Ben Stein: Science Leads You to Killing People
Ben Stein made his perspective absolutely clear while he was being interviewed by Paul Crouch, Jr. on the Trinity Broadcasting Network.
Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [i.e. biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you.
Crouch: That’s right.
Stein: …Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.
Crouch: Good word, good word.
Source: The Carpetbagger Report [emphasis added]
Since Ben Stein rejects science because it is the source of killing people, I think he should immediately renounce the use of any modern medical treatments. Doctors should agree to refuse to provide him with any modern medical treatments, since that would make Stein complicit in a system that leads to killing people. So much of modern medicine is heavily dependent on the progress of modern science that there is just no justification for anyone to denounce science while still partaking in its fruits through medicine.
Ben Stein's movie Expelled is very popular with religious and political conservatives in America, and it's hard not to wonder if part of that popularity is because those conservatives agree with Stein: science is evil and only love of God will save us — even if that means we have to "love" God through political oppression and religious authoritarianism. Ironically, that's rather like how religion has been involved in terror in past centuries: if you love God enough, you'll have to be willing to destroy outsiders who refuse to follow God's orders.
Of course, it's true that the products of science can be used to kill people. There was scientific work behind the development of the gas chambers used in the Holocaust — as well as the atomic bomb, the machine gun, and the pointy stick. Science is simply a process for learning about the nature of reality. It's the most successful process we've ever had for learning about reality, so it's no surprise that it can be used to produce things that work. If you want to produce something that kills effectively, you're best bet is to use some sort of scientific procedure — the same as if your goal is to fly, to save people’s lives, to grow better rice, and so forth.
So in the space of a about a minute we've learned something that Ben Stein in all his years has failed to learn: the problem isn't science, but the people who are using science and what sorts of goals they are trying to fulfill. That, in turn, is heavily dependent upon the sort of ideology they follow. Now, if Ben Stein were to spend any time at all investigating the matter, he'd have found that the Nazis were not motivated in any way by atheism or by Darwinian evolution.
In many cases, the Nazis and other Germans were actually motivated by Christianity. European Christianity had been violently anti-Semitic for centuries, and most of the anti-Semitic measures introduced by the Nazis were only copies of medieval laws created by the Catholic Church. Germany didn't vote the Nazis into power because they ran on a platform of atheism and secularism; instead, the Nazi platform was one of restoring traditional religious and cultural values, supporting the family, and opposing secular modernity.
“So much of modern science is heavily dependent on the progress of modern science that there is just no justification for anyone to denounce science while still partaking in its fruits through medicine.”
Typo?
Is there any science involved in the movie making process, or do movies grow on trees?
So Stein is ok with killing as long as its unscientific? Like the passover?
I had some curiosity about the movie, so I thought “Well, I watch the movie after reading about it and deciding if I like the subject” So, not even looking for info about the movie I found what is it about and I’m not watching that crap. And yes, I bet that there has to have been a scientific process to invent cinematography. It is not magic, it is technology…so what is the moron of Stein using technology to make a crapy movie? And how come he goes to the doctor when he gets sick? Having good money I bet he goes to a very good doctor, not to a hospital with minimal resourses around Medicaid patients (nothing against Medicaid holders, I’m one myself) Holocaust was a horrible thing, but I think Stein is whining a little to much about it sixty something years later. Get over it idiot! If he thinks technology and science is so bad and his little god is so lovely, quit all his comfotable life and go to the poorest areas in Africa and convince those poor people that they are screwed up because of some divine reason and if they have faith they’ll go to better place…I bet very fast Stein, if you don’t care to have their bellies filled before the preaching. This much religious bullcrap annoys the live out of me.
1. Science leads to killing people.
2. Ben Stein is upset that ID isn’t accepted as science by the scientific community.
3. Should we therefore conclude that intelligent design leads to killing people?
Last night I watched a BBC documentary by Louis Theroux on the Westboro Baptists. Theroux made a very good point that these cultists weren’t able to grasp – that despite professing love, they were really peaching a gospel of hate. Their placards said it all – “God hates fags”.
It strikes me that Ben Stein is suffering from the same confusion. He claims to be motivated by love, yet he is really preaching a message of hate, in this case hatred of science.
I think the moral confusion is explainable. It is God, as described in the Bible, who comes across as the confused one. While many times he professes his “love” for humankind, God seems to be in his element when he is punishing and killing people. Of course, any sensible person can see that such a god does not really exist. Unfortunately, people like Ben Stein are not sensible enough to see the contradictions.
Wow, I can only hope this moronic quote serves to make people ignore anything else he has to say.
“Science leads to killing people” because the weapons of mass murder used in the Holocaust were, themselves, products of science? I would not expect someone who hates science to grasp even rudimentary logic, but honestly…
How does someone with such a flawed perception of reality manage to survive, let alone prosper financially?
I guess even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.
Without science, there would never have been planes to enable to 9/11 terrorists.
Without science, there would be no explosives to allow suicide bombers to do their dirty work.
Without science, religious hate-sites wouldn’t be polluting the internet
Without science, the Spanish Inquisition wouldn’t have been able to use all those nifty tools like iron maidens, thumb screws, the rack, etc…
You know… maybe Stein is onto something. Clearly science is the common denominator here.
This is also the same Ben Stein who, in the Expelled “Super Trailer” seemed to express a wish for the Untied States to become even more militaristic and interventionist than it is now – to start more ‘pre-emptive’ wars.
Killing people is a human activity. Propaganda science and military science makes it more attractive. Crookism makes it inevitable.
I suspect that Ben Stein doesn’t believe any of what he is saying. He is using the anti-science campaign as a wedge issue to push his neoconservative political agenda. This is the stuff that brings out the Republican base to vote.
Evolution rules, science proves, and the religious right fools.
-Savanthar’s Maxim
So, Kyle S, if what you say about Stein’s attitude in the “Super Trailer” is correct, that he would be pleased to see the US become even more imperialistic than it’s been and instigate more “pre-emptive” wars than ever before, I assume he’d be expecting us to be able to do this successfully because of our……what? Our deep and abiding faith in the “one true God”? Or our very advanced military technology, that “evil” product of the scientific method?
Ah, heck, I guess it’d be the faith thing, right?
I suspect that Ben Stein doesn’t believe any of what he is saying. He is using the anti-science campaign as a wedge issue to push his neoconservative political agenda. Comment by Noble Baker — May 9, 2008 @ 3:18 pm
Stein is not a neoconservative — he’s a old-fashioned paleoconservative. He worked for Nixon.
He also is a very, very smart guy. I have a hard time understanding how he can hold some of the beliefs he expresses, but I have no reason to suspect that he is saying anything he doesn’t think is true.
“Very, very smart” people acting with a clear conscience on nutty notions is a scary phenomenon. I’d almost prefer a good, honest hypocrite.
“1. Science leads to killing people.
2. Ben Stein is upset that ID isn’t accepted as science by the scientific community.
3. Should we therefore conclude that intelligent design leads to killing people?”
No, he’s just upset that there isn’t an IDquisition.
“Very, very smart” people acting with a clear conscience on nutty notions is a scary phenomenon. I’d almost prefer a good, honest hypocrite. Comment by John Halloran — May 11, 2008 @ 12:05 pm
Me, too.
Gotta love the hypocrisy of this.
Saying Science is Evil will almost universally get you panned, but say the same thing about religion and its perfectly okay. Thus is our “Politically Correct” world.
Personally I think everyone needs both Spirituality and Reason. If you have too much of one and not enough of the other, the result is the same either way: You become a world-hating sociopath.
What bugs me is how people always act like all crime, cruelty, and inhumanity is the fault of religion, and yet historically that’s not true. Hitler was born a Christian but rejected it because he felt it promoted “weakness.” Stalin, of course, was an Atheist and he forced the rest of the country to be Atheistic too. Also, the rise of “Reason” was one of the causes of the French Revolution. Not to mention, most drug lords, gangsters, and everyday criminals tend to be nonreligious.
At the same time religion has been responsible for many noteworthy things that often get swept aside in favor of “Religion is the root of all evil” generalizations. For example, in Ancient Britain it was Christians who wanted to bring literacy to the masses. In early America, half the reason Slavery was opposed was on spiritual grounds.
Now about Ben Stein’s statement: Is Science Evil? By itself, yes. But when counterbalanced with an equal amount of spirituality, no. I say that because its primarily the spirit that gives us morality. Now, I’ve heard people say that you can be moral without spirituality, but I just can’t buy that. Without any sort of spirituality, all morality is based on a system of “don’t hurt them if you don’t want them to hurt you.” That kind of reasoning breaks down if you’re ever behind some kind of protection–witness the amount of jerks on the internet who act the way they do because they no longer fear retribution. Its only with spirituality that you have a reason to keep up the good work regardless of whether or not you have the upper hand.
Well, I’ve said my piece. I’ll leave it to others to present the counterpoint.
Ben Stein isn’t the only “stein” who realized the inherent dangers of science. Another, more famous stein, Albert Ein”stein”, often worried about the misuse of atomic energy by mankind, especially after he saw the devastation created in Japan at the end of WWII. But Albert, unlike Ben, was intelligent enough to realize that science doesn’t kill people, people kill people…with or without science.
Feel free to define what you mean by them and provide evidence to support your claim.
Feel free to provide evidence of this… or is it just a straw man of your own creation?
Prove it.
Prove it.
Is it possible that that’s just due to your own poverty of imagination?
Prove it.
Prove it.
Counterpoint? You haven’t actually raised any points. You’ve only made a series of unsupported assertions and allegations. Moreover, they are arguably bigoted allegations because you are denying the ability of people to be moral unless they adopt this undefined “Spirituality” you keep going on about.
>Saying Science is Evil will almost universally get you panned, but say the
same thing about religion and its perfectly okay. Thus is our “Politically Correct” world.
Which world are you referring to? I’d like to visit it. In my world there is a long tradition of crediting Religion with all that is good, even denying that good is possible without it. In my dream “factually correct” world, saying “science is evil” would be universally panned. Since Science is a process for gathering reliable knowledge about the world, to say it is evil makes absolutely no sense.
>Personally I think everyone needs both Spirituality and Reason. If you have too much of one and not enough of the other, the result is the same either way: You become a world-hating sociopath.
Is it rational to be a world-hating sociopath? If not, how can reason lead to it? What could “too much…(reason)” possibly be? Please explain what you mean by Spirituality and why too much of it leads to one becoming a world-hating sociopath so I can be sure to avoid it.
