I don’t know if you guys will find this as interesting as I do, but Ben Stein has withdrawn as the University of Vermont’s commencement speaker because of complaints about his critical views on evolution in favor of intelligent design.
UVM President Daniel Fogel said he chose Stein based on the warm response to a lecture he gave on campus last spring. Fogel said, however, he was deluged with e-mail messages from people offended by Stein’s views of science.
When told about the criticism, Stein — who was to be paid $7,500 — backed out of the May 17 commencement, Fogel said.
“I did not ask him not to come,” he said. “I was not going to let him be blind-sided by controversy.”
The former host of Comedy Central’s “Win Ben Stein’s Money” quiz show, Stein has drawn fire previously for criticizing evolutionary theory and speaking in favor of intelligent design. That view holds that life is too complex to have developed through evolution alone, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation.
Stein told the Burlington Free Press that he was not “anti-science” as some critics have labeled him.
“I am far more pro-science than the Darwinists,” Stein wrote in an e-mail to the newspaper. “I want all scientific inquiry to happen not just what the ruling clique calls science.”
He said the controversy over him as commencement choice was “laughable” and “pathetic.”
Very, very interesting stuff going on here. Ben Stein is NOT a fundamentalist Christian — he’s very much a Jew, and a generally respected intellectual with a Yale JD.
What do you guys think?
Would you oppose a commencement speaker who furthered the idea of some sort of intelligent design?
Interesting.
Would I oppose a commencement speaker who furthered the idea of some sort of intelligent design? No… not necessarily. However I’m curious as to what Ben Stein means about the “ruling clique.” It sounds sort of paranoid.
Certifiable wackaloon Phyllis Schafly was awarded an honorary degree at Washington University’s commencement last year. Ben Stein is the least of our worries.
Would I oppose a commencement speaker who furthered the idea of some sort of intelligent design? Hellz no! It’s actually pretty refreshing to hear about an individual who doesn’t believe that life was an accident, so to speak, and isn’t ignorantly opposed to the idea that life was formed from a higher entity. Love it.
How is it ignorant to oppose the idea that life was formed by a higher power? I have not seen any convincing evidence suggesting that it was.
Everyone is ignorant if you don’t completely agree 100% with something.
DUH!!!!
(Hint: sarcasm)
LOL Sometimes!
Stein is ridiculous. A generally respected intellectual? Respected by whom?
I wouldn’t oppose him, though. It’s a free country, where people are allowed to disseminate their ridiculous ideas if they feel like it.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/12/win_ben_steins_mind.html
I would not be opposed! The critics were acting like their “opposites”, extremely religious people. Like he said, it’s laughable that scientists would criticize someone like him, when there are so many people out there that reject evolution completely.
i wouldnt mind. he’s a really smart guy. and Lord knows we need more of those people in the world. this is like that Timothy Geithner guy. you loose a smart guy who could help out just because they are flawed.
Considering that at the end of his movie: Expelled, Ben Stein draws a direct correlation between Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and marching Jewish people off to the gas chamber, I think his views on evolution are disgusting, moronic, and his reputation as a ‘smart guy’ is dubious.
Intelligent Design has no place in an institute for higher learning and the University of Vermont was absolutely right on for ‘Expelling’ Ben Stein as the commencement speaker.
“Intelligent Design has no place in an institute for higher learning and the University of Vermont was absolutely right on for ‘Expelling’ Ben Stein as the commencement speaker.”
First, they didn’t expel him, and second, I think Intelligent Design DEFINITELY has a place in instituttes of higher learning. If people actually paid attention to their science classes, they’d realize there are many contradictions e.g. where exactly energy does come from, the ability of electrons and protons to neutralize each other despite weighing different amounts, the development of the human consciousness, e.t.c. Intelligent Design is one THEORY of many that should be explored – dogs don’t understand how we make televisions, maybe we can’t understand how some higher intelligent being created our world.
Actually, Intelligent Design is a hypothesis. Calling it a theory would show a real misunderstanding of the scientific method. A hypothesis (literally “before theory”) is one potential idea under consideration for explaining a certain phenomenon. Only after undergoing critical testing, being battered about by peer-review journals, rigorous studying, etc. etc. can a hypothesis move into the realm of being a theory.
