Thunderfoot > Ben Stein

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: sirjonk
My point is that ID is not incompatible with evolution, which the federal court opinion I posted states. Belief in a supreme being doesn't contradict the scientific explanation for diversity of species. What I was getting at above is that the average person on the street thinks you have to either believe in god, or believe in evolution. That's not the case. As I said above, if you educate someone and let them know that these two things are not inherently at odds, then a religious person will be unlikely to have a knee-jerk reaction against evolution. My argument isn't that most people are irrational, it's that they are uninformed, which leads to irrational anti-science animus.

ID is completely incompatible with evolution, although belief in a divine being is not.

I read the description of ID as "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." {Wiki} I figured that meant the argument was that god directed evolution. My bad. I was giving them more credit than they deserve. I didn't think anyone could really try to get a school to teach what amounts to young earth science. I just thought they were trying to skirt the edge and get god credit for creation, but nope, you're right, they argue we never evolved at all. Guess it was that poll I read where 30+% believe we evolved with guidance from god and I attributed that to belief in ID.

This is exactly what I thought ID meant too. I thought their whole angle on getting it into schools was "Yes, evolution happens, but it happens because of God, not natural selection." I read parts of the wiki article... I found it very strange to see someone who looked basically normal, wearing a suit and tie, looking reasonably intelligent, and thinking, "This guy believes God created the Earth a few thousand years ago." That's always disheartening.

What you two are talking about is theistic evolution, not ID.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
What you two are talking about is theistic evolution, not ID.

There was also that whole hullabaloo a few years back when the Pope came out and said that the Catholic church was no longer saying that evolution didn't exist, but God was responsible for giving humans souls. That always painted the picture to me of a lazy God, just lying back and watching things happen, and then thinking, "What the hell, let's see what happens if I do this." After realizing his folly, God returned to his role of non-involvement, which is why Fred Phelps continues to exist.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Aikouka

Originally posted by: AMDZen
This argument makes no sense though. Why is it that you have to believe in god and creationism OR evolution. So god created the universe, he created man - WTF does that have to do with evolution because he obviously created evolution too.

There's actually a belief in that God created evolution. It's called Theistic Evolution if I remember correctly.

Originally posted by: Amused
There is a huge difference between a literal telling of Genesis, and the theory that science is right, but a creator was pulling the strings.

I always looked at it (when thinking about Theistic Evolution) in that people transcribing events would most likely not get the concept of how long things took. I mean, how can one define a "day" when a day didn't exist until day and night was created (not to mention the sun rises and sets at different times anyway, so the idea of a prehistoric day would change as it is). In other words, "On the # day, God created..." doesn't mean it took less than 24 hours.

Also, I thought about the whole idea of "creating someone from the dirt." Forcing evolution of small beings that are invisible to the naked eye and essentially a layman would see as "dirt." I donno, just some thoughts I had at one point.

It's always struck me as ironic that Genesis is about as close to an allegory of actual abiogensis as you can get.

What's more, the Greek creation myth involving Titans ejaculating into the ocean is also remarkably close to what probably happened-- some of the chemicals involved in abiogensis came from meteors, allowing life to begin in the oceans.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Originally posted by: Aikouka

Originally posted by: AMDZen
This argument makes no sense though. Why is it that you have to believe in god and creationism OR evolution. So god created the universe, he created man - WTF does that have to do with evolution because he obviously created evolution too.

There's actually a belief in that God created evolution. It's called Theistic Evolution if I remember correctly.

Originally posted by: Amused
There is a huge difference between a literal telling of Genesis, and the theory that science is right, but a creator was pulling the strings.

I always looked at it (when thinking about Theistic Evolution) in that people transcribing events would most likely not get the concept of how long things took. I mean, how can one define a "day" when a day didn't exist until day and night was created (not to mention the sun rises and sets at different times anyway, so the idea of a prehistoric day would change as it is). In other words, "On the # day, God created..." doesn't mean it took less than 24 hours.

Also, I thought about the whole idea of "creating someone from the dirt." Forcing evolution of small beings that are invisible to the naked eye and essentially a layman would see as "dirt." I donno, just some thoughts I had at one point.

You define "day" using the human definition. And the Human definition is 24 hours. If it wasn't a "day" then why call it with that?

And if you cant take the word "day" literally, what is the brightline as to what is literal and what is figurative?

Actually, who the hell wrote down creation anyway? There wasn't anyone alive during creation, and nothing in the Bible mentioned God telling anyone the story of creation.