>What bugs me is how people always act like all crime, cruelty, and inhumanity is the fault of religion, and yet historically that’s not true… At the same time religion has been responsible for many noteworthy things that often get swept aside in favor of “Religion is the root of all evil” generalizations.
Is this really an attempt at an argument? “People always”? “Historically”? “Swept aside”? Your terms are so vague as to render it meaningless. Nice straw man though, I particularly like the hat.
>Hitler was born a Christian but rejected it because he felt it promoted “weakness.” Stalin, of course, was an Atheist and he forced the rest of the country to be Atheistic too.
These types of statements have been refuted often enough, which you’d know if you cared, so I won’t bother.
>Also, the rise of “Reason” was one of the causes of the French Revolution.
I’m sorry; you’re going to have to define “reason” for me as well. I thought we were talking about the same thing, i.e. sound judgement, basing beliefs on evidence…
>Not to mention, most drug lords, gangsters, and everyday criminals tend to be nonreligious.
Check your sources again (if you actually have any).
>For example, in Ancient Britain it was Christians who wanted to bring literacy to the masses.
…and before the unification of Italy (1870) the Papal States had the lowest literacy rates of all of Western Europe.
>In early America, half the reason
Slavery was opposed was on spiritual grounds.
…but slavery was also defended of religious grounds.
>Now about Ben Stein’s statement: Is Science Evil? By itself, yes.
Science is a process carried out by people. It does not and cannot exist “by itself”.
>But when counterbalanced with an equal amount of spirituality, no.
What does this mean?
>I say that because its primarily the spirit that gives us morality.
How?
>Now, I’ve heard people say that you can be moral without spirituality, but I just can’t buy that.
Were these people immoral, or were there living , breathing refutations of your bigotry standing in front of you, desperately trying to have a conversation?
>Without any sort of spirituality, all morality is based on a system of “don’t hurt them if you don’t want them to hurt you.” That kind of reasoning breaks down if you’re ever behind some kind of protection–witness the amount of jerks on the internet who act the way they do because they no longer fear retribution. Its only with spirituality that you have a reason to keep up the good work regardless of whether or not you have the upper hand.
Will Spirituality make my teeth shiny as well?
>Well, I’ve said my piece.
Now defend it. Do try to slip some facts and logic in.
>I’ll leave it to others to present the counterpoint.
What is your point?
And now, from the grave, Einstein comments on Stein et al:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080513122249.m3ds3b6j&show_article=1&catnum=-1
Austin Cline, is an a**.. plain and simple!
When critics are reduced to profanity-laden personal insults, you know that they have run out of arguments.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR MAKING THIS AMAZING MOVIE. I ENJOYED EVERY MINUTE OF IT AND I AM SO ASTONISHED AT THE STUPIDITY OF THESE “SUPPOSEDLY LEARNED PROFESSORS”. HOW CAN ANYONE WITH HALF A BRAIN NOT KNOW THAT WHEN THEY GO OUTSIDE AND SEE OUR AWESOME WORLD,THAT IT DID NOT JUST HAPPEN WITHOUT GOD OR INTELLIGENT DESIGN? I CERTAINLY DO NOT HAVE THEIR DEGREES,NOR WOULD I EVER WANT TO SINK TO THEIR LEVEL OF NO FAITH AND NO BELIEF. AT LEAST THOSE OF US WITH FAITH IN GOD HAVE A HOPE AND A FUTURE. THOSE POOR PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE MISSING. THANKS AGAIN! I WANT TO SEE IT AGAIN AND TAKE ALL WHO WILL GO WITH ME.
“Not to mention, most drug lords, gangsters, and everyday criminals tend to be nonreligious.”
This is, of course, a lie. In the US, 18% of the population is non-religious, and 72% is religious. In US prisons, 99.8% are religious, and 0.2% are non religious. To carry this point farther, all nations that are less religious than the US have lower prison rates.
Correlation or causation, the link between atheism and non-criminal behaviour is as solidly proven as the link between atheism and higher education.
Q: What do you call a theist / creationist with half a brain?
A: Gifted.
Austin Cline, is an a**.. plain and simple!
Ace ?
WHAT I’M SAYING IS IMPORTANT SO I’M USING ALL CAPS SO YOU CAN HEAR ME!!!!
Saying that science is evil is, of course, a tad over-dramatic. What IS evil is a logical progression of the basic tenet of practical Darwinism (ie. eugenics): I shall not only use this lever to lift that rock, but to bash in the head of that paraplegic struggling to reach a low-hanging piece of fruit. By practical Darwinism, I mean Darwinism employed as technology; and by “technology” I mean the exploited embodiment of knowledge. Like the misuse of a lever.
What arrests this evil is clearly an undefined, unprovable, unquantifiable (though somehow qualify-able) empathy.
All of the premises that a logical argument is built on must be truth, or the conclusion of the argument is fallacious. Not only that, but every pertinent premise must be included – the premise “set” must be complete – or the conclusion is fallacious. Omissions are equivalent to falsities. This would lead Ben Stein to infer that Darwinism is either false or incomplete, since its conclusive argument coupled with self-direction (technologically-aided evolution) leads to murder, and a crumbling of the sanctity of life. Is life to be sanctified? (Prove it, you say.)
Well, it seems rather obvious that it is, since we need to be alive in order to prove or disprove anything in the first place.
And by the way, assertion without “proof” is the common method of dialogue, because it is the most efficient and simple.
Boy: I love you.
Girl: Prove it.
We do not live in a “proof-only” world.
What leads to evil is a misinterpretation of meaning. Even “there is no meaning” is quite meaningful, and can lead to some pretty darn ugly actions. All that Stein says is “If we misinterpret the findings of Science (including Darwinism), we will commit rational, logical atrocities.” I would go one step further, and say that if we misinterpret ANY information stream (including religion), we are liable to commit rational, logical atrocities. Which, of course, we all do in small ways every day.
Science is not evil – humanity is. We believe a lie to be a truth, and rely on logic to carry out the error to a false conclusion, to false action.
We all make mistakes. (No doubt you’ll prove that one.)
Except that “Darwinism” is something that exists in the mind of creationists.
Moreover, “eugenics” is applied all the time every day without evil.
No, the conclusion of the argument is simply wrong. A conclusion cannot be fallacious; fallacies are errors in reasoning, not errors of fact. You can have an argument with false premises and correct reasoning and which therefore has no fallacies.
True, but this doesn’t excuse not being able to support an assertion when challenged.
Ben Stein does not say that in the quoted text. If you can find any place where he does say it, quote him. As stated, he is quite explicit that science itself is evil, not that misuse or misinterpretation of science is evil.
You’ve already done that for me.
Except that “Darwinism” is something that exists in the mind of creationists.
Could you explain that, or point me to an explanation?
Moreover, “eugenics” is applied all the time every day without evil.
The modern day meaning of eugenics, which has not been fully defined – yes.
No, the conclusion of the argument is simply wrong. A conclusion cannot be fallacious; fallacies are errors in reasoning, not errors of fact. You can have an argument with false premises and correct reasoning and which therefore has no fallacies.
Okay, my bad. Substitute “wrong” for “fallacious” in my previous post.
True, but this doesn’t excuse not being able to support an assertion when challenged.
Proving everything one says, as a matter of course, just won’t happen. To expect it from every sentence someone writes or utters is kind of preposterous.
Ben Stein does not say that in the quoted text. If you can find any place where he does say it, quote him. As stated, he is quite explicit that science itself is evil, not that misuse or misinterpretation of science is evil.
Right. I’d just watched his documentary, did a Google search, and came upon your blog. So my mind was still in the movie, so to speak. He doesn’t say science is evil in the film, and I was paraphrasing what I thought the documentary was trying to get across. As to his quote about science being evil, I hope it was just to provoke conversation. (Fingers crossed.)
You already did by making several at every step of your comment.
Gee, thanks.
The idea of “Darwinism” is used by creationists in place of evolutionary theory, which is the proper name. Evolution is no more “Darwinism” than relativity is “Einsteinism” or physics is “Newtonism.”
No “modern day” about it. Eugenics is simply about “good birth,” or promoting the birth of healthier, better individuals. Eugenics can be bad or good, depending on how one goes about it, and currently it’s used every day in a variety of circumstances for a variety of reasons, but without any evil involved.
Notice that I said “supporting,” not “proving.” Proof is warranted and necessary in some circumstances; simply having good support is sufficient in other circumstances.
Unless you can point to someone actually doing that, this is either irrelevant or a Straw Man.
Nor does he say what you attribute to him.
But I do quote him directly above: science leads you to killing people.
The idea of “Darwinism” is used by creationists in place of evolutionary theory, which is the proper name. Evolution is no more “Darwinism” than relativity is “Einsteinism” or physics is “Newtonism.”
Ah, thank you.
No “modern day” about it. Eugenics is simply about “good birth,” or promoting the birth of healthier, better individuals. Eugenics can be bad or good, depending on how one goes about it, and currently it’s used every day in a variety of circumstances for a variety of reasons, but without any evil involved.
Well, that definition of eugenics requires yet further definitions of “good” and “better”, which cannot be algorithmic. But, I suppose, a definition of evil cannot be algorithmic either, so there goes my argument.
Notice that I said “supporting,” not “proving.” Proof is warranted and necessary in some circumstances; simply having good support is sufficient in other circumstances.
Okay.
Unless you can point to someone actually doing that, this is either irrelevant or a Straw Man.
Oh, above, in your reply at post 20.
Nor does he say what you attribute to him.
I guess I shouldn’t have used quotes. I was paraphrasing the overall message of the documentary. He doesn’t actually say “If we misinterpret the findings of Science (including Darwinism), we will commit rational, logical atrocities…”, but I think it’s an accurate distillation.
But I do quote him directly above: science leads you to killing people.
Yep. I think he may want to put some qualifiers in there.
Where in post #20 do I say that I expect proof from every sentence someone writes? In post 20 I don’t even expect proof from every sentence I responded to, never mind every sentence that the person might offer. Instead, I challenged them to provide proof for strong empirical assertions of fact.
If you think that any particular challenge for proof was misplaces, feel free to point it out and explain why. Otherwise, the general objection to how many challenges for proof were made isn’t worth very much — especially so long as you ignore the context of how many strong empirical assertions of fact were made.
Does it really make sense to object to lots of requests for proof without also objecting to lots of unsupported assertions? Indeed, which is really worse: making lots of assertions of fact without offering any support or challenging those assertions and expecting the person to back up what they say?