To date, intelligent design proponents have yet to produce any viable studies nor publish any work in any recognized peer reviewed scientific journal. In fact, they (read: The Discovery Institute) have not even TRIED to get anything published and instead focus their argument on throwing questions at the theory they wish to deny.
Evolutionary biologists would LOVE to see real data that refutes currently held theories about evolution. One of the central, fundamental desires of any scientist is to find something new… to discover something no one else has. They don’t toss away intelligent design just to hold on to some “ruling cliquie” ideology.
Exactly, we all know it’s a good-willed zombie’s father, who happens to live in the sky, the responsible for life on Earth. Only that you call him God. For fuck’s sake how can Americans still be going on about that?
His views just stated the facts! If you seen the movie openly, he made some good points. Those people (scientists) that just mentioned that evolution is confusing, Darwinism makes no sense. And because not one person for evolution could not explain it logically, the couldn’t even agree on how life form??!? Crystals?!? Where are the crystals now?!?
Open your eyes and just consider the facts.
I would be opposed to it. It is a commencement speech for a university of higher education that is not religious or spiritually founded or centered and is an institution that teaches science, including evolution- not the possibility of spirituality just because he cannot believe the scientific theories that have been tested and proven with evidence. Just because it’s hard to believe and he thinks there must be some spiritual factor doesn’t mean it is appropriate for a university setting. I think it is inappropriate. It is too bad because I liked him before he made that documentary! I’m glad the community spoke out. Separation of church and state…
While Darwin’s Theory of Evolution has obvious flaws ( most notably Madonna and George W. Bush), it is , at least currently, adhered to by the vast majority of the scientific community. It is, however, not impossible to find some common ground between the two theories of Evolution and Intelligent Design. Natural selection might very well have been the device by which a higher intellegence could have implemented the plan which set the gears in motion that have brought mankind to his current state of existence.
Excellent way to put it.
Excellent way to put it.
I have always thought the same way. Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive. I also agree with prior posts that Scientist would love to find evidence to contradict their current theories/hypothesis. We don’t really know the absolute truth. It’s the ultimate question. How did we get here? Why are we here? Why do we die?
I’ve always felt religion was a salve to help us justify our mortality but that doesn’t mean that it has absolutely no value or truth. I believe there is more than enough physical evidence to support the theory of evolution. At the same time, sometimes it is hard to think there wasn’t an intelligent design.
Yeah, just because he’s got a JD from Yale doesn’t mean that his opinions are any more valid that mine, or yours, or anyone else’s. I agree that this “smart guy” rep is just good marketing, and that he hides his own biases through pseudo smart guy “objectivity.”
I think part of the point that is being missed is that the University of Vermont is a major research institution… i.e. a institution DEDICATED to scientific thought and discovery.
Stein, on the other hand, has been known to say things like, “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.” (interview on TBN with Paul Crouch).
If the University were to offer an honorary degree to a person who feels science is evil, what kind of an endorsement is that?
The president of the university has state publicly several times that he is not against having Stein come to do a talk or to lecture. It’s not about freedom of speech. It has nothing to do with who is right or wrong in evolutionary kerfulffling (hell if it’s a real debate… ooooo…. my bias comes out). Instead it is about choosing whom to honor for their dedication to the precepts of the school.
I had one college Bio professor who prefaced a lecture on evolution with “There’s also this idea called intelligent design. If you want to talk about it, come to my office hours. But there is no way I’m spending class time on it.” Ha.
I think it’s fine that they invited him, fine that it was a controversy (although maybe an overreaction considering he probably wasn’t going to talk about evolution anyways), and fine for him to not speak. Might have been more interesting if he went anyways though.
Intelligent Design is only taken seriously because of its mainly Christian supporting base. If the Intelligent Design theory said it has been dwarves or a pink unicorn we would dismiss it for stupid.
Anyway, I think that that man could speak as long as he doesn’t have to speak about evolution. Now then, if he is going to speak about how a man (because obviously it’s a man, DUH) who lives in the sky created everything on Earth, he can stay home.
Sorry dear. Who told you someone lives in the sky? That’s just silly. You are distracted by a non fact.
Intelligent design is for idiots looking to support their own agenda.
All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster! Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
This feed makes me feel dumb. I hate science.