And why doesnt god mention anyone else in the bible? It starts out with only Adam and Eve, and studdenly, there are cities for Cain and Abel to go to?

 

[Mr Pepper]

Atheists have no possible way to prove the origin of life let alone the origin of space or time. Being that mankind is finite in his nature, he really has no experience, or way to get his head around anything that is not bound by the same laws of physics that he is bound by. He therefore refuses any form of thought that does not fit into his own experience.

Example:

The law of conservation of energy says, "The total amount of energy in any isolated system remains constant but cannot be recreated." And the first law of thermodynamics, "In any process, the total energy of the universe remains the same."

In the atheist's mind, in this isolated system (the universe), life began, and changed and adapted, and continues to adapt. No problem. But with any system based on a schedule, he has to pick some coordinate on a time line to jump in and say this is where life began. The assumption is that this closed system was just sort of, there. Laws and general trends of the system are observed, and science is born.

The creationist is simply not satisfied with the constraints of time and space. We believe that something bigger exists, and is a requisite for the physical universe to exist. For that to be true, this bigger thing has many attribute that we have no way to understand or "process".

Things like:

Having no beginning.
Being in our past at the same moment as being in our present and future.
Being everywhere at once.

The atheist will say, by the laws that govern our physical experience, these simply can not be. The creationist will agree that these characteristics are impossible if bound by our physical laws. The difference is that the creationist believes a creator defined physical laws for us, while existing outside of them Himself. This is where faith comes in.

Creationists and evolutionists all have the same evidence or facts; the difference is in the way we interpret the evidence. People will interpret facts differently based on different presuppositions, or beliefs they hold. Presuppositions are starting assumptions that are assumed to be true without being provable.

 

[Brigandier]

Originally posted by: Mr Pepper

The atheist will say, by the laws that govern our physical experience, these simply can not be. The creationist will agree that these characteristics are impossible if bound by our physical laws. The difference is that the creationist believes a creator defined physical laws for us, while existing outside of them Himself. This is where faith comes in.

So it's kind of like government?

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Things like:

Having no beginning.
Being in our past at the same moment as being in our present and future.
Being everywhere at once.

The atheist will say, by the laws that govern our physical experience, these simply can not be.

Your statement is wrong because it's too general. "Positive" atheists affirmatively deny that gods exist. However, atheism in general just refers to the non-belief in any god; many atheists don't believe in gods because they feel there is no verifiable evidence of them, which even you should admit is a very reasonable point of view! In addition, you're out of touch if you think that concepts like "having no beginning" are completely antithetical to all atheistic belief systems, including science.

 

[Wheezer]

thats too bad....I like him but obviously he's a short sighted fool.

 

[Mr Pepper]

Originally posted by: Brigandier

Originally posted by: Mr Pepper

The atheist will say, by the laws that govern our physical experience, these simply can not be. The creationist will agree that these characteristics are impossible if bound by our physical laws. The difference is that the creationist believes a creator defined physical laws for us, while existing outside of them Himself. This is where faith comes in.

So it's kind of like government?

hehe, I LOL'd

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
The atheist will say, by the laws that govern our physical experience, these simply can not be. The creationist will agree that these characteristics are impossible if bound by our physical laws. The difference is that the creationist believes a creator defined physical laws for us, while existing outside of them Himself. This is where faith comes in.

Creationists and evolutionists all have the same evidence or facts; the difference is in the way we interpret the evidence. People will interpret facts differently based on different presuppositions, or beliefs they hold. Presuppositions are starting assumptions that are assumed to be true without being provable.

Cliffs: Creationists don't believe in being bound by physical laws. Therefore, creationists are Universal criminals.

 

[Mr Pepper]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Things like:

Having no beginning.
Being in our past at the same moment as being in our present and future.
Being everywhere at once.

The atheist will say, by the laws that govern our physical experience, these simply can not be.

Your statement is wrong because it's too general. "Positive" atheists affirmatively deny that gods exist. However, atheism in general just refers to the non-belief in any god; many atheists don't believe in gods because they feel there is no verifiable evidence of them, which even you should admit is a very reasonable point of view! In addition, you're out of touch if you think that concepts like "having no beginning" are completely antithetical to all atheistic belief systems, including science.

I respect your opinion, and I would agree that "science will say" would have been a better choice of words there. Mainly because science really has no verifiable way of dealing with these issues. I went with "atheists will say" mainly because science is their primary "drug of choice", so to speak.

