested on the seventh day, so this is one of those areas where you would have to be living at the time and talking to the person writing.
Class is out, be sure and do your reading and if you have any question, I will answer them tomorrow.
And no, I never expect you to apologize…that would be to Christian of you…
right2bright on February 4, 2009 at 8:04 PM
Aren’t you the one that started off your retort with this?
Nice try, nice dodge, I am sure you will find some noted scientist, somewhere that says it is fact and not a theory…but you haven’t yet.
right2bright on February 4, 2009 at 8:07 PM
What is the scientific explanation/hypothesis for the origins of matter and forces? Just curious as to what the commonly excepted theory is.
Itchee Dryback on February 4, 2009 at 8:13 PM
Yes and when I provide that you move the goal post again and so on, and so on. Ad nauseum. Why don’t you explain how god created first himself then the universe and provide falsifiable, testable predictions. Publish the results in an Scientific Journal and then you can start demanding more stringent evidence. I won’t wait since of course you can do none of these things.
ronsfi on February 4, 2009 at 8:26 PM
OMG—-I just listened to my wife singing Jesus loves me to our grandaughter, lmfao
UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on February 4, 2009 at 8:26 PM
Big Bang.
OldEnglish on February 4, 2009 at 8:33 PM
There is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact.[3]
Hermann J. Muller
The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1946
ronsfi on February 4, 2009 at 8:54 PM
No I mean the origin of the matter and forces that made the big bang possible…..where did that stuff come from, and in what environment did it exist prior to the bang?
Itchee Dryback on February 4, 2009 at 9:10 PM
No, I pointed to it because you asked for proof of “Macroevolution” and I thought it was the strongest argument out of some very strong arguments. And I think if you read it closely, it answers your questions. I don’t have time right now to give it the argument it deserves, but everything you want to know is in the article.
You really are a $#%^.
RightOFLeft on February 4, 2009 at 9:18 PM
One could consult Stephen Hawking and Aquinas. Otherwise, modern science is unable to answer your question Mr. Dryback. Our best empirical science can’t go back further than Planck Time
Mike OMalley on February 4, 2009 at 9:22 PM
One could consult Stephen Hawking and Aquinas. Otherwise, modern science is unable to answer your question Mr. Dryback. Our best empirical science can’t go back further than Planck Time
Mike OMalley on February 4, 2009 at 9:23 PM
Since we require structure and radiation in order to observe and analyze, we can go no further back than the moment when radiation began. This only occurred after the Big bang, when atomic structure began to form.
Prior to that, we can only theorize that matter was in the form of energy (whatever that is), subject to gravity. At some point, the heat built up by compression would have overcome gravity, hence the Big bang.
This theory would only work in a Cyclic Universe, and that is hotly contested by many.
OldEnglish on February 4, 2009 at 9:24 PM
I agree, and that is the point of my claim that “science” has no more valid an explanation than “creationism” does for….well..”creation”, both would fall into the arena of faith, if one were to be honest.
Evolution is another topic.
Itchee Dryback on February 4, 2009 at 9:27 PM
Yes faith, but faith and reason – Fides et Ratio
Mike OMalley on February 4, 2009 at 10:42 PM
To my mind, the most important difference between creationism and free scientific inquiry is that science leads to new discovery and insight into the world around us. Creationism is a thought-stopper. I understand how someone can be content with their God of the gaps, but that does not lead us anywhere. Saying “God did it” leads to premature closure of the argument over where we came from.
starflyer on February 4, 2009 at 10:43 PM
No much much earlier, before matter and energy emerged. We may not be able to observe and emperically test anything before the emergence of either quantum gravity or the Strong Force from the initial unity of the gauge symmetries and quantum gravity (See TOE = theory of everything) This probably occurred around Planck Time.
Mike OMalley on February 4, 2009 at 10:57 PM
Just be sure you distinguish between literalist Creationism and the intellectual wealth of ID. ID is no show stopper.
Mike OMalley on February 4, 2009 at 11:00 PM
.
Simply replacing the word “God” with “Designer” changes nothing and fools no one. ID is merely Creation Science re-branded and tweaked specifically to skirt the issues that caused it to be shot down in the courts during the 1980s.
ronsfi on February 4, 2009 at 11:46 PM
Evolution is fiction.
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on February 5, 2009 at 1:59 AM
Evolution is fiction.
Now if I post that a few dozen more times, I will have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution is a made-up story.
Just borrowing ronsfi’s technique….
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on February 5, 2009 at 2:00 AM
Thank you for the update. Science is galloping along faster than this old man can keep up.
OldEnglish on February 5, 2009 at 2:08 AM
Religion is fantasy.
OldEnglish on February 5, 2009 at 2:10 AM
Here’s how I look at it.
The position of creationism/ID is that the Sistine Chapel obviously didn’t paint itself. Therefore, someone must have painted it.
The position of Darwinian atheism is that we don’t know who painted the Sistine Chapel. Therefore, it MUST have painted itself!
At least, that’s the impression I’ve always gotten. Who’s not thinking?
Cylor on February 5, 2009 at 2:23 AM
It’s closer to evolution saying that it appears as though the ceiling was painted through a series of small, gradual brushstrokes that added up to a complex image, whereas ID says that all of the paint plopped onto the ceiling instantly.
justfinethanks on February 5, 2009 at 2:36 AM
Atheism says, “There is no God, and I’ll fight Him till I die.”
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on February 5, 2009 at 2:37 AM
Actually, that’s funny. :)
OldEnglish on February 5, 2009 at 2:53 AM
Rather like replacing “Global Warming” with “Climate Change”. Pretty much the same modus operandi.
MB4 on February 5, 2009 at 3:03 AM
MB4 on February 5, 2009 at 3:06 AM
.
JFT, you are either making a strawman argument or you have confused ID with literalist Creationism. Because, if this is what you think ID says then you don’t know what you are talking about. I’d suggest you do some homework. Stop reading the critics of ID and start reading Michael Behe.
Mike OMalley on February 5, 2009 at 6:31 AM
uh its pretty obvious, He rested on the seventh day, didn’t do any work…other than of course uphold the universe by the Word of His power…but you seem to have some fanciful interpretation…it means what it means….whats so hard???
and to think that God couldn’t do it in 6 days…and somehow lied or was powerless….is really confusing and strange…I’m not sure what point you are trying to make here…
apologize??? for what? considering your use of the bible to justify evolution? or doubting God could wrap things up in 6 days??? I’m really puzzled about this whole conversation…..
uh yeah He was done on the seventh day…so? you think He still did work…again you seem to be alone in this interpretation….which should tell you something…
you are arrogant and condescending…like the good ‘christian’ you are….nice.
yeah you’re a legend in your own mind…
right4life on February 5, 2009 at 9:01 AM
in your case its german for dumbkoff…
right4life on February 5, 2009 at 9:03 AM
Whats the reason part in that equation?
I’m guessing it would be the honest scientists position of “we don’t know”?
This is the same as the ID holders position of “Lets look at it”, and that seems reasonable to me. But if people on either side start to claim “Thats bull” while pointing their fingers at the opposing side, neither are exhibiting reason.
The only accurate position, imo,..when the question is the origins of the universe..is to be agnostic.
Evolution is another topic.
Itchee Dryback on February 5, 2009 at 9:09 AM
Yeah, not so much…wait a second. Did you just say that evolutionary theory can be interpreted as implying that there was someone holding the brush, and painting deliberately?
Cylor on February 5, 2009 at 6:29 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 11 12 13