I wouldn’t oppose it as long as he didn’t talk about it.
And if evolution doesn’t exist, then molecular genetics doesn’t make sense, and my entire college education is a lie.
Lisa I fail to see how the theory of evolution is essential in furthering our knowledge of the structure and workings of genes, that good science is not up to the task for. I expect most of the advancements in molecular genetics were due to trial and error experimentation, simple good science. If I am wrong please enlighten us all.
The unified theory of evolution is an explanation for changes in gene frequencies over time, genetic drift, molecular clocks, and other innumerable things we know about modern genetics. Our knowledge of the structure and working of genes is fundamentally based on our knowledge of evolution,. To say that advancements in any scientific field are the result of trial and error is egregious mistake-the scientific methods is a rigorous process. There is no such thing as simple science, and good science is based on rigorous methodology and extensive knowledge of a system, including evolutionary biology
My reply was poorly written. The thought I wanted to get across was that further understanding of biological evolution was the foundation for molecular genetics.
However I hypothesize that a group could be completely ignorant of Darwinist and Mendelian theory and given the necessary tools and drive to understand the workings of genetics could come to the same conclusions eventually or perhaps faster than the original scientists.
Naivety sometimes gives the freedom to explore avenues that may otherwise not be explored due to preconceived notions.
I feel that questions and answers drive discovery. Knowledge without some sort of inquisitiveness would be such a waste and would not lead us forward.
Any scientist that is under the belief that the current theory of evolution is perfect, does themselves and others a disservice.
Time and time again through out history we see examples of human ignorance in the guise of unwavering acceptance of truth. It stays that way until proven other wise.
Scientific pursuit is not trivial and I in no way meant to suggest such. But in all things there are those that are good at what they do and those that are not. Good or bad, scientists should have the freedom to explore their chosen avenues. If the bad have nothing to contribute, so be it. But the “good” should never have the power to stop others from exploring.
In the documentary Expelled, Stein was trying to show that some members of the scientific community were unwilling to accept the possibility that evolutionary theory may not be perfect. To the point that scientist we being discredited for a belief. That they were dismissing intelligent design not by logical debate/experimentation but by simply stating that we believe we have an infallible theory your hypothesis does not 100% agree with, you are wrong, there are more of us than you, we banish you. The hypocrisy in this is a little too much to take.
If there are indeed holes in evolutionary theory, and there exists those willing to explore these holes they should be allowed to explore. If there exploration is fruitless, is any harm really done?
I read an article on Intelligent Design in Harper’s Magazine (note, this is not Harper’s Bazaar) a few years ago which was fascinating. And completely disturbing…
The article told about an intelligent design “theme park” somewhere in the Florida panhandle, and they have little exhibits there – sort of like a hands-on museum. One of them is a faith test, where you stand at the edge of a circle which was painted on the ground. At the center of the circle hangs a bowling ball, which is attached to a tree with a long rope. You grab the ball and pull it back towards your face at the edge of the circle and let go, and watch how the ball doesn’t hit you.
The point of this “game” is to somehow prove that not gravity, but your faith in god will protect you from the ball bashing your face when it swings back towards you.
Fucking nuts! Can you imagine making your kid do that? Like… “be brave son! only your faith in G.O.D. can save you!”
suddenly there are no accidents anymore… just punishments for an inquisitive mind.
OK.
1) He was not getting an honorary degree. He was just invited as one of the many commencement speakers.
2) In rejecting him, the university proved to be the closed-minded.
3) They should have just stipulated that his speech not mention his religious beliefs.
Why are people so “understanding” and “tolerant” of Muslims, Buddists, Wiccans, atheist, agnostics, etc. but belivers and followers of Christianity should all just go away and die?
Who’s really the intolerant here?
OK.
1. Right
2. They didn’t reject him, he rejected him (he backed out)
3. They could have
Because when someone wants to try and tell me that dinosaurs walked the Earth with saddles so that people could ride them, I call bullshit. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Hardcore.
1) He’s not a Christian.
2) He backed out. The college did not reject him, despite the protestations of the many students and faculty that objected to having him speak at their commencement.
