Richard Dawkins Gets "Expelled" by Ben Stein!

by Perry 365 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  Perry

  Do you mean fighting for the scientific acceptance of the term intelligent design? Do you think it's important the scientific community accepts the possibility of intelligent design as a scientific theory?

  hamilcarr,

  I've already stated what I believe is fair. A lot of scientists already accept the tenet of intelligent design. That is how their research is carried out. Then when they write their papers they have to use "approved" terms and stay away from unapproved terms like "design" even though that is the idea behind much of their work.

  In the film, many scientists spoke only on condition of anoniminity, in the dark, with their faces covered. You'd think that we were listening to folks from a comunist country, not from a "free" democracy. It is shameful that this was allowed to develop. But here we are, with many of our scientists hiding in the dark. Does that sound like science to you?
• 

  serotonin_wraith

  Amen to that. I'm curious, do you think Dawkins was lying when he said that life might have come from evolved aliens, who came from evolved aliens?

  We covered this. I believe Dawkins was asked if he could think of a situation in which intelligent design could have taken place, and he gave the best response he could think of, without actually believing it. A 'what if?' question. But like you've said, I'll have to see the video to know for sure.

  What about the teaching of ambiogenesis? Are you just as rigorous for only teaching testable things here as well. What about scientists who disagree with many of the tenets of evolution? Are you willing for our children to hear those arguments as well?

  I wasn't taught abiogenesis. We're still working on that one. It's not something that can be presented as fact in science lessons, not until we know all the details. Science classes are for passing on facts.

  What about scientists who disagree with many of the tenets of evolution? Are you willing for our children to hear those arguments as well?

  No more than I want children being taught the earth is flat or storks deliver babies. Is it any wonder that all (or most) ID believers are Christians who take the Genesis account literally? Their minds are made up already and they have an agenda.

  Evolution is not an atheist agenda. Many religious people accept it too. Why? It's just a fact.

  Now, scientists can argue over the mechanics of evolution and that's fine. It's called ironing out the details. Those disagreements are fine to teach. Punctuated equilibrium, for example.

  What about the wildly non-sensical idea of infinite universes to explain the complexity of life? What about unicorns....why not teach that they might have started life..... it just keeps getting more absurd the father one gets into the atheist box.

  The problem is you don't understand evolution. If you did, you would know it has nothing to do with infinite universes (one of two hypothesis I presented for how our universe may have started, don't forget. I haven't said I believed it). Evolution is just about how species change over time.

  I should ask you the unicorn question. You're saying there was an intelligent designer. A being with a 'mind' that designed us. I'm not.

  Natural selection made easy- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_RXX7pntr8

  Once you understand it properly, it's just completely obvious. It explains the complexity of life very well. If you're open minded enough to watch.
• 

  Perry

  Once you understand it properly, it's just completely obvious. It explains the complexity of life very well. If you're open minded enough to watch.

  This is what is know as a mantra. It just gets repeated over and over until people tire of thinking about it and throw their hands up and say if these people who are so vocal are so cock sure, then it must be true.

  That's what I.D. is all about.... The growing number of scientists and thinking people in general that are convinced that natural selection could not possibly account for the complexity of life.

  Unfortunately, they pay a heavy price for questioning orthodoxy.
• 

  hooberus

  Natural selection made easy- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_RXX7pntr8

  Once you understand it properly, it's just completely obvious. It explains the complexity of life very well. If you're open minded enough to watch.

  I watched it and found it to make false claims such as: "after years of rejecting these simple steps of natural selection some creationist preachers are now embracing them" which is patently false. (It was even a creationist [Edward Blyth] who though of the concept of natural selction years before Darwin.)

  For a treatment of natual selection see the "Biotic message" http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm as well as "Genetic Entropy and the mystery of the Human Genome" (both availaible from www.creationresearch.org), then you will know more about the subject of real NS then probably 98% of internet evolutionists (though they will still lecture you on your "ignorance" )
• 

  Juan Viejo

  Has anyone explored the possibility that Ben Stein might be playing a joke on all of us? Stein is one of the most intelligent and learned celebrities still regularly in the public eye. His resume is long and full of many accomplishments.