Why, given the fact that he provides a highly inaccurate portrayal of science and evolutionary theory?
But if that’s what he really believes, then perhaps your distillation of the message of his documentary isn’t so accurate after all.
Science, with all of its wonder and horror, like religion, are all motivations of the human mind. That it. Sorry for such an unexciting reply to Stein fella.
Where in post #20 do I say that I expect proof from every sentence someone writes?
Well, that was your general reaction to the unproved assertions. Those kind of assertions about spirituality are broadly assumed to be self-evident on the part of the asserters, because the information source (the spirit) is considered absolutely trustworthy, and not subject to the same laws of proof required by the discerning mind. What this particular poster means by “spirit”, however, I don’t know.
Indeed, which is really worse: making lots of assertions of fact without offering any support or challenging those assertions and expecting the person to back up what they say?
Parents do the former with their children all the time. The interaction is based on honesty, trust, and innocence. The latter, however, is decidedly more beneficial in an environment where the three aforementioned properties are in short supply. So I see your point of view.
–I think it’s an accurate distillation.–
Why, given the fact that he provides a highly inaccurate portrayal of science and evolutionary theory?
No, I think I accurately distilled the message he was trying to get across. Sorry for the ambiguity.
Oops, chopped some off:
But if that’s what he really believes, then perhaps your distillation of the message of his documentary isn’t so accurate after all.
Well, of the documentary as a stand-alone, I think it’s accurate. And as for his quote…
“Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people. ”
I would imagine, coupled with the content of the documentary, that he actually thinks that science, as the prime component in the production of meaning, leads us to killing each other. Whereas the “love of God, compassion, and empathy” as prime components do not. I have no evidence whatsoever to say he thinks this.
To those assertions. In that context.
Such assumptions are not an excuse to not be able to prove one’s assertoins.
Then a person can assert the opposite and be equally “correct,” rendering the assertions valueless.
An irrelevant relationship in this context.
Oh, I understood what you meant. My point is: why do you think he would be trying to say what you claim given that he is essentially lying about science and evolution?
Since his own quote above is contrary to that, are you asserting that you know his mind better than he does?
Such assumptions are not an excuse to not be able to prove one’s assertions.
There’s no need for proof, because trust is more elegant (in the framework of those assumptions). So they won’t give any. They’ve allowed their minds to accept, without the normal safeguards of doubt, whatever information they’ve received from their “spirit”.
Then a person can assert the opposite and be equally “correct,” rendering the assertions valueless.
Yep. You’d have a way of discerning for yourself whether or not their spiritual “information source” is, in fact, trustworthy.
An irrelevant relationship in this context.
Not at all. Communication, truth, and information are relevant in every context, no matter the expressed relation.
Since his own quote above is contrary to that, are you asserting that you know his mind better than he does?
I’m offering you an alternative viewpoint. Of course I don’t know his mind better than he does (though I think it’s possible to do this with friends and family). A regular conversation is comprised of one or more natural languages – it is not formalized, like mathematics, or logic. We are therefore not able to analyze such conversations in a formal manner. One comment can mean several different things, and increasingly so when isolated from the complete content of all the thoughts of the information source. Granted, I do not know his complete mind, but neither do you – so if my assessment is improbable based on a 90 minute documentary coupled with the above quote, then your assessment is all the more invalid because it is only based on the quote alone.
But, I don’t think either of our assessments are invalid.
Maybe not when they are sitting at home, contemplating the perfect circularity of their ideology. When they go out into the world and assert the truth of their ideology, however, they are in for a rude awakening. I won’t cease to demand support or proof for their assertions simply because they cannot conceive of anyone not immediately trusting their infallible word.
It’s 100% irrelevant because I”m not a child being instructed by a parent.
Of course you are. What I wonder, though, is whether that viewpoint has any sound foundation. If you cannot offer one – and that appears to be the case – I must conclude not.
Except that I’m not working based on the quote alone. It’s interesting that you would assume so, even though you had evidence to the contrary.
Before this two-person debate gets too dry to swallow anymore, I would like to point out something about the “Darwinism” mentioned earlier. Mr. Cline was correct when he asserted that “Darwinism” is something of a fabrication, but he seems to treat it as if it was merely a semantic issue. “Darwinism” in American society is a much bigger problem than semantics. I have taught science in high school and it has become abundantly clear that few people have even a basic grasp of what the theory of evolution by natural selection is about. The misconceptions are quite astounding. Raise your hand if you think that Darwin said our ancestors were monkeys, or that evolution leads to progress and advancement! Most of the ideas we have about evolution do not come from Darwin at all. originally they came from an American named Herbert Spencer who wanted to use Darwin’s theory to promote the robber barons of 19th century Capitalism. Many of the objections to evolution that people have would be resolved if they actually understood it, rather than relying on the misrepresentations that have been going around for more than a century.
Maybe not when they are sitting at home, contemplating the perfect circularity of their ideology. When they go out into the world and assert the truth of their ideology, however, they are in for a rude awakening. I won’t cease to demand support or proof for their assertions simply because they cannot conceive of anyone not immediately trusting their infallible word.
Right.
It’s 100% irrelevant because I”m not a child being instructed by a parent.
Right. But a trusting person will not only accept many things without proof, but also offer statements without thinking that they need to prove them. I was illustrating this point. The person above, going on about their “spirit”, doesn’t require it, and so doesn’t offer it. Asking for it doesn’t make sense, because they won’t even know where to start.
Of course you are. What I wonder, though, is whether that viewpoint has any sound foundation. If you cannot offer one – and that appears to be the case – I must conclude not.
Very well.
Except that I’m not working based on the quote alone. It’s interesting that you would assume so, even though you had evidence to the contrary.
It is that single quote that you keep wielding, so I was putting it back into a larger pool of information – namely, the documentary.
Before this two-person debate gets too dry to swallow anymore, I would like to point out something about the “Darwinism” mentioned earlier.
I think such misconceptions are rampant. And inevitable. And sorry to bore you!
I guess I’ll bow out now. Thanks for replying to my posts, Austin. I appreciate it.
I doubt they would simply “trust” me if I asserted the opposite. So, I challenged your characterization of them as a “trusting person.” At best, they are simply trusting of whatever they hear that agrees with them, which isn’t a very interesting observation as that describes how most people are much of the time.
What I think is far more likely is that many people are completely unaccustomed to being asked to support any of their assertions. They spend too much time with like-minded people who simply nod their heads in agreement when they hear their own views parroted back to them. Faced with people who sincerely disagree, have challenging questions, and contrary facts, many just freeze up, get defensive, and/or leave. It’s too uncomfortable for some to be faced with having to defend, justify, and support opinions taken for granted by themselves and others they know.
It’s thus less a question “trust” and more a question of intellectual immaturity.
1. It happens to be the subject of the post you are commenting on.
2. I also happen to have brought up more than once how he misrepresents both science and evolution.
Just read the comments from someone else called Nate about Austin being an ass.
For the record Austin, it wasn’t me. “Ace” probably would fit more precisely. Thanks for speaking up for the non-religious.
go **** ur slef
Gotta love the hypocrisy of this.>
The ‘hypocrisy’ here is that proponents of intelligent design (whatever that is, exactly, I am not entirely sure, but I know that it’s a brand of creationism, the newest to develop, and that it was first formulated by an American lawyer named Philip Johnson) and other anti-evolutionist creationists, particularly in the U.S, are always whining about their views on the origin of species etc not being taught in school science classes, giving the illusion that they actually care about science education, that they genuinely think that their views amount to valid scientific theories and that hence, by trying to inject their views into the school science curriculum, they have the best interests of science education at heart. Here, however, we see one of their number in his true colours, openly expressing disdain for science. Lest any atheists (or anyone else, for that matter) needed a less equivocal indication that what the anti-evolutionists are really interested in is not science education, but the promotion of their religious ideology in science classes, this is it.
Maybe in the U.S.A. this is one of the characteristics that distinguish a palaeo-conservative from a neo-conservative. Expressing hatred for science outright is something that has kind of gone out of fashion among religious and political conservatives in recent decades (at least in the West) in favour of dressing religious superstition up as science. Palaeo-conservatives have become accustomed to employing this latter tactic alongside neo-conservatives, as Ben Stein’s support for the I.D. movement shows, but are perhaps not as tuned into it as their neo counterparts and thus more likely to revert to the old-school habit of explicitly denouncing science.
Then again, that’s just my hypothetical opinion.
Saying Science is Evil will almost universally get you panned, but say the same thing about religion and its perfectly okay. Thus is our “Politically Correct” world.>
Jimmy, you’re obviously from another planet, probably in a parallel universe. In my world, it is criticism of religion and saying that religion is a source of evil that is not politically correct, whereas one can most probably get away with denouncing science as evil. In many parts of this world (though, thankfully, not in my home country, Britain, at least not at large, anyway), so much as professing a lack of belief in the existence of gods opens one up to persecution and discrimination, unofficial and sometimes even official. This is at least part because of the association of atheism with criticism of and opposition to religion, which continues to enjoy a position of privilege in society, to the extent that it is treated as immune from the sort of criticism we apply to just about everything else in life.
Hitler was born a Christian but rejected it because he felt it promoted “weakness.”>
1) Everyone is born without a belief in the existence of any gods and is thus an atheist at birth, so no, Hitler was not born a Christian.
2) Hitler was apparently never excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church and not only remained a Christian throughout his rule, but in fact used his religion as a justification for the persecution he carried out, not least the persecution of the Jews. Whatever quotes from him that led you to belief that Hitler regarded Christianity as promoting weakness were perhaps referring to forms of Christianity that he didn’t approve of, those that he felt promoted ‘Bolshevism’.
Not to mention, most drug lords, gangsters, and everyday criminals tend to be nonreligious>
Jimmy, I have to say once again that you must come from some other planet. You don’t come the U.S. That’s for sure. Over there, the overwhelming majority of the prison population are apparently Christians.