3) We are “tolerant” of Christian beliefs. It is just simply that faith and belief have no place in scientific inquiry. The scientific method is about testing and developing ideas based purely on empirical observations. The ideas and hypotheses in science grow out of the observations and discoveries, not the other way around. As a proper scientist, one only subscribes to the ideas that one finds evidence for. If contradicting evidence is found, the scientist re-evaluates his or her understanding of those ideas or even comes to reject them altogether.
The very essence of faith and belief is holding an idea to be true DESPITE a lack of or contradicting empirical evidence.
No one is suggesting that any member of any faith group crawl away and die. Indeed, any good anthropologist (a scientist who studies human culture) would find that a completely abhorrent idea. We only ask that when you conduct scientific inquiry, you do it in a framework of science not faith. In just the same manner, one would not expect an atheist biochemist to perform Holy Communion at a Catholic mass or a physicist to perform Zen levitation.
Ben Stein should be allowed to believe in whatever he wants and it should in no way make him any less acceptable as a commencement speaker. Stein attended an institute of higher learning and will have valid experiences and opinions to pass on to those willing to listen.
The biggest point to take from Expelled is that the point of science is to allow theory to be proven through experiment. If the Darwinists or any other “ist” is not open to hearing arguments that contradict their own beliefs, then they really shouldn’t be calling themselves scientists.
Conventional science to my knowledge is still unable to prove that simple organisms can be produced just by chance, under any conditions similar to earth 4 Billion years ago.
At one time when the Earth was at the center of the universe and completely flat, those that vocalized their belief that this might not be the case where exiled for their beliefs.
Science was intended to create a freedom to explore. Any person that flatly would object to any theory on the sole basis that they like a different theory more is moronic at best and does nothing to further scientific discovery.
All scientists have to be open to explore and debate new theories good and bad, sometimes something can even be learned from a bad or wrong theory.
Ignorance will do nothing to advance the species.
Thank you for putting this so eloquently. I totally agree.
The theory of evolution does not purport to explain the origins of life. Just one example of misinformation purported by creationists. Evolution by natural selection is the change in gene frequencies over time. There are many examples, both from wild populations and laboratory studies, that this indeed occurs.
The problem with intelligent design is that there is no science that backs up the idea. There is no testable hypothesis that can be subjected to the scientific method. This is why it is not science, and should not be taught as such in schools.
The fact that you use the term advance the species also belies your lack of knowledge of evolution. It is no hierarchichal. There is no end goal, and organisms, do not “advance”; they just change as a result of changes in the environment.
To further the debate. I am not a scientist, so will be ignorant in areas. I have the capacity to recognize and admit such. A scientist that thinks they have all the answers is deluded. Even experts in their fields are proven wrong from time to time if challenged.
Your stand is that intelligent design can not be science because we do not have the tools to prove that it may be true. The very same argument used by the ignorant in the past to disprove what we today hold to be fact. There was a time that atoms could not exist because we could not see them. Subsequently someone needed the answer to how things could function as they were.
From Wikipedia
“The concept that matter is composed of discrete units and cannot be divided into any arbitrarily small quantities has been around for thousands of years, but these ideas were founded in abstract, philosophical reasoning rather than scientific experimentation. The nature of atoms in philosophy varied considerably over time and between cultures and schools, and often had spiritual elements. Nevertheless, the basic idea of the atom was adopted by scientists thousands of years later because it could elegantly explain new discoveries in the field of chemistry.”
With respect to the origins of life, if today’s science can not answer how, then in the future ID may have the tools to be proven plausible. Or another hypothesis, not currently considered. If ID is simply smoke and mirrors than it will ultimately amount to nothing.
If we as a species directly change our environment to cause direct changes in the species, is this evolution or advancement. It is no longer the normal means of evolution for most other beings that react to their environment. We produce structures, machines, chemicals to combat our environment. The human race is not in balance with the environment, we simply roll over what we choose not to accept. We have the ability to manipulate cells, change the species parallel to environmental changes. What will we have the ability to do to our own species in the future. This does not seem to be evolution, I would call it advancement or something else at the very least.
Fluffy – I don’t think he is Christian. So you can let up on your “persecuted Christian” act.
Christians are still the majority, but the bitch when held accountable for their actions – like it is the world against them. Greedy bastards. You use republican and christian synonymously.
Andy, thank you for your intelligent, well-written comment differentiating between hypothesis and theory!