  One of his greatest assets is his sense of humor. I mean, how many actors could have simply said, "Bueller......Bueller......Bueller......Bueller" and have the audience laughing their butts off. Stein did. He may be playing with our heads, just to get us to think about the possibilities and not be so dogmatic about our positions.

  JV
• 

  inkling

  He may be playing with our heads, just to get us to think about the possibilities and not be so dogmatic about our positions.

  I think you are giving him too much credit.

  Past (dubious) comedic achievements aside, Ben Stein is a tool.

  [inkling]
• 

  5go

  Has anyone explored the possibility that Ben Stein might be playing a joke on all of us? Stein is one of the most intelligent and learned celebrities still regularly in the public eye. His resume is long and full of many accomplishments.

  Let me see speech writer for Nixon, two bit part in a movie, a game show host, impersonating an economist, teardrop spokesman, and a bad Michael Moore impersonator. Yeah I quess.
• 

  serotonin_wraith

  Perry,

  Your mind is made up already. I'm offering more than a mantra. You're a good advertisement to show how religious beliefs can close the mind.

  hooberus,

  I checked the site and to get the information I'd have to purchase a book. Can you just tell me yourself why natural selection doesn't account for the complexity of life?

  I hope you'd agree small changes take place in species. If a species can change a little bit, what's to stop it changing a little bit more? If there's a small change, then another, and another, over millions of years those small changes will add up. You'll end up with something that looks completely different to how it started out.

  That's all evolution is, and yes, creationists do claim to deny this. However, when some say animals diversified quickly after Noah's flood due to natural selection, they're basically explaining evolution!

  Small changes + time = complex life forms.
• 

  inrainbows

  Dear Creationists and those using the Trojan Horse of ID.

  Stop being such children. The "Boo hoo! Wah! Unfair!" routine only really convinces you.

  Pure Bible-literal Creationism and ID are hypotheses. It is down to those supporting those hypotheses to provide the proof to life them from hypothesis to theory. It is not down to general science to prove your hypotheses.

  Making out that your own inability to lift your hypothesis to the status of theory is anyone's fault other than your own is intellectual dishonesty.

  Do people give credence to someone with a hypothesis of perpetual motion (for example) when they cannot make it a theory? No. Do they accept it is the fault of others (i.e. wicked bad conspiracy of scientists) that Mr Perpetual motion can't make his hypothesis a theory? No.

  They reckon that it is someone who whilst maybe being very sincere is a little clueless scientifically speaking and is blaming their own failure on others.

  There are millions of dollars in the Creationism/ID business given by sincere people to organisations who are pandering to those sincere people's beliefs by giving the Creationism/ID hypotheses the semblance of credibility.

  But in the end everyone who really looks can see the Emperor has no clothes.

  With the funding that they it is well within the abilities of the Creationism/ID lobby groups to make a decent scientific attempt to prove thie rhypotheses are valid theories.

  They cannot. They know this.

  So instead they do the only thing they can do; spread mis-information and blame someone else for their own inability to prove their own hypotheses.
• 

  hooberus

  hooberus,

  I checked the site and to get the information I'd have to purchase a book. Can you just tell me yourself why natural selection doesn't account for the complexity of life?

  I hope you'd agree small changes take place in species. If a species can change a little bit, what's to stop it changing a little bit more? If there's a small change, then another, and another, over millions of years those small changes will add up. You'll end up with something that looks completely different to how it started out.

  That's all evolution is, and yes, creationists do claim to deny this.

  Wait a minute. The film you linked to gives five "steps" (from 3:00 to 4:00) and then states:

  "after years of rejecting these simple steps of natural selection some creationist preachers are now embracing them"

  Please first either disavow such a statement or list the steps and show that creationists have been rejecting for years the five items (or even some of them).