Without any sort of spirituality, all morality is based on a system of “don’t hurt them if you don’t want them to hurt you.”>
Excuse me, but ‘Do to others as you would have done by’, otherwise known as ‘the Golden Rule’, is found in the very book that this Jimmy person probably professes to be the ultimate source of his moral guidance. (I am not sure, by the way, that Jimmy is a Christian, since there is nothing in his comment to explicitly suggest so. However, given that I have read and heard the word ’spirituality’ used more by conservative Christians than anyone else, my guess is that he is). The Golden Rule did not actually originate in the Bible; rather, it originated in far Eastern religions (or so I am told). Nonetheless, it is found in the Bible, is it not? Yet here we have this guy, who most probably is a Christian, and likely a conservative one at that, and thus doubtlessly one who likes to give an impression of being obsessed with the authority of the Bible, alluding to the Golden Rule in a sentence in which he effectively says that it results from a lack of spirituality. This, in turn, is in the context of a comment in which he suggests that there is a necessary link between morality and spirituality. This suggests that he dismisses the Golden rule, which is found in his own Bible, as not being legitimate morality! How ironic! So much for absolute authority of the Bible!
So, first you comment on our hypocrisy for criticising Ben Stein’s statement that ’science leads you to killing people’ while saying same thing about certain brands of religion, when in fact the real hypocrisy is that this very same moron is among the fanatical conservative Christian nuts in the U.S.A. seeking to inject religion into science classes under the banner of acting in the best interests science education. Then, you suggest that saying science is evil is not considered socially acceptable, whereas saying the same about religion isn’t, when, if anything, it is the other way round. You suggest that criminals tend to be infidels (those without any religious affiliation), when in the U.S at least, the overwhelming majority of the prison population are Christians. Finally, you implicitly suggest the Golden Rule is not true morality, when it is found your very own Bible, the very book you presumably claim to be your ultimate, absolute and final authority!
Wow, Jimmy! I for one would damned hard-pressed to fit more irony into one comment! Congratulations!
Here we are once again arguing over who has the “all encompassing answer” to explain the phenomena of “life”. The funny thing here is that Atheism in this blog is being presented as something superior than other beliefs – wow, isn’t that how wars start? Atheism by definition, is a religion just as much as Islam, Christianity or Hinduism is. This blog is nothing more than peddlers of ideas, peddling their ideas. Whether Atheist or believer in a higher power, neither -in my peddling- adequately explains our existence at this point in time.
In relation to the film -which has got Austin’s thong in a wad- he completely missed the point. If you don’t know what the point is, I pity you.
Really? If so, you should be able to point to an atheist here doing so.
Since I explicitly deny that atheism is a belief at all, that would be impossible. Feel free, though, to actually point to where you think I am doing what you accuse me of. You can support your accusation, right?
Oh, and because atheism is not a proper noun, it should not be capitalized in the middle of a sentence.
Atheism, by definition, is the absence of belief in gods. It may be compatible with some belief systems (like Objectivism) and even some religions (like Buddhism), but all by itself it is no more a religion than theism all by itself.
You make it sound bad to have ideas and talk about them.
Given your misunderstandings about atheism, I have trouble crediting you with much understanding of the “point” of the film, either. You’re welcome to prove me wrong, though.
My understanding of science is that it is a method by which we develop understanding of our environment. A scientist has an idea about how neurons are affected by cocaine and he/she develops a procedure to test that hypothesis to determine it’s validity. Scietific advancement in our understanding of the complexity of cellular biology has precipitated legitimate questions regarding the validity of the theory of evolution. When institutional dogma (darwinism) replaces intellectual curiosity then that dogma for all intents and purposes becomes a religion. Darwinism isn’t a truth, it is a theory and as such it should be questioned and tested.
Whoever told you that was misleading you.
Except for the fact that Darwinism isn’t dogma or religion any more than Plate Tectonics.
Do you understand what “theory” means in science?
After watching Expelled, it seems that Ben Stein is seeking to not expel God from science and it appears to beg the question why has the debate for intelligent design been taken off the table. It is a question for debate.
What role would a “God” have to play in science and why?
Intelligent Design has been “taken off the table” for the same reason that astrology has: it’s not science.
If you disagree and think that it qualifies as genuine science, you’re more than welcome to make a case for that. Otherwise, there really isn’t anything to debate, is there?
Most of the comments are assuming that Mr. Stein is seeking a certain outcome. The issue is a refusal to allow any dialog which challenges the current dogma. This is funny because the Darwinist can not scientifically explain the first cell, thus rely upon faith, the issue raised by opponents to Intelligent Design.
Automatic dismissal of theory without review, or acceptance, creates the potential for abuse, a fundamental problem with Darwinism. Opponents of ID need to explain their conduct, not their favorite theory, in terms which is other than a dismissal to the gulag, because conduct is the issue.
The implications of the discussion extend deeply into our present culture. This discussion will continue for years to come until mystery is removed by science, answer the how, replicate the how, and maybe this discussion will approach conclusion.
The origin of the first cell isn’t addressed by evolutionary theory. Anyone who actually understands evolutionary theory already knows this.
And one of the fundamental problems of Intelligent Design is that it isn’t a scientific theory. Dismissing it therefore leads to no more abuse than dismissing astrology.
Evolution “Orign of the Species” or “Transmutation of the Species” is IN NO WAY A SCIENTIFIC THEORY; IT IS PURE AND UNADULTERATED IMPOSSIBLE RANTING! And this “Chief Scientist” will debate and beat in the first “Affirmative/Negative” go-around any evolutionary scientist — including Richard Dawkings — who has the guts to debate it publically. COWARDS!
Can you explain how and why it fails to fulfill the conditions necessary for a theory to be scientific?
You can’t even get Dawkins’ name right.
Maybe after you demonstrate that you know enough about science to be worth taking seriously, someone will consider the possibility of debating you. Until then, you’re the only one “ranting” here – just look at all the invective, insults, and inappropriate use of all-caps as proof.
Well, Austin, I do agree with you that nothing gets accomplished with name-calling and yelling. As my husband always says, respectfully disagreeing is a lost art.
What I think is far more likely is that many people are completely unaccustomed to being asked to support any of their assertions. They spend too much time with like-minded people who simply nod their heads in agreement when they hear their own views parroted back to them.
I agree that this happens. I think a big reason for this is because of this inability to have conversations respectfully. No one listens, no one gets anywhere, so people just keep to talking within their comfort zones. So sad.
I think it’s interesting that you have challenged most opposing commenters to their claims but have provided little to no evidence for yours. Namely, what is the evidence you have for evolutionary theory. (I am not talking about microevolution, which sparks little debate.) What evidence (scientific or other) is there for macroevolution? Has anyone observed one species evolve into another? Has anyone designed an experiment where natural selection took place and a new species was formed?
Natural science tests hypotheses using repeated observation and experimentation. With this definition both ET and ID fall short of being called scientific. You certainly cannot, in a controlled experiment, recreate trans-speciation which is claimed to take place over hundreds, thousands, or millions of years. (In fact, it would be impossible to even know what the conditions were like millions of years ago to even create a similar experimental environment.) Nor could you set up a controlled experiment that would bring in *the* intelligent designer to create a new species.
Maybe the best way to examine these “theories” is to use more of a legal-historical proof approach in which evidence (like exhibits in a courtroom) is weighed accordingly and a verdict is reached based on this type of evidence available. The burden of proof falls on both groups, which would include evidence in support of your ‘theory’ and evidence against the other ‘theory’. And, well, if your opponent can create a reasonable doubt, then maybe no verdict can be reached until more info or evidence is collected.
Having said this, I do think carefully designed experiments can create this legal type of evidence that can influence the verdict. And in my review of the evidence I think it is overwhelmingly in favor of ID.
Just a few examples (which I am listing rather than fully explaining merely due to length of comment):
-paleontology’s secret that most species appear suddenly in the fossil record and show no appreciable change for millions of years until their extinction
-the many irreducible complex structures in the human body
-the many symbiotic relationships (e.g. sexual reproduction) that lack any explanation for how they could have evolved one after the other or perfectly in sync if occurring as a process of natural selection
-the research studies that show that breeding in isolated populations leads to weaker, if not sterile, offspring that eventually reduce in number
-the lack of explanation for evolution in adult form although life in many (most) species occurs through a baby/embryonic form.
-the research that has been able to define accurate function of certain biologic systems based on principles taken from design-based fields like engineering
…And so on and so on. This is not an exhaustive list. I don’t believe I’ve received to date any evidence to support ET that I haven’t also been able to find an equally plausible argument under ID to explain that piece of evidence.
I think there is an important question to consider…What would it take for someone to convince you to change what ‘theory’ you take stock in? How much evidence is required? Some people are so rooted in their position on ET or ID because it ties in so tightly with their world view that no amount of evidence would ever change their mind.
Your differential treatment of the two assumes that evidence for one can’t be evidence for the other — that there is some barrier that prevents one from becoming the other over time. Can you support this assumption?
Yes, the literature is filled with examples of speciation.
You can’t know very much about evolutionary theory if you think that it hasn’t been tested by repeated observation and experimentation. In fact, evolutionary theory has been repeatedly confirmed by observations and testing in multiple scientific fields, making is firm and strong as any scientific theory around.
Show how this is a problem for evolution.
Define the concept and prove that any exist.
The claim that something couldn’t possibly have a natural explanation is pretty strong. I assume you can support it.
Once again, feel free to support this.
What?
And what does this have to do with evolution?
It’s not even a good list.
Except that ID doesn’t make testable predictions.
Well, apologists who actually knew what they were talking about and didn’t misrepresent everything they tried to claim would make me a lot more receptive.
I only find this to be true among apologists for religious ideologies, like ID. People who adopt a scientific perspective — and who therefore accept evolution — have already adopted a perspective which makes them amenable to changing their minds as new evidence is found.
Namely, what is the evidence you have for evolutionary theory. (I am not talking about microevolution, which sparks little debate.) What evidence (scientific or other) is there for macroevolution?
Your differential treatment of the two assumes that evidence for one can’t be evidence for the other — that there is some barrier that prevents one from becoming the other over time. Can you support this assumption?
The distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is critical because macroevolutionary changes that take place over millions of years are obviously not observable. If the general idea is microevolution + time = macroevolution, then the problematic issue here is the incredible extrapolation of the data that must be accepted. Any inferred relationship between variables gets increasingly unreliable as you extrapolate further from existing data. In this case we are asked to accept an extrapolation over millions of years that includes evolutionary mechanisms that we have not directly observed. To ask why evidence for microevolution is not automatically applicable to macroevolution is the equivalent of asking why a relationship between variables with values between 1 and 10 is not automatically applicable when the variables are in the millions. I think the reason for suspecting a barrier between applying evidence of microevolution to macroevolution is self-evident. I would say that with the extrapolations that evolutionary proponents are asking of us, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why this is an intellectually reasonable leap to make.