Thanks, Nic!
Would I be opposed to Ben Stein speaking at the commencement of an institution of higher learning? Yes, I would, as should all rational people*.
We’ve come through a decade or more when people who make decisions based on faith and belief — as opposed to science and rationality — have placed all of us in grave peril.
Decisions based on belief have produced the 9/11 terrorist attacks (“Allah will reward us with 72 virgins”), the Iraq war (“Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and fosters Al Qaedea”), the demise of American industry (“unrestrained free trade benefits the entire population”), and the global economy (“free markets are self-regulating”).
The result has been, respectively, over t3,000 dead; perhaps over 100,000 dead; unemployment that is cruising towards 10% and beyond, the rapid loss of high-tech, high-wage jobs, and unsustainable trade deficits; and, amongst other things, $72 trillion (that’s not a typo) in unregulated and basically worthless credit default swaps that has lead us to the brink of a new Great Depressions.
Ben Stein is the personification of this kind of irrationality. Instead of acknowledging that his belief is simply that, Mr. Stein and others of his ilk are attempting to cloak it with, and justify it through, science. The resulting “creation science” is being used to warp** the minds of young children (see “Jesus Camp” and http://www.creationmuseum.org). Such is particularly frightening to me, as this is functionally equivalent the madrassas that produced the 9/11 hijackers.
As President Obama said during his Inaugural Address, we must “restore science to its rightful place” in our culture. Opposing Ben Stein is one small but important ay to do so.
But don’t worry about him: I suspect Mr. Stein will have quite a few invitations from the likes of Regent (Pat Robertson) University, Liberty (Jerry Falwell) University, Oral Roberts University, Bob Jones University, etc., etc.***
That’s where he belongs.
— an Atheist Stuck in the Bible Belt
* I was originally going to respond with vitriol (I was toying with the phrase “philistine pig-ignorance”), but such only plays to the irrationality of people like Ben Stein. I encourage similar restraint from those who ascribe to rational thought and science.
** Yup, I meant to use that word.
** American madrassas and Bush-appointee factories (okay, a small amount of vitriol is unavoidable in certain circumstances).
While I find you examples flawed, I do agree that pure logic could have saved us from the problems of the world in the past and today.
If we are able to recover and learn from the mistakes of others, we should be in a position to protect the population in the future from similar woe.
Does the human race as a whole have the capacity to ultimately act in the best interests of all or most, I’m skeptical.
“Communism doesn’t work because people like to own stuff.”
“Our job was to select someone to speak for everybody. And I just couldn’t in good conscience vote for a person who doesn’t believe in God. Someone who honestly thinks the other ninety five percent of us suffer from some form of mass delusion.”
Contact by Carl Sagan
Was he going to spout off his idiotic opinions on evolution, or was he just going to give a regular commencement speech?
The guy is a moron, but I’d have no objection to him giving a speech if it had nothing to do with evolution. He’s entitled to believe what he likes, but his cockeyed views on evolutionary theory are harmful, and our school do a bad enough job teaching basic science as it is.
How are the pursuits of science harmed by the hypothesis that chance may not be able to account for all aspects of in this case evolution? Freedom needs to be granted for those to either prove or disprove the hypothesis.
Idiots seldom look for answers, they tend to just jump to conclusions.
If the hypothesis associated with intelligent design can not be emphatically disproved, then further study is warranted.
Once again, ignorance serves to benefit no one.
I agree!
If the inability to “emphatically disprove” anything is all that is needed to warrant further investigation, then sign me up for a huge grant because no one has yet to emphatically disprove that having sex in public ten times a day with supermodels while eating six tubs of ice cream increases one’s IQ tenfold and I NEED TO STUDY THAT.
Seriously, what warrants investigation into a hypothesis is actual empirical evidence that suggests a causal relationship. That’s what science is, like it or not. You do not start with a conclusion (“there is a designer”) and then seek to support it. Any good detective or lawyer can tell you that.
You start with evidence (“Look at all the varieties of life alive today, and look at all the varieties of life alive 200,000,000 years ago, and look at all the stuff that came in between that appear to slowly change from one form to another over that long period”) and draw a conclusion from it (“these forms of life must have responded to some form of pressure to change in response to their environment”).
