Thunderfoot > Ben Stein

[quikah]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

The problem with this line of thinking is in saying that people want to investigate ID. Alright, let's work out an experiment to test the principles of intelligent design. Intelligent design proposes that a supernatural or metaphysical force was involved in the creation and continued existence of life on this planet. The first step to designing an experiment for intelligent design is to show that such a force could exist. As it is impossible, by definition, to test for the presence of God, we have nowhere to go with our experiment.

I would think that you would try to find the design rather than the designer. The designer is a philosophical/religious question, the design IS a scientific question.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: MrPickins
Wow, I was under the impression that Ben Stein was smarter than that.

I thought it was a comedy when I first heard about it. Then I see that Stein is serious, and he now has as much credibility as Ann Coulter.
it's a huge sciency conspiracy amirite?

Thats what I was thinking, not only is he smart as hell but also really funny.
When I realized this wasnt a joke, I got scared.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: quikah

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

The problem with this line of thinking is in saying that people want to investigate ID. Alright, let's work out an experiment to test the principles of intelligent design. Intelligent design proposes that a supernatural or metaphysical force was involved in the creation and continued existence of life on this planet. The first step to designing an experiment for intelligent design is to show that such a force could exist. As it is impossible, by definition, to test for the presence of God, we have nowhere to go with our experiment.

I would think that you would try to find the design rather than the designer. The designer is a philosophical/religious question, the design IS a scientific question.

That doesn't make sense. A supernatural presence is built into intelligent design; it is required for that theory to work. You can't just accept that a fundamental part of a theory must be true and then test the other parts of it; you need to be able to test all parts of it. If you take the supernatural out of the equation, you're left with a "theory" that simply says "Life was influenced by something." Well that's awfully vague, isn't it? That isn't even a theory any more (scientific or otherwise), that's just a random musing.

 

[kranky]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Your belief that evolutionary theory should try to explain the origin of life does not mean that evolutionary theory is trying to explain the origin of life. It is not, it has never claimed to, and it never will. Evolution does not seek to answer the question "Where does life come from?;" it answers the question, "Why is there such a diversity of life?"

[/quote]

That's even more confusing. If evolution does not attempt to explain the origins of life, then what is the conflict? I would think that since we know infinitely more about biology today than we did in Darwin's time, it would be useful to explore what types of things would be necessary to happen in order to spontaneously create life - the proteins, enzymes, etc. which would have to exist in order to come together to create something living. Whether it leads to a conclusion that there is a reasonable chance it could have happened by itself, or that there is no reasonable chance, neither one means that species do not evolve.

If ID is a theory to explain the origins of life, and Darwin does not address it, then I don't see why one has to negate the other. Seems to me they could both co-exist.

But if the Darwinist argument is that ID cannot be proven, and therefore cannot be true, that doesn't seem logical.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: kranky

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Your belief that evolutionary theory should try to explain the origin of life does not mean that evolutionary theory is trying to explain the origin of life. It is not, it has never claimed to, and it never will. Evolution does not seek to answer the question "Where does life come from?;" it answers the question, "Why is there such a diversity of life?"

That's even more confusing. If evolution does not attempt to explain the origins of life, then what is the conflict? I would think that since we know infinitely more about biology today than we did in Darwin's time, it would be useful to explore what types of things would be necessary to happen in order to spontaneously create life - the proteins, enzymes, etc. which would have to exist in order to come together to create something living. Whether it leads to a conclusion that there is a reasonable chance it could have happened by itself, or that there is no reasonable chance, neither one means that species do not evolve.

If ID is a theory to explain the origins of life, and Darwin does not address it, then I don't see why one has to negate the other. Seems to me they could both co-exist.

But if the Darwinist argument is that ID cannot be proven, and therefore cannot be true, that doesn't seem logical.

You're getting closer. The conflict was not started by the "Darwinists;" it was begun by people who incorrectly believed that evolutionary theory ran counter to Creationism as outlined in the Bible. Proponents of Creationism realized that the separation of church and state prevented Creationism from being taught in a school science class, so they invented "Intelligent Design" as a workaround. The principles of Intelligent Design are identical to those of Creationsim, but specifics (such as the age of the Earth or the Garden of Eden) are left out.

The thing is, there really is no debate. Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. A scientific theory must be testable and falsifiable. There is no way to test for the existence or non-existence of God, so Intelligent Design cannot possibly exist as a scientific theory. This is not to say that Intelligent Design is not true; it is certainly possible. But there is no way to know. It's, at best, a guess, which is to be accepted on faith. That's fine, but that's not how science works, so this explanation has no place in the science classroom.

Finally, it is possible to believe in both evolution and Intelligent Design (in some way). The current reading of Intelligent Design is that God created everything and evolution doesn't exist, which does run counter to science. But the Catholic Church, under Pope John Paul II, issued an edict that said the Catholic Church accepted that evolution exists, but that God got involved at some point to give humans a soul. So it's not impossible for evolutionary theory and a belief in God to co-exist; many "Darwinists" are religious people themselves.

Stein's movie fails because it convinces audiences that evolution tries to explain where life started (which it doesn't), it paints all proponents of evolution as atheists (which they aren't), and it likens Darwinists to Nazis (which is absurd). It is a propaganda hit piece done by someone who either doesn't understand the debate, or worse, is capitalizing on other people not understanding the debate as a tool to make money. Given Stein's education and background (as a speechwriter for Nixon, among other things), I find it very difficult to believe that he does not understand the complaints scientists levy against Intelligent Design, which leads me to believe that he is putting out something he knows is false, and deeply misleading, as a way to make money. But maybe that's just me being cynical.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

One of the biggest problems in this world is a good speaker that is convincing that doesn't know the topic.