Has anyone observed one species evolve into another? Has anyone designed an experiment where natural selection took place and a new species was formed?
Yes, the literature is filled with examples of speciation.
Thanks for the read. These articles are so riddled with problems I certainly won’t be able to address them all here. One of the main issues is that scientists do not even have a solid grasp on what a species is. How can we make observations about whether a new species has formed if there is argument on what a species is? The definition of species that is used in many of the references you provided seems to be based on whatever definition is needed to show that speciation has occurred. Having said that, none were very compelling. In addition, none of these examples really has any change of “type” involved. One example highlighted in your first citation involved three different wildflower species that through polyploidization (duplicate sets of chromosomes) resulted in a different type of wildflower. This is certainly interesting, but I don’t find it terribly compelling in that you start with wildflowers and end up with wildflowers. Another example in your second citation regards a new “species” of fireweed formed by polyploidization. The test for speciation for this example is that the new fireweed could not mate with the original fireweed, though this example admits that polyploids are typically considered a “race” of the existing species and not a new species. Likewise, there are chromosomal abnormalities in humans which cause genetic and physical differences, but that do not make the person a new species (One example: Down Syndrome in which there is an extra 21st chromosome), so all of the polyploidization studies are weak in proving speciation occurs. Most of the fly studies in your two links discuss mating patterns, but no change in species. I think the point was that a more isolated mating population is necessary for speciation to occur, but below I will discuss why the evidence doesn’t support this. Again, weak argument for speciation. A final point about the sites you provided, many of the examples cited involved direct manipulation by the researchers to produce the “speciation”. If the intent is to provide experimental evidence of speciation occurring by evolutionary processes, I don’t see how these types of experiments achieve that goal. If this citation represents at least a fairly representative sampling of documented speciation occurrences, than I think being intellectually cautious about other speciation claims is clearly warranted.
Natural science tests hypotheses using repeated observation and experimentation. With this definition both ET and ID fall short of being called scientific.
You can’t know very much about evolutionary theory if you think that it hasn’t been tested by repeated observation and experimentation. In fact, evolutionary theory has been repeatedly confirmed by observations and testing in multiple scientific fields, making is firm and strong as any scientific theory around.
I know there are many studies that casually use the word evolution in the article, or that address microevolution (like adaptation or genetic drift), or that even look at the mechanisms of biology with an unfounded assumption that the mechanism evolved. I have read many of these to know that they exist and some of them are great science. There are many components of microevolution that I would agree with based on good observation and experimentation. But there are many studies that are working off of an assumption of macroevolution that has not been founded. Your first link even states that it (speciation) has not been widely studied and therefore has not been repeatedly observed (I completely disagree with his reasons for why, but the fact that it has not been studied widely remains the same). Based on my above points I still hold that macroevolution has not been and cannot be properly tested, let alone is it a firm and strong scientific theory.
-paleontology’s secret that most species appear suddenly in the fossil record and show no appreciable change for millions of years until their extinction
Show how this is a problem for evolution.
The abrupt appearance of the major animal phyla within the Precambrian-Cambrian transition presents a large and obvious problem for evolutionary theory. What evolutionary mechanism would be the cause for such an abrupt appearance of myriad complex organisms in such a short time frame? Also, the further we regress from the present the more unlike current species we should expect to find according to evolutionary theory. So, why do we find major animal groups in these earliest fossil bearing rocks? Darwin thought that Precambrian fossils should be abundant and that the world teemed with living creatures during this early time before animals were present. Darwin’s only explanation was that these Precambrian fossils must have been destroyed or that these soft-bodied creatures could not form fossils. However, we now know that this is not true. American paleobiologist William Schopf stated “The long-held notion that Precambrian organisms must have been too small or too delicate to have been preserved in geological materials…[is] now recognized as incorrect.” In addition Darwin himself stated “to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.” He concluded “the case at present remains inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.” If Darwin accepted the lack of Precambrian fossils and the apparent “Cambrian explosion” of fully formed complex animal phyla as a valid counterargument to his evolutionary theory than so do I.
-the many irreducible complex structures in the human body
Define the concept and prove that any exist.
If you have done any reading of the opposing view, ID, then this likely would have come up. Irreducible complexity: “A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning” (Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe, p39 in the 2006 edition). I strongly recommend the book. The following are examples of irreducibly complex systems: cilium, the bacterial flagellum, blood clotting, the immune system and intracellular gated and vesicular transport. They are described in detail in the book. Of course you are going to read about evolutionists that dispute this claim, but please don’t recite their empty refutes…please only attempt to refute it with actual evidence or citations (ones that I have read have not offered compelling arguments).
-the many symbiotic relationships (e.g. sexual reproduction) that lack any explanation for how they could have evolved one after the other or perfectly in sync if occurring as a process of natural selection
The claim that something couldn’t possibly have a natural explanation is pretty strong. I assume you can support it.
The claim that something couldn’t possibly be designed is pretty strong. I assume you can support it. Even Dawkins has stated that the seeding of life on this planet by an extraterrestrial intelligence is a hypothesis that is worth pursuing.
-the research studies that show that breeding in isolated populations leads to weaker, if not sterile, offspring that eventually reduce in number
Once again, feel free to support this.
In one of your links, it describes a model of speciation having two steps: forming races in subpopulations, and then reproductive isolation. Here is one example of what happens in reproductive isolation – a 35-year study of an isolated population of prairie chickens. This study disputes the idea that isolated groups of a population evolve into new species. Instead, populations that suffer drastic reductions in numbers are characterized by decreased genetic variability and an expression of detrimental genes. This happens because normally heterozygous (containing 2 different alleles of each gene) individuals become homozygous, due to inbreeding. As a result, detrimental, non-expressed, recessive genes become homozygous and, therefore, are expressed, resulting in a less fit population. The study examined the effect of a 35-year population decline of an isolated group of greater prairie chickens on their fitness and fertility. The results showed that population decline and isolation of the prairie chicken led to decreased genetic variability, reduced egg viability (from near 100% to less than 80%), and a decline of fertility rates (from 93% to 74%). Only after human intervention (which brought in genetically diverse individuals from other areas) did the population begin to recover. This study confirms what we see in the fossil record that species remain unchanged until they go extinct. Even evolutionists are now recognizing this fact.
-the research that has been able to define accurate function of certain biologic systems based on principles taken from design-based fields like engineering
And what does this have to do with evolution?
Nothing. My list included items that refuted ET and that supported ID. This is an example of support for ID. (More on this below.)
…And so on and so on. This is not an exhaustive list.
It’s not even a good list.
Where’s your list?
I don’t believe I’ve received to date any evidence to support ET that I haven’t also been able to find an equally plausible argument under ID to explain that piece of evidence.
Except that ID doesn’t make testable predictions.
Based on the theory that life is as it is today based on an intelligent designer, how can we observe and test that? We can observe things that are designed and test whether or not biological systems are structured and/or function similarly to the design. You can easily make testable predictions. HREF=”http://www.discovery.org/a/2640″>Here are a bunch of peer-reviewed sources that have addressed ID (some better than others). HREF=”http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/ejcts/article/PIIS1010794007003533/abstract”>Here is an example of an article that uses the design principles of shock absorbers to study the papillary muscles of the heart. And here is a blurb about another study that also discusses the tiny “shock absorbers” of bacteria: “Research on these fimbriae uncovers something that’s essentially a mechanical nanotechnological device created by nature, and gives us the opportunity to adapt such a system for biotechnological and even other technical uses,” said study co-author Dr. Evgeni Sokurenko, associate professor of microbiology at the UW and a principal investigator at the NIH Bioengineering Research Partnership that primarily funded the project.” It also improves our understanding of how to fight bacteria that persist in turbulent environments, like the human urinary tract or intestines.”
Of course, there are many others who use ID as an underlying theory to drive their research, though you may never hear actual mention of ID in their write-ups because of that whole you-can-lose-your-grant-or-your-job-if-you-talk-about-ID thing.
I think there is an important question to consider…What would it take for someone to convince you to change what ‘theory’ you take stock in?
Well, apologists who actually knew what they were talking about and didn’t misrepresent everything they tried to claim would make me a lot more receptive.
How much evidence is required? Some people are so rooted in their position on ET or ID because it ties in so tightly with their world view that no amount of evidence would ever change their mind.
I only find this to be true among apologists for religious ideologies, like ID. People who adopt a scientific perspective — and who therefore accept evolution — have already adopted a perspective which makes them amenable to changing their minds as new evidence is found.
Huh. So only religious people can be biased? You already stopped listening to me the moment I said I believe the evidence more strongly favors ID. No amount of evidence or information that I present to you will matter. I have been in science for 15+ years and know all too well the rules about looking at all data objectively and without bias. I have frowned on some colleagues who have tried to push the data a little too hard into the pretty little theoretical package in which they wanted it to fit. Do you think because I also have a belief in God that I can no longer look at the evidence objectively? You know, the definition of religion = a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. It sounds like you are religious too, but that science and/or evolution is your religion. Sounds like you have great faith in science, that it has all of the answers even if we haven’t found them yet or will never be able to find them (e.g. we will never know how the origin of life actually came about). You don’t believe in God and an intelligent designer sounds too much like a God (even though that is not IDs intent) so you won’t even allow yourself to objectively consider the evidence for ID. And you think you can look at science and evolution with less bias than me?
Many things in science aren’t directly observable.
Sorry, it’s not. You’ll have to point out what this barrier is/
You’ve read each of the original research articles?
Since you consider the problems with defining “species” to be so important, I’m you’ll be able to provide a non-vague, scientific definition of “type.”
Unless you can demonstrate that it’s not really an example of speciation, the only reason why it’s not “compelling” to you is because you don’t wish to accept it.
Feel free to support that accusation.
Adaptation to environmental pressures – the same mechanism for most of the rest of evolutionary development.
Really? I must have missed that part of the theory. Please, cite it for me.
You can’t mount a serious critique of evolutionary theory by focusing on Darwin. That’s like trying to critique physics by focusing on Newton. The field has progressed quite a lot since Darwin’s day; critiques which focus on him implicitly admit an inability to understand or critique modern science.
If you have done any reading on evolutionary theory, you’ll know that none of these are “irreducibly complex.” No, I won’t bother going any further into them because you haven’t invested any effort into providing evidence that “irreducibly complex” systems exit. Merely giving the name of a single book is insufficient.
I didn’t make this claim.