Either way, it's a good criticism and a good point on your part.

 

[Aikouka]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
You define "day" using the human definition. And the Human definition is 24 hours. If it wasn't a "day" then why call it with that?

Translations? I don't know exactly what the Hebrew says nor can I speak Hebrew, but even then, humans in those times had a sense of a day (even though they may not have thought "ah a day is 24 hours!" but rather just a sense of a "day" as sunrise and sunset.

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
And if you cant take the word "day" literally, what is the brightline as to what is literal and what is figurative?

I have no idea. Hell, you can look at Revelations as they describe futuristic events and it tends to be these ideas that are clouded by a lack of understanding. I looked at that and applied it backward against prior times. I mean take all they knew back then and present something to them such as an organism that you can't even see that eventually changes into a human. My god, it just appeared out of the earth!

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
Actually, who the hell wrote down creation anyway? There wasn't anyone alive during creation, and nothing in the Bible mentioned God telling anyone the story of creation.

That's kind of where my whole "it's a lay person's interpretation" comes from. I mean, if say God gave us a vision of what happened, we may be able to say, "Oh well that's just a vision of 'rapid evolution' or time being sped up covering the course of human evolution over a long period of time." But try being someone way back whenever looking at that (I don't remember the supposed dates of the books being written).

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
And why doesnt god mention anyone else in the bible? It starts out with only Adam and Eve, and studdenly, there are cities for Cain and Abel to go to?

I'm sure Eve was a hottie and if I were Adam, there'd have been plenty of people to fill cities .

But I should note that what I'm talking about was literally mustered up in about 10 minutes before dinner at college about 3.5 years ago. It's nothing horribly concrete that I've studied for years upon years, written down and such.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
I respect your opinion, and I would agree that "science will say" would have been a better choice of words there. Mainly because science really has no verifiable way of dealing with these issues. I went with "atheists will say" mainly because science is their primary "drug of choice", so to speak.

Either way, it's a good criticism and a good point on your part.

Thanks. I respect religious viewpoints as well1. I think the debate over ID is sad but inevitable. Creationists want to be able to take advantage of public school systems, understandably. Creationists also want their children to be raised according to their own beliefs, which at least anyone with children will understand. Their beliefs are in conflict with the basic scientific curriculums taught in public schools, which must discuss evolution in order to be complete and to give children a decent base for exploring the biological sciences. Intelligent design is also incompatible with these curricula for multiple reasons, and the courts will, I am certain, continue to prevent it from being taught in the context of science classes.

I used to think one solution to this problem would be to have creationists be able to opt out of specific classes for their children, but in a separate debate became convinced that this runs afoul of curriculum standardization plans like the MCAS testing system here in Massachusetts, which are designed to achieve worthy goals, even if imperfect.

I'm still searching for an answer. In the meantime I feel like the least evil is for creationists to either send their children to private schools which are not state actors, or send them to public schools, let them be taught science in the classroom, and give them extra training at home. At least this way the children grow up exposed to all the beliefs their parents want to give them, and the separation of church and state is not violated etc.

1 I even respect the viewpoints of intelligent design, and understand why it is popular: it provides a comfortable resolution for a great many people of an uncomfortable conflict. This is why I can't feel the slightest bit of anger at any parent who reads the ID movement's materials and comes to desire that it be taught in schools, although I believe that ID's inception was basically dishonest, and those behind the movement are dishonest.

 

[five40]

Who cares? Why do people on these forums get all fussy over this crap? Can't you just move along and say "whatever"? You can prove the big bang just about as good as you can prove God. Where did all the matter for the big bang come from...who knows? Where did God come from...who knows? I just don't get it why someone is "stupid" and can longer be liked because they don't sit and agree with a bunch of theories that for all we know are wrong. Where are the Homo Habilis's that were part of our evolution? They just went up and vanished? A Homo Habilis popped out a Homo Erectus one day and all the Homo Habilis's exploded? Or if it was a slow evolution, how come there aren't some half man/half apes still coming around? Guess what...it doesn't matter so attacking/disliking someone over evolution/creation is stupid.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: five40
Who cares? Why do people on these forums get all fussy over this crap? Can't you just move along and say "whatever"? You can prove the big bang just about as good as you can prove God. Where did all the matter for the big bang come from...who knows? Where did God come from...who knows? I just don't get it why someone is "stupid" and can longer be liked because they don't sit and agree with a bunch of theories that for all we know are wrong. Where are the Homo Habilis's that were part of our evolution? They just went up and vanished? A Homo Habilis popped out a Homo Erectus one day and all the Homo Habilis's exploded? Or if it was a slow evolution, how come there aren't some half man/half apes still coming around? Guess what...it doesn't matter so attacking/disliking someone over evolution/creation is stupid.

