That Ben Stein is a lying sack of shiat?... I believe most of us were aware of that fact already.

Sadly the people who believe in this crap don't read the scientific american.

I was at the premiere for that last night. I shook Ben Stein's hand, mostly by virtue of being right next to the hallway where he came out into the crowd.

I was just standing to one side listening to one of my professors talking to someone else when all of a sudden someone passes in front of me, sticks out his hand, and when I reach out automatically to take it, says "Hi, I'm Ben Stein, what's your name?"

The film goes from reasonable to ridiculous when it suggests that evolution (which he calls 'Darwinism' throughout), will lead to atheism, low morality, and another Holocaust. But it features a number of people who seem rather sane and sober who think ID could pose a new model for science, and they uniformly resist the idea that the Christian God has to be the designer. Having watched it, I wouldn't mind seeing more open dialogue about what ID actually is and whether it could be hard science.

Nonetheless, it's going to be catnip for those who really are creationists.

Ben, you lying slut.

Egoy: Sadly the people who believe in this crap don't read the scientific american.

Some of the more virulent do. But sadly, what they call Scientific American, everyone else calls the King James Version of the Bible.

My estimation of Ben Stein has dropped so much in the last few years.

Chariset: Having watched it, I wouldn't mind seeing more open dialogue about what ID actually is and whether it could be hard science.

You say that as if that dialogue has not been raging for well over a decade.

Here's some stuff to get you started:
Wikipedia's article on Intelligent Design ^{(^)}
Talk.Origins Archive ^{(^)}

Michael Moore: Selectively alters quotes, video, and the truth in general to prove his point.
Conservatives: Moore is a fat lying fark who should die from choking on a hot dog.

Ben Stein: Selectively alters quotes, video, and the truth in general to prove his point.
Conservatives: Aha! Finally, definitive proof that we're right! Suck it, scientists!

Blues_X: Ben, you lying slut.

He was a speech writer for Nixon after all...

/I wonder if he wrote "I am not a crook"?

Oh, and I'll add that nowhere in the film does he or any expert offer a robust definition of intelligent design.

The Internet: Fact-checking your ass since 1969

Aha! Just as I expected. Another militant atheist circle jerk.

*backs out*

sepuku2: Aha! Just as I expected. Another militant atheist circle jerk.


riiiiight...

Chariset: I was at the premiere for that last night. I shook Ben Stein's hand, mostly by virtue of being right next to the hallway where he came out into the crowd.

I was just standing to one side listening to one of my professors talking to someone else when all of a sudden someone passes in front of me, sticks out his hand, and when I reach out automatically to take it, says "Hi, I'm Ben Stein, what's your name?"

The film goes from reasonable to ridiculous when it suggests that evolution (which he calls 'Darwinism' throughout), will lead to atheism, low morality, and another Holocaust. But it features a number of people who seem rather sane and sober who think ID could pose a new model for science, and they uniformly resist the idea that the Christian God has to be the designer. Having watched it, I wouldn't mind seeing more open dialogue about what ID actually is and whether it could be hard science.

Nonetheless, it's going to be catnip for those who really are creationists.

ID is nothing but creationism. the concept that there is a god, or some greater force that designed nature, isn't proven or disproven by the science... it can't be, as the very concept is one of a force that exists beyond what science is concerned with.

that question is an interesting debate, but not a scientific one. it is a philosophical question, and must be a philosophical debate.

so the idea of a designer is philosophy, has nothing to do with science, and the actual ID movement is nothing but thinly veiled fundamentalist christian creationism, trying to take a philosophical question and have it pollute a scientific discussion.

oh, and

sepuku2: Another militant atheist circle jerk.

When someone speaks bluntly about tax, welfare, defense, spending, law, crime, or any other type of policy, and exposes the holes and flaws in another's opinion as to the same, he is never a "militant ________."

But when someone dares to take off the kid gloves and speak bluntly about religion, he's a "militant atheist." Right.

burndtdan: ID is nothing but creationism. the concept that there is a god, or some greater force that designed nature, isn't proven or disproven by the science... it can't be, as the very concept is one of a force that exists beyond what science is concerned with.

that question is an interesting debate, but not a scientific one. it is a philosophical question, and must be a philosophical debate.

so the idea of a designer is philosophy, has nothing to do with science, and the actual ID movement is nothing but thinly veiled fundamentalist christian creationism, trying to take a philosophical question and have it pollute a scientific discussion.

This, basically. And the people who started ID know it. It is just an attempt to get God into science class, just like ID's predecessor Christian Science was.

I personally have no big problem with the core ideas of ID as a philosophy. Believe what you will-- just don't try to call it science.

sepuku2: Aha! Just as I expected. Another militant atheist circle jerk.

*backs out*

I am not an atheist. In fact, I go to church nearly every Sunday. However, my belief in God does not require me to pretend that ID is not science because it is is a system of unprovable beliefs.