Sometimes turning a person’s statement around against them can be a clever bit of rhetoric, but when doing so entails attributing to them claims they didn’t make, you only look foolish.
So, you’ve adopted the position that something couldn’t possibly have a natural explanation. I look forward to you supporting this.
Is this applicable to all isolated populations? If so, how and why? If not, then you’ll need to do a lot more to support your assertion.
Why would I waste time constructing a list in response to a series of unsupported assertions?
Then it should be easy to provide some predictions that have been successfully tested.
No, I didn’t say that. Once again, take care not to attribute to people things they have not said.
Everyone has biases. However, it’s been my experience that the only people who are so rooted in their position that nothing will change their minds are those with an ideological commitment — usually religious, but sometimes political. Science by its nature works against this because the very process requires new data to force the revision of old explanations. It’s not perfect because humans are imperfect, but the system as a whole ensures success over the course of time. That’s why evolutionary theory is the foundation for all of modern biology.
Oh, no. I take you as seriously as someone who says that they find better evidence for a flat earth than for a round earth. I don’t agree with it, but I’ll look at whatever arguments they think they can muster.
I hate to break the news to you, but you aren’t a very good mind reader.
Then you must know that science relies on the process of peer review to ensure accurate data and conclusions, not any one person’s “skill” at being “objective.” The results of peer reviewed research from multiple fields doing multiple lines of inquiry point solely to natural selection, adaptation, and evolution. Absolutely none point to any sort of design. So, what you’re saying is that you are an experienced professional in the field of science who flatly rejects the conclusions that the scientific method has produced in favor of conclusions which no science can point to… and why? Apparently because all those decades of science just aren’t “compelling” to you.
And so we come back to why science relies on the process of peer review, not any one person’s “skill” at being “objective.”
I have no idea what the source or origin for that particular failure of your lies. It might have nothing whatsoever to do with your theism.
No, it’s not.
No, I’m not — and not even under your mistaken definition.
Sorry, but they aren’t religions.
Clearly I already do.
The distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is critical because macroevolutionary changes that take place over millions of years are obviously not observable.
Many things in science aren’t directly observable.
But you still have not addressed the issue of inference. There are things in science that are inferred based on observation, but the more that we have to infer decreases the confidence that our conclusion is correct. As stated before, the amount of information we would have to infer to move from micro to macroevolution is so great that our confidence interval would be unreasonably small. You seem to feel that micro to macroevolution is a reasonable inference, please explain why.
I think the reason for suspecting a barrier between applying evidence of microevolution to macroevolution is self-evident.
Sorry, it’s not. You’ll have to point out what this barrier is
As I stated, the barrier is the magnitude of the inference required. You still have not provided an argument for why this is a reasonable inference with the limited data points and extended extrapolation that is required.
I don’t find it terribly compelling in that you start with wildflowers and end up with wildflowers.
Unless you can demonstrate that it’s not really an example of speciation, the only reason why it’s not “compelling” to you is because you don’t wish to accept it.
You haven’t proven to me that it is speciation, and the other articles in your links dispute that it is speciation as well. The only evidence you provided to me contradicts itself on whether or not speciation occurs in this instance (polyploidization). If your own references don’t find it compelling, why should I?
What evolutionary mechanism would be the cause for such an abrupt appearance of myriad complex organisms in such a short time frame?
Adaptation to environmental pressures – the same mechanism for most of the rest of evolutionary development.
Again you’re assuming adaptation leads to speciation. And not just speciation, but speciation in an explosion of new species in a short amount of time. Please provide evidence for this.
Also, the further we regress from the present the more unlike current species we should expect to find according to evolutionary theory.
Really? I must have missed that part of the theory. Please, cite it for me.
ET subscribes to the idea that we have progressed from a simple organism to increasingly complex organisms over time. It is a logical assumption that as we regress in time we should expect to find simpler and simpler organisms without the presence of more complex systems that have not evolved yet. Please explain why this is not a logical inference.
The following are examples of irreducibly complex systems: cilium, the bacterial flagellum, blood clotting, the immune system and intracellular gated and vesicular transport.
If you have done any reading on evolutionary theory, you’ll know that none of these are “irreducibly complex.”
You provide no evidence or citations for your claim.
No, I won’t bother going any further into them because you haven’t invested any effort into providing evidence that “irreducibly complex” systems exit. Merely giving the name of a single book is insufficient.
I did provide a source for evidence on irreducible complexity. The evidence is explained in detail in the book I mentioned. I also provided a link that has several peer-reviewed articles on the topic of irreducible complexity. I’ve done my homework and read these sources. I’m not going to do your homework and summarize them for you.
So, you’ve adopted the position that something couldn’t possibly have a natural explanation. I look forward to you supporting this.
I didn’t say something couldn’t possibly have a natural explanation. I said that I have not been given an explanation, evidence, or an experiment that adequately explains the evolution of certain symbiotic relationships like sexual reproduction.
Here is one example of what happens in reproductive isolation – a 35-year study of an isolated population of prairie chickens.
Is this applicable to all isolated populations? If so, how and why? If not, then you’ll need to do a lot more to support your assertion.
I’ve already addressed the ‘why’ (heterozygous vs. homozygous organisms). You asked for support and I provided it, now you are asking for more support. I will give some more examples, but after providing several studies on this topic that are problematic with models for speciation, if you’d like additional citations then I’ll leave it up to you. 1. Humans, which is why we have laws against inbreeding; 2. The following abstract (which matter-of-factly states that inbreeding depression is well-studied in captive animals…you should email the authors of the peer-reviewed study and tell them to prove it
): “Inbreeding depression in an isolated population of adders Vipera berus.” Although inbreeding depression is well-studied in captive animals, its role in natural populations remains controversial. We provide information on an isolated population of snakes (adders Vipera berus) that has been separated from neighbouring populations by the expansion of agricultural activities in southern Sweden. Total adult population size is
You can easily make testable predictions.
Then it should be easy to provide some predictions that have been successfully tested.
I did.
So only religious people can be biased?
No, I didn’t say that. Once again, take care not to attribute to people things they have not said.
Well, I said, “Some people are so rooted in their position on ET or ID because it ties in so tightly with their world view that no amount of evidence would ever change their mind.” And you said, “I only find this to be true among apologists for religious ideologies, like ID [italics mine].” It looks like you’ve attempted to clarify with an additional statement in your last post (“However, it’s been my experience that the only people who are so rooted in their position that nothing will change their minds are those with an ideological commitment — usually religious, but sometimes political.”).
It’s not perfect because humans are imperfect
We agree!
I have been in science for 15+ years and know all too well the rules about looking at all data objectively and without bias.
Then you must know that science relies on the process of peer review to ensure accurate data and conclusions, not any one person’s “skill” at being “objective.”
Of course I understand the peer review process. And to say that it “ensures” accurate data and conclusions tells me that you don’t know much about the process. If I hadn’t already spent enough time and space responding to your other comments then I would provide a slew of anecdotes, evidence, quotations, and citations for why the peer-review process does not “ensure” anything; I’m not going to take the time for it now. But again, you are smart, so you can read about the considerations and issues of peer review on your own. Having said that, if you take such stock in the peer-review process, then you should consider more closely the many many peer-reviewed references of ID that I sent to you.
The results of peer reviewed research from multiple fields doing multiple lines of inquiry point solely to natural selection, adaptation, and evolution.
Solely? Big claim with no evidence to support it.
Absolutely none point to any sort of design.
Absolutely none? Once again a big claim with no evidence to support it. Interesting too since I sent you a link with peer-reviewed articles on ID, another link to a peer-reviewed article, and summaries of other articles.
So, what you’re saying is that you are an experienced professional in the field of science who flatly rejects the conclusions that the scientific method has produced in favor of conclusions which no science can point to… and why? Apparently because all those decades of science just aren’t “compelling” to you.
Nope. That’s not what I said. As I previously stated, there are components of microevolution that I believe have been studied well and are supported with strong evidence. I do not reject all components of ET, just the ones that lack evidence and that other theories/ideas better explain.
Feel free to prove this assertion.
Because there is no difference between the two, except that the latter constitute a difference that prevents procreation.
Ah, there is some measurable, specific magnitude? Good — what is it?
It’s “speciation” as biologists use the term. Do you imagine that you have a better definition? If not, you’re hardly in a position to deny that it’s speciation.
No, that’s the cause that’s been observed to push along speciation.
Really? Which part of evolutionary theory stipulates that there is “progress” and that it must necessarily move from “simpler” to “more complex”?
The following are examples of irreducibly complex systems: cilium, the bacterial flagellum, blood clotting, the immune system and intracellular gated and vesicular transport.
No, you gave the name of a book which asserts that certain structures are irreducibly complex. There can be no “evidence” that anything is irreducibly complex because the very nature of the claim prevents it: all it is is an Argument from Personal Incredulity. Now, when you trouble yourself to provide your own argument for your claims, I’ll spend the time on counter-evidence. Until then, it’s just a waste of my time to go back and re-read Behe’s silliness.
Oh, now you’re lying. You referenced “symbiotic relationships” that lack any explanation. You didn’t say that you personally hadn’t been handed an explanation; you said that no explanation exists — specifically, an explanation based on natural processes (evolution, natural selection). If my interpretation of that as “there couldn’t possibly be a natural explanation” were mistaken, you’d have said so immediately and provided a correction. But, no, you thought you’d be clever and turn it around — but you goofed because it forced you to attribute to me something I didn’t write.
I’m not going to even bother reading the rest of your post. There’s no greater waste of time than trying to hold a conversation with someone who can’t even be honest about what they just got finished typing. I’ll return to the rest of your comment if admit what you did and promise to not do it again; otherwise, anything else you post will be summarily deleted as trolling.
Ah hah. My original statement was cut out of comments 61 and 62 so I didn’t remember exactly what I had said in my original post. I certainly didn’t intend to make any dishonest or contradictory remarks. I always try to be cautious of big claims knowing that, although I may be well versed in ET/ID, I certainly haven’t read every article out there. So even if I had gone back and re-read my original statement containing “lack any explanation” I don’t think I would have interpreted it in such a way to mean no explanation exists, but rather in a way that I later stated – that I have not come across an explanation. This is one reason why I continually ask for your evidence or citations – if there is important data that I haven’t read that could inform my opinion then I’d like to know about it. This issue seems to be a minor detail of semantics in light of the many rich topics that have been in our discussion, but fair enough, I see how that may have looked like a contradiction to you.
Thanks for the discussions. Good luck with your blog.