It's a big deal because religion doesn't belong in the science classroom. Not to mention your post demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of what evolution is.

 

[five40]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: five40
Who cares? Why do people on these forums get all fussy over this crap? Can't you just move along and say "whatever"? You can prove the big bang just about as good as you can prove God. Where did all the matter for the big bang come from...who knows? Where did God come from...who knows? I just don't get it why someone is "stupid" and can longer be liked because they don't sit and agree with a bunch of theories that for all we know are wrong. Where are the Homo Habilis's that were part of our evolution? They just went up and vanished? A Homo Habilis popped out a Homo Erectus one day and all the Homo Habilis's exploded? Or if it was a slow evolution, how come there aren't some half man/half apes still coming around? Guess what...it doesn't matter so attacking/disliking someone over evolution/creation is stupid.

It's a big deal because religion doesn't belong in the science classroom. Not to mention your post demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of what evolution is.

I don't understand what evolution is? Yeah ok. Keep up THE FIGHT!!!!! Don't you get the point that the big bang can't be proven just like God can't be proven. Lets take that out of the classrooms as well since it can't be proven.

 

[Q]

I know Ben Stein's son

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: five40
Don't you get the point that the big bang can't be proven just like God can't be proven. Lets take that out of the classrooms as well since it can't be proven.

Do you think religion belongs in the science classroom? Just curious.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: five40
Don't you get the point that the big bang can't be proven just like God can't be proven. Lets take that out of the classrooms as well since it can't be proven.

Do you think religion belongs in the science classroom? Just curious.

You can't prove a lot of what is taught in school. The specificis of any person or event before recording devices is based on writings which are nothing more than someone's impressions. Should we not teach history because we can't prove the truth of these events 100%? In the absence of absolute proof, we teach our best understanding. Currently, evolution is not in the same class as ID with regards to explaining the diversity of life. There is no difference between ID and FSMism or me saying purple unicorns mated with malleable interdimensional thought-reactive dust and shaped it into all the species that are alive today. All 3 create explanations based on nothing more than conjecture.

 

[five40]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: five40
Don't you get the point that the big bang can't be proven just like God can't be proven. Lets take that out of the classrooms as well since it can't be proven.

Do you think religion belongs in the science classroom? Just curious.

To be honest I don't think it really matters. I really think that's the least of the problems with today's public schools. The public school system needs a real overhaul that removes all the garbage, let teachers be teachers and pay them well. Now I think the school system should have standards of what should be taught, but I don't see it as something that should be completely robotic. For example, evolution is the standard and the teacher is a creationist, then I think the teacher should still have to teach evolution, however I would have no problems what so ever with the teacher saying "there are also other ideas on how the universe came to form. According to Christianity God created everything. Islam believes..., etc...." If the unit is done on evolution and they have time left over to teach an opposing idea, I'm all for it. Now if a teacher is an evolutionist and they have time to go into extra detail on evolution beyond the standard, then that is great to.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: five40

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: five40
Don't you get the point that the big bang can't be proven just like God can't be proven. Lets take that out of the classrooms as well since it can't be proven.

Do you think religion belongs in the science classroom? Just curious.

To be honest I don't think it really matters. I really think that's the least of the problems with today's public schools. The public school system needs a real overhaul that removes all the garbage, let teachers be teachers and pay them well. Now I think the school system should have standards of what should be taught, but I don't see it as something that should be completely robotic. For example, evolution is the standard and the teacher is a creationist, then I think the teacher should still have to teach evolution, however I would have no problems what so ever with the teacher saying "there are also other ideas on how the universe came to form. According to Christianity God created everything. Islam believes..., etc...." If the unit is done on evolution and they have time left over to teach an opposing idea, I'm all for it. Now if a teacher is an evolutionist and they have time to go into extra detail on evolution beyond the standard, then that is great to.

That's a big "yes". There are many reasons why you're wrong. This is also probably why you don't understand what all the fuss is about (if you really don't).