That said, I will never understand why both sides of this debate cannot see that their approaches can be harmonized. Science has explained the beginning of the cosmos which came via the Big Bang. But where did the mass and energy of the bang come from? That is sort of my current belief system for what it is worth.

sepuku2: Aha! Just as I expected. Another militant atheist circle jerk.

*backs out*

Aha! Just as I expected. Another worthless, brainless, childish ad hominem disguised as rational thought.

Come back when you can bring something to the table, Skeezix. Otherwise STFU and let the grownups talk, mmmmmkay?

wyltoknow: Michael Moore: Selectively alters quotes, video, and the truth in general to prove his point.
Conservatives: Moore is a fat lying fark who should die from choking on a hot dog.

Ben Stein: Selectively alters quotes, video, and the truth in general to prove his point.
Conservatives: Aha! Finally, definitive proof that we're right! Suck it, scientists!

They should just eat each other, but I highly doubt that Moore is Kosher.

BritneysSpeculum: That said, I will never understand why both sides of this debate cannot see that their approaches can be harmonized.

There's nothing to debate - these are not opposing viewpoints on the same subject. One is make-believe, one is science. There is no way to harmonize them.

Science has explained the beginning of the cosmos which came via the Big Bang. But where did the mass and energy of the bang come from?

There may never be an answer to that - indeed the very question could be meaningless. Science is grappling with it, though, while the believers are sticking to their 2000-year-old desert religion.

burndtdan: ID is nothing but creationism. the concept that there is a god, or some greater force that designed nature, isn't proven or disproven by the science... it can't be, as the very concept is one of a force that exists beyond what science is concerned with.

that question is an interesting debate, but not a scientific one. it is a philosophical question, and must be a philosophical debate.

so the idea of a designer is philosophy, has nothing to do with science, and the actual ID movement is nothing but thinly veiled fundamentalist christian creationism, trying to take a philosophical question and have it pollute a scientific discussion.


This. ID is philosophy and as such should remain in philosophy classes.

Chariset: The film goes from reasonable to ridiculous when it suggests that evolution (which he calls 'Darwinism' throughout), will lead to atheism, low morality, and another Holocaust.

Lovely. That's not an argument, it's an ultimatum.

Argumentum ad baculum: Appeal to Fear.

Talon: This. ID is philosophy and as such should remain in philosophy classes.

As a philosopher from the Wittgentstein school of thought, I simply can't agree.

ID is metaphysics, and as such, deserves no seat at the table of genuine philosophy.

i>You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.

I find it sad/amusing that the ID crowd tends to overlook this part of their inerrant bible.

ID is not science

Stating that it is is a sin against God.

And lets get this out of the way

Yoko's +5 Scream of Dissonance will take care of him.

Diogenes: Talon: This. ID is philosophy and as such should remain in philosophy classes.

As a philosopher from the Wittgentstein school of thought, I simply can't agree.

ID is metaphysics, and as such, deserves no seat at the table of genuine philosophy.

it might be stupid philosophy, but scientists shouldn't have to be the ones making fun of it, because it has absolutely nothing to do with science.

That Sean Penn needs to STFU. Oh, Ben Stein? That's okay, then.

TFA: ...the producers first arranged to interview them for a film that was to be called Crossroads, which was allegedly a documentary on "the intersection of science and religion."

They were going to name the movie the same as this one?



Sounds fishy...

FTA: Darwin explicitly rejected the idea of eliminating the "weak" as dehumanizing and evil. Those words falsify Expelled's argument.

A lot of wind can be taken out of Expelled's sails if it was known why Darwin believed that selective murder was wrong.

Was it because he came up with the statement before he became agnostic, therefore believing that it should be left to "God's will" to take life? Or was it due to the Universal Unitarian influences in his life that have a strong belief in love towards all?

Lets be honest, a lot of people consider Unitarianism to be one step away from being agnostic. But if Darwin though that it was only God's place to keep the race pure... well, then Stein pretty much fuq'ored Darwin's entire view on the subject.


FTA: proponents of evolution appearing in Expelled have publicly remarked, the producers first arranged to interview them for a film that was to be called Crossroads, which was allegedly a documentary on "the intersection of science and religion." They were subsequently surprised to learn that they were appearing in Expelled, which "exposes the widespread persecution of scientists and educators who are pursuing legitimate, opposing scientific views to the reigning orthodoxy,"

Sue the producers. Granted, the release forms these people signed may not state which movie their interviews would be used for, so such a lawsuit may have little merit, but somebody with a background in law may have a better understanding as to the legality of that contract if deception was used in obtaining it.

BritneysSpeculum: But where did the mass and energy of the bang come from? That is sort of my current belief system for what it is worth.

One day, people who advance this argument are going to understand that "causality" and "before and after" are all limited to discussions INSIDE the universe.

Time, and thus all notions of causality, is a dimension of the universe. There is literally no meaningful sense of "before" the universe, any more than "after", because those questions only make sense within the context of a linear temporal dimension.

Just because you don't understand what that really means - and the obvious implications - doesn't mean for a second that it suggests a religious answer.

burndtdan: it might be stupid philosophy, but scientists shouldn't have to be the ones making fun of it, because it has absolutely nothing to do with science.