I had it understood that Ben Stein didn’t believe evolution was scientific, not that he was against science itself.
I think it’s funny that every one posting here, cannot actually attack, or probably even grasp the subject at hand, but only attack the speaker. It’s a debate tactic, but not really useful in advancing any sort of knowledge. Without a God, there is no objective set of right and wrongs, without that, there is no reason for me not to rape you, kill you, and then rape your dead body. Also there is no reason not to cull humanity by taking those who are weaker, slower, less intelligent out of the breeding pool. But, instead of talking about this, or actually seeking an answer on your own, just get mad and talk about how stupid Ben Stein must be.
Prove it.
Prove it.
Well, his position is hateful and stupid, but the failure of all his sycophants to actually defend his position — all they do is reiterate it as if repetition qualified as proof — is already plenty of reason to reject it.
the movie was just about the lack of freedom to consider all possibilities regarding the beginning of life and how it has become what it it is today. The movies purpose was to create debate and it obviously has accomplished that goal. Although this blog and most of you that have commented seem more angry at Ben than the issue he has brought to your inattention.
This is false because no one is prevented from considering anything they want.
The movie spread falsehoods about science.
Or maybe annoyance at declaring that science leads one to killing people. I notice you don’t even try to defend that comment of his.
do you actually believe that Ben thinks science is what drives people to kill? If that’s what your position is than your not smart enough to have a blog.
Feel free to demonstrate what you think he really meant.
My friend on Facebook shared this link with me and I’m not dissapointed at all that I came here.
Your ignorance is amusing. Obviously both religion and science has been abused. Like science, those who use religion to promote self interest and erroneous speculations are obviously in danger not only of lying to those they influence, but also of believing those lies themselves. Real intellectual pursuit should focus on the truth and avoid emotionally charged exceptions that are obviously agenda filled fabrications. The Bible when properly understood does not condone political oppression and religious authoritarianism. Neither does science when properly demonstrated support evolution. There is no biblical evidence to support such extreme views of terrorism or political oppression neither is there any scientific evidence to support evolution.
In fact, the very political oppression and religious authoritarianism that guard against are natural outcomes of an evolutionary view. Notwithstanding the requirement of faith for matter and energy, evolution concludes that we are getting better. That is certainly debatable. But if we are getting better, then who are those who are not as good. Is the whites. Are they less of a race. Is the blacks, Asians, etc…
I am pretty sure that true science has affirmed all the claims of Scripture and an open minded approach may allow for those who love science and those who love God to realize they actually have a lot in common and that their views are really compatible once you leave out the chaff.
I look forward to your pointing out where I have demonstrated ignorance above.
But does science lead you to killing people? Yes or no.
Then why is it that every Jewish and Christian society has relied upon political oppression and religious authoritarianism until after the Enlightenment?
That sentence isn’t grammatical.
Is there any biblical evidence to support democracy and liberty
All the relevant scientific evidence supports evolution. For someone who started out commenting about my ignorance, it’s curious that you would demonstrate such extreme denial of reality. Your inability to accept the truth about science undermines any credibility you might have when it comes to how the Bible should be read.
Right, so the centuries of political oppression and religious authoritarianism in Christian societies that occurred before evolutionary theory developed was because…?
That statement makes no sense. Care to rephrase?
Evolutionary theory makes no such conclusion. On the other hand, Christians who lie about evolution claim that it does and this gets ignorant, gullible Christians to believe it.
That’s incoherent, even if we ignore the falsehoods about evolution.
I am 100% sure you have no substantive understanding of science — not of scientific methodology, scientific research, or the actual conclusions of science.
The only thing that qualifies as “chaff” are the lies about evolution spread by Christians.
Okay, I was in a hurry when I wrote earlier, so please excuse my grammatical mistakes and omitted words. I am still in a hurry, so let me apologize in advance for and grammatical errors here.
I do have an understanding of scientific method, therefore I ask you, prove evolution using that method. Never mind, I know it cannot be done.
I will instead focus on biblical development since that seems to be the source of intense contempt. Judaism has a partial understanding of God and his Love for his creation. They reject Jesus as the Christ and Messiah so all his teachings about love, forgiveness of sin, righteousness, and yes, even judgment are not weighed against the totality of Scripture when formulating their understanding of God. Christianity came from Judaism as Jesus was the fulfillment of the Old Testament sacrificial system that God the Father used to point toward his coming salvation. Because the early Christians were either Jews who were still breaking free from the legalistic tenets of Judaism, and because both Jewish and non-Jewish converts had no complete canon of Scripture, they did not understand the truth of God, that is the truth of Jesus and his love. The main thing and it is still one of the main things today, is that people think that being right with God is performing religious duties. And Jesus Christ said that it was not about religion, not about what we do, but rather being right with God is about a relationship. That is the main reason the religious rulers had him crucified. Christianity is about a relationship with God through faith in the death burial and resurrection for the forgiveness of sin.
As a result of the early development of Christianity , the Catholic church began oppressing people with legalistic ritual and self promoting practices. But we would be careful to separate the actions of man from the actions of God. The only source of truth was a Bible written in a language that the common people could not read, Latin. During the Protestant reformation, Christians learned the languages of Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic and began reading the canon of Scripture for themselves. It was then that they realized their religion was leading them further from God. It was then they realized that Salvation was by Grace not by works.
Now let me ask you, If you thought you had to work to win God’s favor, what would that work look like? It would like eradicating evil. This is true in any system that does not have an atoning sacrifice to satisfy the penalty of sin. But the Bible actually tells us that we can never satisfy God’s judgment upon our sin so He sent Jesus Christ to die in our place. As a result, we can love each other, we can have and give forgiveness, and we can have a real relationship with God. I have found it best, even today, to not let imperfect people who are just like me, influence my opinion of God. I go to the source, Scriptures.
So does the Bible support democracy and liberty? Liberty, yes? Jesus says, I have come that they may have life and have it abundantly. It also says, where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty. That is exactly the reason Jesus came. To free his creation from two things. One from the bondage to and judgment of sin. Second, his teachings free his followers from oppressive rules and regulations of the religious establishment. When Jesus says, my burden is easy and my yoke is light, he was referring to religious oppression, which to the Jew religious oppression was synonyms with political oppression.
Democracy is a bit tricky, but this is what I can tell you. The Bible teaches something called the priesthood of the believer. That is, every born again believer in the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ is indwelt with the Spirit of God. It is hard to understand, I know, but once you believe it happens and then you know it. But anyway, the Spirit of God has many roles in the believer’s life. He comforts, teaches, corrects, and guides. The Spirit of God informs the believers conscience concerning things of God. So in that way, every believer is subject to the Spirit of God. They are also subject to the church. Now I know this is where we humans have messed it up. When people who are supposed to function together to help in God’s name get self centered and half cocked, the end is always bad. Believers functioning together can also decide what is best in certain situations, so long as it does not contradict the implications of Scripture, (And that is where many mess up, they do not follow the Scriptures). Then there is secular government. The Bible does not seem to promote or condemn certain types of governments, but rather acknowledges that God can use both the good governments and the wicked governments to accomplish his plans. But Christians, armed with the knowledge that Christians are led by God’s spirit, believe that the people can decide their direction best, thus a democratic system. The problem has been, and will continue to be that we have become a godless people and he is no longer informing our consciences. That is why we have corrupt officials being elected, oppressive policies being passed, and a disregard for human life being promoted. And all this is happening under the banner of open-mindedness and enlightenment. It is not a political problem, it is a spiritual problem.
Does Science lead people to kill people. Again, I would say that true science does not, that would be a testable science. But we find ourselves in a time hybrid science that mixes elements of faith and speculation with science. Now, I do believe faith and science go hand in hand, they complement one another, contrary to modern erroneous claims. But science says it is okay to terminate a life either because it is too old, or too young. Science says that the strongest survive, therefore it is okay to promote the string and kill the week. Science says a fetus is not life because it cannot live outside the womb unassisted. Science says it is okay to discard embryos. Those things a acts of killing life. Now I do not want to make this about abortion and killing babies and all that, but you know as well as I do, when a doctor decides it is time to euthanize a patient, it is because the science tells them that person will not make it. Or it is because science tells them that that persons quality of life will not be what they want, or science tells them that they have not more dignity. To all of this, I would say science, or at least our current definition of science actually includes elements that are not science at all. In includes preference.
An truly that is the essence of evolution. Darwin and others needed a godless system or worldview. Without a God, truth is relative. Without God, life is utilitarian. Without God, we have no rules but our own. Without God, we are free. The problem is that we are not free, because everyone knows there is right and wrong. We really know there is absolute truth. We know from our world that there has to be more. Yet we choose to ignore it and work hard to come up with a system where we are not accountable to anyone but our peers.
Please help me understand using scientific method, what actual ‘relevant’ evidence there is for evolution. Yes, micro variations within species do exist. But felines are felines. Evolution requires faith.
You know better than I do that all the matter in the whole universe was condensed down to a tinny size no bigger than the dot on this page. Then the matter began moving, that requires energy, at such a rate that eventually the whole thing blew up into what we have today, our universe. And, by the way, all this happened 167 billion years ago. My statement is that the initial matter, and the initial energy had to be supplied by something. Who or what supplied it? I know, you cannot tell me. It is a issue of faith. Something that cannot be proven, something you believe. It is okay.
Are you telling me that evolution does not say that life is evolving and becoming more able to adapt to environment and habitat? Are you telling me that evolution does not say we are becoming something more? You are right, evolution does not make such a conclusion, that is it’s premise.
I have understanding enough to know you cannot dig one piece of evidence out of the ground and you cannot produce one shred of evidence in a laboratory that when an unbiased scientific method is applied, that when the tenets of unbiased scientific research are followed, that you will conclude evolution. The opposite is true, you will conclude a creator. The real problem here, and I know it as well as you, that is there is no such thing as unbiased research. Everything we do is filtered through our worldview. And in this case as with all matters of life. The two primary worldviews is that we are creatures of a creator, or we are creatures of chance.
I have actually set aside my personal beliefs and considered the merits of evolution. I have thought, what if this were true? Can I believe this? How would it change my life? How would if provide purpose and significance? What if there were not God. And the result for me, as a logical, rational, thinking being, would be nothingness. We have not purpose, we have not meaning, and nothing really matters. The only good is the common good, but even that is meaningless, because the only penalty for breaking the common law is temporal incarceration or disease. If I am bound by no law greater than myself, then life is meaningless and void of anything except pleasure. I have thought about it and if God does not exist, we are nothing more than rotting matter. I have considered it. The question I have for you, and be careful how you answer, have considered the merits of Christ?