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Originally posted by: five40

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: five40
Who cares? Why do people on these forums get all fussy over this crap? Can't you just move along and say "whatever"? You can prove the big bang just about as good as you can prove God. Where did all the matter for the big bang come from...who knows? Where did God come from...who knows? I just don't get it why someone is "stupid" and can longer be liked because they don't sit and agree with a bunch of theories that for all we know are wrong. Where are the Homo Habilis's that were part of our evolution? They just went up and vanished? A Homo Habilis popped out a Homo Erectus one day and all the Homo Habilis's exploded? Or if it was a slow evolution, how come there aren't some half man/half apes still coming around? Guess what...it doesn't matter so attacking/disliking someone over evolution/creation is stupid.

It's a big deal because religion doesn't belong in the science classroom. Not to mention your post demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of what evolution is.

I don't understand what evolution is? Yeah ok. Keep up THE FIGHT!!!!! Don't you get the point that the big bang can't be proven just like God can't be proven. Lets take that out of the classrooms as well since it can't be proven.

Actually, theres several pieces of immensely strong evidence of the existance of the Big Bang. Unlike God, which has no evidence. And unlike God, the Big Band theory is still mentioned as a theory in many textbooks, and many of them admit to other explanations, but say that the BB theory is the most widely accepted.

 

[Enig101]

Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Atheists have no possible way to prove the origin of life let alone the origin of space or time. Being that mankind is finite in his nature, he really has no experience, or way to get his head around anything that is not bound by the same laws of physics that he is bound by. He therefore refuses any form of thought that does not fit into his own experience.

Do you realize you just made a compelling argument against religion? As for proof, science cannot explain everything yet, no. Religion may explain everything, but it relies on no proof whatsoever. I fail to see the point there.

Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Creationists and evolutionists all have the same evidence or facts; the difference is in the way we interpret the evidence. People will interpret facts differently based on different presuppositions, or beliefs they hold. Presuppositions are starting assumptions that are assumed to be true without being provable.

Religion as a faith does not rely on evidence (that is the definition of faith). For example, the universe is here, life is pretty complicated, so God must have done it. This is a good example of attributing physical reality to something nonphysical based solely on a presupposition (that God is real, is capable of doing this, and did). This is fair enough, but the point is faith does not take anything from the physical evidence, it only attributes properties to the evidence based on non-evidence.

Science interprets facts available to the five human senses (enhanced by technology, of course) purely on their own merit. If science sees ocean tides it discovers the moon, the force of gravity, and there is the connection. The basis for this conclusion are things we can experience in the physical universe. What presupposition does science make here?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
...the Big Band theory is still mentioned as a theory in many textbooks, and many of them admit to other explanations, but say that the BB theory is the most widely accepted.

Would that be the theory that Cab Calloway created the Universe?

And God said "Let there be swing."

 

[rbV5]

Where are the Homo Habilis's that were part of our evolution? They just went up and vanished? A Homo Habilis popped out a Homo Erectus one day and all the Homo Habilis's exploded? Or if it was a slow evolution, how come there aren't some half man/half apes still coming around?

Science simply sees our world around us as "the facts" and then attempts to draw conclusions that support "the facts". Observation and discovery evolve our conclusions...again based on "the facts". In your ignorance you can claim that the Big Bang cannot be proven, or ask where a "possible" direct human ancestor that existed millions of years ago is "today", but the fact is, Science attempts to explain those things using observation and discovery, and someday may very well be able to "prove" the Big Bang theory (or disprove), and provide a very accurate timeline of events that culminated in the evolution of todays humans from our direct and perhaps indirect ancestors rather than from the "hand of God" or other "magical" "explanations"

conversly;

ID and Creationism start with "THE FACTS" (The Bible), and discard observation and discovery that can't support the "THE FACTS".

Jesus Christ, the son of God himself and "Our Savior" supposedly "lived" in historical times, yet no more evidence exists for his life here on Earth today than of the mythical Greek God Hercules. None of the historians or writers of his time mention him at all, and all accounts of him were written after his death.

People are still urged to "believe" in the stories of the Bible as actual events, but see the stories of the Ancient Greeks as literary works. People still "believe" in Jesus (Son of God and married mortal Mary), but poor Hercules (son of God (Zeus) and married mortal Alcmena) is relegated to a being character in a bunch of cool stories.

If the unit is done on evolution and they have time left over to teach an opposing idea, I'm all for it

Sure you do

The public school system needs a real overhaul that removes all the garbage,