This isn’t about freedom of speech or religion. No one is denying Stein the freedom of holding or expressing his views. No one is preventing him from securing a position as a lecturer or keeping him from producing any variety of media broadcasting his views to the world.
This is about an institute of science choosing not to honor a man who holds the view that science is evil. Would you expect Stein’s synagogue to honor someone who holds Judaism to be evil? I would suspect not. In fact, you’d likely (and justly) find some form of moral corruption in the person who holds that belief. What, then, could possibly be the reason for frowning upon the institution that turns away man who believes the very precepts of that institution are evil?
That’s what this is about. The university had second thoughts and Stein withdrew himself from the commencement (of his own accord before he got all testy about it).
And for the record, natural selection is not about chance. Is a factor, but a limited factor, in our understanding of the pressures of natural selection and evolutionary development.
“You do not start with a conclusion (”there is a designer”) and then seek to support it. Any good detective or lawyer can tell you that.”
Right now Scientist are doing just this very thing to try to explain cellular creation on Earth. The conclusion(“conditions existed on earth 4 Billion + years ago for the creation of simple cells ex nihilo”)
An alternative conclusion could be(“An intelligent designer seeded the necessary cellular materials on Earth 4 Billion + years ago to jump start life as we know and understand it”)
We have the technology to see cells, so we know they exist, however neither science or the philosophical can at this time prove either conclusion is correct. Huge assumptions are being made in both camps to validate their own “agendas”.
Huronlad,
No cellular biologist nor evolutioanry geneticist is trying to prove cellular genesis ex nihilo. For one thing, there was something… The Earth. What we know is that there were no cells for a very long time, and then after a prolonged period of increasingly intense and evidentially demonstrable chemical activity there arose the first early conclusive signs of true cellular activity. What they seek to study is not “did it occur” but HOW. For that, there are many competing hypotheses, from chemol-eletric synthesis to extra-terrestrial catalyst. Some postulate multiple forms of genesis. Just because the list of testable hypotheses does not include “sky daddy did it” does not invalidate the inquiry itself. Criticizing the inqquiry into how observed phenomena occur is NOT starting from a conclusion. STATING how it occurred (“it was designed by an untestable and invisible omnipotent deity”) before seeking evidence IS.
Tink back to simple algebra again. Given the statement y+5=10, one seeks to find the value of y. There is no argument over the observed evidence of y+5=10. What is postulated and then tested is that there is value for y for which the statement is true. By subtracting 5 from both sides we observe that y=5, but we don’t rest until we test that Statement by substituting 5 for y.
Science works the same way. Observe, test, hypothsize, test, conclude. After many repeatable conclusions, theorize. Then keep observing and testing. When a hypothesis cannot hold up under observtion and testing, it is discarded if it cannot be tested it is left aside until it the author has reworked into a testable form. It cannot and does not work any other way.
My Latin is worse than I thought. I was under the false impression that “ex nihilo” was a reference to “without god”.
So in this case science “looks for the how by assuming it is feasible”(Assume conditions on earth existed to lead to the development of the necessary rudimentary components that could ultimately become RNA and evolve from there).
From the information available from what appears to be non religious sources on the internet, the chemical make up of early Earth is not definitively know and currently science seems unable to prove that the first cells could be created on Earth in a natural way that would be sustainable.
So I personally do not see how this is so far a step from “look for the how by assuming it might be feasible. The “might be” is the possibility of an outside source placing the necessary building blocks on Earth to lead to the development of RNA, and so forth.
Something some scientist are okay with theoretically.
It becomes not okay if someone hypothesises that the source purposefully acted?
If there is no reason for creation then Atheist are sated. “An empty existence is just fine and dandy.” The religious cry-out because if there is no reason for life and subsequently death, what is the point?”How do I live if someone is not going to tell me how to be a proper human”
Both existences on there own seem terribly close minded and empty to me.
If we sate the religious the Atheist are unhappy because they can not see, touch or feel (this as you put it”sky daddy”) so that is unacceptable.
I had hoped that the religious would have continued to debate, but it appears that the Atheists have a stronger drive to be right.
There’s something to be said for being and looking relaxed, but can someone please explain to me why the Afflecks became hobos?
Ha ha. Wrong thread. Somebody must have messed with my Meth.