It’s already been done in biologists. Haven’t you heard?
I’m sure you can explain how and why.
It’s also irrelevant to science.
However, some biblical arguments would be relevant to the questions I asked; it’s a shame you didn’t answer them. For example, where is the evidence that the Bible supports democracy and librty?
And how, exactly, does this support things like free speech, freedom of assembly, etc.?
Feel free to demonstrate that this requires opposing religious oppression.
It also has nothing to do with democracy. There is nothing preventing accepting of this teaching from being combined with non-democratic systems. That might be why most Christian societies in history haven’t been democratic.
Don’t you find it curious that most Christians throughout history didn’t notice that they were required to having free, democratic societies?
Prove it.
Prove it.
So the Bible teaches liberty, which is good, but without God we are free, which is bad.
So the Bible teaches liberty, which is good, but in reality we are not free.
DNA, fossils, geology, laboratory observation, etc. Have you ever read a biology text?
Prove it.
Prove it.
No, that’s evolution.
Correct, that’s not evolution.
Prove it.
Then you must be able to demonstrate that all the evidence which has been presented isn’t unbiased and genuine.
People who actually understand evolution recognize that it doesn’t operate by “chance.”
That would require learning what evolution is and reading biology texts. Since you have demonstrated that you don’t actually know what evolution is, you have demonstrated that you didn’t do what you claim.
Thank you for admitting that you refused to actually examine science from a scientific standpoint. Did you ask such questions about Plate Tectonics or Relativity? Scientists don’t.
If you decide whether or not to accept science based on whether or not it fits with your religious preconceptions, then you admit that you’ll never give evolution a fair, honest hearing.
I used to be a Christian. Fortunately, though, I was never the sort of Christian who closed my eyes and ears to the world around me in the hope that denying reality would make my religion seem more true.
First of all, the burden of proof is upon the atheist to prove God does not exist. Nevertheless, how much proof do you need? If the created order, laws of thermodynamics and physics, and the innate human need to worship something do not prove it, then you will probably never be convinced. This is not to mention the testimonies of people down through the ages that have had a life changing encounter with Him. I can tell you personally, God moved me, a man full of pride, conceit, lust, anger, greed, hate, guilt, and fear to love others, even you, because you are made in his image, for a purpose, you are a child of God that he wants to forgive an bring into a loving relationship of purpose and worship. He forgave my sin, he removed my guilt and he is making me whole. He gives me purpose, hope, and a worldview that makes perfect explanation of all that we see and observe. God changed my life and that is proof that he exists.
If you used to be a Christian then you never were. I only wish you had followed the risen Jesus Christ rather than man’s religious attempts to be like God. Had you done so, you may interpret your world differently and be a little more loving, forgiving, and a little less hostile towards your fellow man.
And yes, I know about tectonics and relativity. I have read biology books and studied the melting rate of proteins and DNA. I understand, I know these conditions exist and I know experimentation, analysis, and conclusions are always drawn based upon one’s worldview. My worldview has an answer for these results that align perfectly with Scripture. Your worldview requires billions of years and the miracle of exploding matter and energy. Prove it you ask, maybe you should read your biology books. Your whole system is predicated upon the exploding mystery dot, miracle lightening producing gasses, and statistically impossible manifestations of life forms.
I can prove macro evolution did not happen. There are no fossils that demonstrate evolution. All fossil records support Scripture and without circular reasoning not one piece of archeological evidence supports evolution. The melting rate of protein proves nothing except some things melt at the same temperatures. It does not prove ancestry. Tectonics does not prove evolution not does it prove the age of the earth. It simple proves that the surface of the earth is shifting. In fact, increased seismic activity is not only compatible with the biblical record, it is actually predicted by the Scriptures.
I can prove that without Jesus Christ people are in bondage to sin, because they have no answer for it, they cannot break free from it, and they cannot remove its guilt. Even the denial of sins existence is proof of its hold on people. Explain why you have a belief that some things are right, and some things are wrong. Is rape wrong, is stealing wrong? Of course it is. Even your argument about killing supposes that killing is wrong. Why is it wrong? If we are byproducts of an evolutionary process, they who is to say that killing is wrong. The argument is all the proof you need. If God does not exist then killing something is the right of the one who wants to kill. Stealing is the right of the one who wants to steal. To prove Jesus frees those who trust and follow him, just ask someone who has been freed.
I pray that God will move in your life with love and grace so that you can trust in the Creator rather than the creation, so that you can have freedom from sin and a purpose beyond this temporal setting. Blessings.
I only have a burden to prove the nonexistence of gods I claim I can prove the nonexistence of. However, even assuming that I had just claimed that I could prove the nonexistence of several gods, that would not relieve you of your own burden of your own claims.
Depends upon which claim we’re talking about. Pick a claim you think you can prove and we’ll see what sort of evidence would qualify as adequate.
If you think that order, natural laws, or physics prove your conclusion, then show how. If you think there is an innate human need to worship something, you’ll first have to establish that before you can show how it proves any conclusion of yours.
People have had life-changing experiences in the alleged presence of other gods, too. I doubt that you believe in those deities.
If you think you can demonstrate that you were moved by a god rather than by something else, feel free to try.
Do you comprehend the contradiction in this statement?
I have my doubts.
Why, if you determine what you accept from science based on whether or not it agrees with your relgion?
Does your worldview provide you with testable predictions which allow you to create replicable experiments to test the validity of your answers?
Then do so.
Hint: assertions about what you think the fossils do or do not claim does not constitute proof of that, even if you were correct.
OK, prove it.
Feel free to show how.
How so?
Then do so.
Because I’m a human being and humans are a social species. All social species above a certain level have social rules about what is and is not acceptable behavior.
We are. As the ones affected by the act, we’re all we need.
Feel free to show how.
Well, prayer is an ineffectual activity so I’m not surprised that is all you can do. You certainly can’t seem to construct a logical argument of provide any evidence for any of your empirical claims.
It looks like you are coming around. Thank God. Nevertheless, saying ‘prove it’ goes both ways. You claim that biology and science have proven evolution, then you prove that. Prove they prove evolution. Prove humans are social beings. Prove it. And yes, I do understand the saying if your used to be a Christian you never were.
Proof, when new people groups are found who have never had contact with the outside world, they are worship something. Some worship themselves, like you and other atheists, some worship spirits, some rocks, etc… Why? That is all I am saying. Where does the desire come from to worship? Even yourself? Why can you not admit you need forgiveness, help, unconditional love, and salvation. Because you are your own god. And that it oaky. That is the way humans are. Just like you claim we are social beings, we are also fallen sinful selfish beings. Yeah, we do some good, even in our fallen state, but normally our good has underlying self serving motives.
And this brings us to gods. Most all the problems that turn people off to God are not the teaching of God the Father. The Bible reveals that God loves you and created you as a social being. Unfortunately, Satan tempted man, but that is okay, God would provide forgiveness through the sacrifice of a substitute, that being Jesus Christ. Jesus rose from the dead, proving his claims were true, and the rest you know. A guy raising from the dead is all the proof I need. And yes, you will say prove it. Well this is where you have to trust a few things. I trust the testimony of the disciples and others about Jesus. I trust their claims their tests and their conclusions. Men who one day were afraid to admit they knew Jesus, even to a little girl, then a few weeks later are willing to die and many did, claiming they knew he lived. They walked, talked, and eat with Jesus. The saw him killed, they touched his risen body. I trust their conclusions. The same way you trust the conclusions of biologists and the sort. You see my conclusions about God are compatible with the study of life and elements, how your conclusions about the study of life and science are not compatible with a reasonable theism.
Any god that does not provide a solution to sin is a perversion. Any god that fails to demonstrate through word and deed the power to forgive sins, like Jesus, and the power over life and death is not a god. There is only one God and he has satisfied the requirement of his own wrath by placing on Jesus Christ your and my sin so that he can have a loving authentic relationship with you and with me.
I suspect you will have the proof you need one day.
To what, and why?
First you’ll have to support your original claims.
First, we need to define evolution: Evolution is the change in allele frequency in a population over time. Do you comprehend this definition?
We form communities.
I asked if you comprehended the contradiciton.
Not all of them.
However, even if it were true that worship of something can be found in all human groups, how does this “prove” that all individual humans “need” to worship something?
Feel free to prove that atheists, and I in particular, worship ourselves.
Prove that I think this.
First you’ll have to establish that this “God the Father” exists for your argument to have merit.
Feel free to show how.
What is “reasonable theism,” and just how “reasonable” is it if it is not compatible with modern science?
Ben Stein knows he hs found a lucrative niche in our society where he can make megabucks without much labor, just run his mouth. He is to religion what Stanton Friedman is to ufology.
Once again, Prove Gods do NOT exist? Simple show the verifiable, replicable, visible evidence Gods DO exist.
There are none. Therefore Gods do not exist.
Gods. Plural? Yep it says so in Genesis.
I have not had the time and/or stomach to read all 82 posts to this, but just seeing Ben Stein’s name compelled me to at least respond.
Ben Stein was my last “Dou*he of the Month” on my website, which is not limited to one, but to as many as anyone cares to award. There are simply too many to limit to one a month. I just threw him in at the end of the month on the basis of “general principal”. He actually warrants a whole month to himself.
As many of you “know” me, I’m not promoting my website here, but it was partially motivated by this, as well as many other great sites. The only thing I noticed was you have to behave. Well, mine is created for the sole purpose of letting it rip. No language is off limits, everything can be offended to the highest possible level of degradation. There is a section for civil discourse that I will censor. Nobody has ever made a post in it.
It is a new site and I’m trying to generate activity and I hope Austin won’t mind, as he knows I am a fan as he has received emails from me as well.
If you care for a real out loud, roll of the couch belly laugh, and would like to join the other 45 people who have seen Ben Stein’s movie, watch it and you will realize comedy is not dead.
My site was actually spurred on my utter contempt for Sean Hannity and Fox “News” in general. So the original website is http://www.sean…hannity.com (censored ?) but the site http://www.thepopesucks.com also links to the same site.
Ben Stein does more to set back the “ID” movement than the actual “ID” movement.
I had a much longer post, but it won’t post so I sent it to Austin to see if he’ll let it go through.
Go see Stein’s movie if you want a good laugh. You and the other 11 people.