The point is, neither should philosophers. ID is neither philosophy nor science; it is in the realm of non-logical constructions.

Hell, even questions like "What color are unicorns?" invoke philosophical questions about language and ontology; ID asks no questions. It just purports to answer all questions with "God did it!".

Diogenes: Talon: This. ID is philosophy and as such should remain in philosophy classes.

As a philosopher from the Wittgentstein school of thought, I simply can't agree.

ID is metaphysics, and as such, deserves no seat at the table of genuine philosophy.

Let's cross that bridge just as soon as we get the majority of 'tards out there to stop demanding their unscientific argument be put into science classes ;P

Life had to begin somewhere and things don't come from nothing so it must be the work of God who has no beginning or originator.

CDP: You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.

I find it sad/amusing that the ID crowd tends to overlook this part of their inerrant bible.

"God forgives a little white lie. As long as it's little...and you're white"

I think Jerry Falwell said that.

Oh - and it's too complex to spring from natural, physical laws so it had to have been created by an omniscient, omnipresent deity.

mattharvest: burndtdan: it might be stupid philosophy, but scientists shouldn't have to be the ones making fun of it, because it has absolutely nothing to do with science.

The point is, neither should philosophers. ID is neither philosophy nor science; it is in the realm of non-logical constructions.

Hell, even questions like "What color are unicorns?" invoke philosophical questions about language and ontology; ID asks no questions. It just purports to answer all questions with "God did it!".

they're just firm believers of the KISS theory.

/keep it simple stupid
//also, possibly rock'n'rolling all night, and partying every day

Chariset: But it features a number of people who seem rather sane and sober who think ID could pose a new model for science, and they uniformly resist the idea that the Christian God has to be the designer. Having watched it, I wouldn't mind seeing more open dialogue about what ID actually is and whether it could be hard science.

For this to occur proponents of evolution and intelligent design would have to agree on some basic ground rules of evidence and methodology. Proponents of evolution use the methodology commonly referred to as the scientific method (a deductive process of empirical observation, hypothesis, and testing to determine the cause and effect of a phenomena). Proponents of intelligent design use an inductive process to prove an already arrived at hypothesis through assumption of cause to determine effect.

So, one group is going to have to agree to submit to the logical tests of the other. But there in lies the problem... scientific theories are not able to be tested accurately through inductive reasoning, and intelligent design falls on its face when examined deductively.

But most philosophers or students of logic will tell you that deductive reasoning is vastly superior to inductive reasoning when one is trying to determine the true nature of a thing.

burndtdan: they're just firm believers of the KISS theory.

There's a gentleman named Occam out here with a razor he'd like to show you.

Expelled quotes Charles Darwin selectively to connect his ideas to eugenics and the Holocaust.

Given this abysmal track-record of "unintelligent evolution," it is the height of arrogance for Rennie to exclude intelligent design from scientific discussion. In elucidating the problem of life's origin, intelligent design promises to do far better than Rennie's atheistic approach to science, and certainly can't do worse. ~ William Dembski

mediaho: Oh - and it's too complex to spring from natural, physical laws so it had to have been created by an omniscient, omnipresent deity.

just like my pet unicorn, Unicornie!

mattharvest: BritneysSpeculum: But where did the mass and energy of the bang come from? That is sort of my current belief system for what it is worth.

One day, people who advance this argument are going to understand that "causality" and "before and after" are all limited to discussions INSIDE the universe.

Time, and thus all notions of causality, is a dimension of the universe. There is literally no meaningful sense of "before" the universe, any more than "after", because those questions only make sense within the context of a linear temporal dimension.

Just because you don't understand what that really means - and the obvious implications - doesn't mean for a second that it suggests a religious answer.

So in other words, you can't explain it either but you just know that it's not a supreme being. Wow you must be really smart.

I thought it was a satire.

opps

sepuku2: Aha! Just as I expected. Another militant atheist circle jerk.

*backs out*

Why is it that calling out crazies and liars means you are an atheist?

fark Ben Stein. fark him in hell FOREVER!

/if there was a hell
//if there were real gods, for that matter
///fark all religions, there's only the Black of the 'Verse

Bevets: unintelligent evolution

Hey Bevets! Why the tailbone?

wyltoknow: Michael Moore: Selectively alters quotes, video, and the truth in general to prove his point.
Conservatives: Moore is a fat lying fark who should die from choking on a hot dog.

Ben Stein: Selectively alters quotes, video, and the truth in general to prove his point.
Conservatives: Aha! Finally, definitive proof that we're right! Suck it, scientists!

That's just the social conservatives, aka: the religious right. They're our version of your Greenpeace and ANSWER.

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Why is it that calling out crazies and liars means you are an atheist?

Didn't you know? Anyone who believes in science is an atheist.

SemperLieSuckah: That's just the social conservatives, aka: the religious right.

Fair enough.

darkyn: Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Why is it that calling out crazies and liars means you are an atheist?

Didn't you know? Anyone who believes in science is an atheist.

Ahhh, OK I get it now.