Some of the posters here could benefit if you have any mind expanding substances to share.
I’m not a religous person but the idea that anyone who isn’t an atheist is some kind of “moron” is facist thinking. How ironic that leftists claim to be for free ideas but trash anyone’s thoughts who differ from their own. Ben Stein is a very intelligent man and there is nothing wrong with him questioning whether evolution alone was responsible for human life. Closed minded people are the ones whose intelligence I question. There is no evidence that God exists but then again there is no evidence he doesn’t.
The purpose of education is to encourage free thought and an examination of ALL ideas not just the ones that appeal to certain political agendas. Somewhere along the way some left leaning people decided to use the educational system to indoctrinate instead of educate and as a result we have brainwashed youth who cannot think for themselves. Ask any young person why they support Obama or why they hate their own country they cannot even tell you, they just spout a bunch of hateful nonsense directed at whites, christians or anyone who is even remotely consevative. It’s really sad, they’re becoming facists and don’t even realize it.
What country do you live in?? I am a high school history teacher and work with a combination of conservatives and liberals and I don’t see any brainwashed kids that hate their country. In fact, my students in the 10th grade had a pretty clear idea why they supported McCain or Obama and my classes were definitely 50/50. So, maybe you should do some volunteer work in your local school district before spouting off accusations against public education. By the way, considering public schools are tax based and due to the fact that there is a separation between church and state that was established in the 1st amendment and interpreted by the Supreme Court to be so, we cannot endorse a hypthesis that is based in religious belief and not scientific fact in biology classes. It can be discussed in history and athropology classes.
I will start teaching religious doctrine, etc. when religious institutions start paying taxes.
Any thread involving religion,abortion or politics will go down faster than the Titanic. It’s best just to sit back and watch it self destruct. LOL
So far still afloat, but starting to list.
Here’s an interesting article about Francis Collins, the director of the human genome project. He wrote the book “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.”
He believes that science and Faith can go hand in hand.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html
Just thought it was interesting.
Speaking as a scientist here – how can you prove that God had a hand in evolution? ID is a feel-good theory to those who do not want to think about the possibility that life happened and changed with out an overseer.
But, as for it being ‘more scientific’ than evolution? How can you test that? It’s not science – please don’t call it science.
Would I boycott him, no – ID is certainly not his whole deal – but I would get irritated if he started on about it in his speech – it has not place in an education setting.
Especially when it’s a public school based in tax dollars. Separation of Church and State please.
We call it the “theory of Evolution” for a reason. There is room in our minds for more than one idea. Just because it’s widely accepted, doesn’t make evolution the only road. Many acclaimed scientists have questioned if Darwin had it all right, or if there was some higher power. It is a comforting thought to believe we are wanted and perfectly designed, not just a great cosmic accident. And really are we the pinnacle of the evoultionary chain?
I challenge any atheist to scientifically PROVE God does not exist. If you can’t then you are just as ignorant as religous zealots because like them you hang on to a belief system that has no basis in reality. An intelligent mind is an OPEN one.
I refuse to take you up on that offer, as will any intelligent atheist. One cannot prove a nonexistence.
Remember your freshman year algebra class in high school? You could prove 2+2=4. You could prove 4*4=16. You could even prove that the sum of the squares of the legs of a right triangle were equal to the square of the hypotenuse. Easy stuff.
Now prove that 2+2 does NOT equal 5.
I’m waiting. Consult any qualified mathematician, preferably one who has progressed beyond first grade.
Any simple study of logic or critical thinking (freshman year college for most folks if they didn’t get it in high school) will help you understand that a negative quantity is unprovable.
The onus is instead on providing the evidence to prove the existence of something. Any good solid critical investigation starts with what is referred to as the “null hypothesis” (x does not exist) and only moves to a positive hypothesis (x MAY exist) if there is evidence supporting that claim.
As an atheist, I have not witnessed any credible evidence that god may exist, therefor I stay with the null hypothesis, “God does not exist”.
Please, please, please refrain from the truly insulting claim that the not accepting the existence of a god, any god, is “a belief system”. It is not. It is a lack of one. A belief statement would be the following, “despite the preponderance credible, provable and repeatably testable evidence that a god exists, I will continue to believe there is no god.” An atheist who made that claim would be as ignorant as you suggest. Fortunately, there is none (to my knowledge).
In the same vein, the belief statement, “Despite the lack of any credible, provable and repeatably testable evidence that a god exists, I will continue to believe in a god of my choosing and not revert to the null hypothesis of there not being a god.”
Which do you adhere to? The belief statement that flies in the face of a lack of evidence or the person who falls back to the null hypothesis until there is such evidence as to move beyond?
The following was true in the past,
From Wikipedia
“The concept that matter is composed of discrete units and cannot be divided into any arbitrarily small quantities has been around for thousands of years, but these ideas were founded in abstract, philosophical reasoning rather than scientific experimentation. The nature of atoms in philosophy varied considerably over time and between cultures and schools, and often had spiritual elements. Nevertheless, the basic idea of the atom was adopted by scientists thousands of years later because it could elegantly explain new discoveries in the field of chemistry.”
Why can it not apply today? Have scientists unearthed all there is to know about everything?
Funny, because when I read both Democritus (the “Father” of the atom), Epicurs and Aristotle, none of them seemed too keen on the idea of using an abstract idea to explain anything. All three instead chose empirical evidence (Aristotle being the root of scientific and empirical study) to develop the idea that some things just cannot break down any further. Were they right? Not entirely. Did they say, “Things can’t break down any farther than x” before looking at the world around them? No. It was one of those things they noticed (“stuff gets smaller and smaller when you crush it, but it never really seems to stop being that stuff”) and then tried to find an explanation for.
Plato, on the other hand, and Socrates and the rest of the rational crowd started with ideas (“there must be a perfect source of all this imperfect stuff”) and moved from there to completely untestable answers, “The source of stuff is this unapproachable one form that everything else is just a reflection of without actually being able to be close enough to contact that perfect form because it would require the ability to be as perfect as the source in order to do so”).
In other words: Just because it’s in the wikipedia, doesn’t mean it’s true or accurate. I’d really highly suggest finding a better source of evidence than the wikipedia.
The basic idea of the atom, by the way, has not been so basic for the last hundred years. Quantum theory and string theory (both are essentially mathematical theories at this point… testable mathematically, but not yet physically) and Einstein’s relativity (which recently has been tested with naturally occurring stellar phenomena) have progressed so far beyond the “atomic universe” that it’s almost quaint. In string theory in particular the fluctuations and vibrations inside sub-atomic particles make the idea of the irreducibility and immutability of matter (atoms) laughable.
Watching the movement over centuries of observation from Democritus’ atoms, Euclidian geometry, thru medieval Islamic chemistry, Copernican mathematics, Newton physics, Einsteinian relativity, quantum physics all the way thru to modern string theory is a lesson in how science progresses and develops, how ideas are discovered and tested, upheld and overturned, how new evidence changes our understanding of the universe.
It’s also a lesson in great humility because what we know today may be demonstrated tomorrow to be incorrect.
No, Huronlad, scientists have not discovered all there is to know about everything and they probably never will as we just don’t have that much time! That does not mean, however, that it is perfectly fine to start with unobserved/ unobservable/ untested/ untestable assumptions and build knowledge from there. Even the highly rational, empiricism-hating Descartes was able to show that. Using the power of his own mind he couldn’t prove anything beyond the simple fact that at least one sentient being (“I”) exists.
I kind of thought this was funny. Only in America is Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolutionary theory a controversy.
I know. It’s embarrassing, really. Doubly or triply embarrassing for those of us living in Seattle and are forced to call the Discovery Institute “neighbors”.
*shudder*
I know. I love my Canadian friends who can’t believe that one argument against gay marriage is that it will ruin heterosexual marriage. We are the only country that has Christianity playing such a huge role in our laws and we attempt to legislate it all. WTF.
Now that Iceland has an openly gay prime minister, I imagine that some American somewhere is thinking, “Great… that’s just going to ruin the whole institution of prime ministry”.
Quick — let’s get it into the constitution that the presidency must be reserved only for people who uphold the sanctity of straight-sex! Otherwise God might start raining down disasters upon us like war, earthquakes, hurricanes & tsunamis.
Oh, wait…
Yes. In high school biology we weren’t even allowed to be tested on evolution in case we “offended someone”. I’m just sick of religion and people that are so unquestioning.