Thunderfoot > Ben Stein

[Mr Pepper]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Mr Pepper

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Trying to convince an atheist that ID is plausible, is like trying to communicate with the blind mole rat using hand signals. True atheists simply have no frame of reference to begin to comprehend reality based on faith. Jesus spoke in parables for that very reason. He would often begin with, "He who has ears, let him hear", knowing that what he was about to say was not going to get through to everyone in attendance.

All that said, I don't think Mr. Stein is trying to change the views of those who have already formed their stances. I think he is mainly trying to promote freedom to those who are in the process of searching for answers.

It's not atheists you won't be able to convince that ID is a scientifically plausible theory, it's any thinking person.

If that were true, this would not be an issue, but since more than 80% of Americans claim to believe in ID, I would lean toward there being a large hole in your assumption.


That is, if polls are to be believed.

America?s Favorite Book

The Religious and Other Beliefs of Americans

That springs from ignorance of the facts of the difference between what ID purports to teach and what evolution purports to explain. A thinking person educated on the actual differences could make no other conclusion. Asking someone off the street if they believe in ID or evolution without educating them on the difference doesn't yield a result worthy of considering.

Perhaps I am not following your line of thinking, but it sounds like you are suggesting that the majority of Americans are incapable of rational thought on the issue without some form of human intervention.

Seeing as how evolution is the bulk of what we do teach in our classrooms in this country, you might want to rethink that.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Mr Pepper

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Mr Pepper

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Trying to convince an atheist that ID is plausible, is like trying to communicate with the blind mole rat using hand signals. True atheists simply have no frame of reference to begin to comprehend reality based on faith. Jesus spoke in parables for that very reason. He would often begin with, "He who has ears, let him hear", knowing that what he was about to say was not going to get through to everyone in attendance.

All that said, I don't think Mr. Stein is trying to change the views of those who have already formed their stances. I think he is mainly trying to promote freedom to those who are in the process of searching for answers.

It's not atheists you won't be able to convince that ID is a scientifically plausible theory, it's any thinking person.

If that were true, this would not be an issue, but since more than 80% of Americans claim to believe in ID, I would lean toward there being a large hole in your assumption.


That is, if polls are to be believed.

America?s Favorite Book

The Religious and Other Beliefs of Americans

That springs from ignorance of the facts of the difference between what ID purports to teach and what evolution purports to explain. A thinking person educated on the actual differences could make no other conclusion. Asking someone off the street if they believe in ID or evolution without educating them on the difference doesn't yield a result worthy of considering.

Perhaps I am not following your line of thinking, but it sounds like you are suggesting that the majority of Americans are incapable of rational thought on the issue without some form of human intervention.

Seeing as how evolution is the bulk of what we do teach in our classrooms in this country, you might want to rethink that.

You cannot possibly think that a random person has an unbiased opinion on the matter. Christianity (which the majority of Americans ascribe to) teaches something that is the polar opposite of evolution. Most people in America today have been taught the Christian story of creation since they were very little.

Just because they've had that story pounded into their head doesn't make them right. It's pretty similar to the middle ages when most educated people believed the world was flat. Ask any educated man on the street if his belief (flat earth) was right or Aristotle's (round earth) was right and you'd get the wrong answer the majority of the time.

It's not that most people are incapable of rational thought, it's just that the Christian creation story is indoctrinated into people at a very young age.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Let me answer your 50th "proof" on my own: "He would appear when people pray to see him. The reason why he does not appear is simple: Both Jesus and God are imaginary."

My answer: I see Him, as clear as day, at work in my life and in the lives of others. Which brings us exactly back to my first point: Trying to convince an atheist that ID is plausible, is like trying to communicate with the blind mole rat using hand signals.

That's exactly the point. You claim to see him, you believe that you do. I don't believe in God, so when you try to tell me that you see these things, I treat you exactly as though you were telling me you saw Santa Clause. Also, Jesus does not literally appear; you are (I hope) seeing him metaphorically in the actions of those around you (if you literally see Jesus appearing before you, well, I don't think even the Pope is going to believe you on that one). But that's Jesus appearing only to you; he's not popping in so your atheist friends can see him and go, "Ah, I guess you were right after all."

The piece is designed to show you that your most deeply held personal beliefs can appear ludicrous to other people, regardless of how strongly you feel about them. That is why you are being asked to evaluate the mysticism of several different religions. There are things that we take for granted, such as horses not being able to fly or men not being able to rise from the dead, that religion tells us we must take on faith. This piece is trying to get you to ask yourself why you are willing to have faith in the mysticism of your own religion, but dismiss all else as hocus-pocus and supersitition. That's a difficult question to answer, as it forces you to consider that your most deeply held beliefs could be wrong. No one wants to take that position; it's extremely uncomfortable to admit to yourself that you might be living a lie.

 

[Enig101]

Most college educated people, who do not study the sciences, don't really understand how evolution works, let alone the large numbers who only finish high school.

Still, I think if you look at the portion of the population who have a Master's degree, the percentage who believe ID is valid will decrease significantly.

 

[Mr Pepper]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Let me answer your 50th "proof" on my own: "He would appear when people pray to see him. The reason why he does not appear is simple: Both Jesus and God are imaginary."

My answer: I see Him, as clear as day, at work in my life and in the lives of others. Which brings us exactly back to my first point: Trying to convince an atheist that ID is plausible, is like trying to communicate with the blind mole rat using hand signals.

That's exactly the point. You claim to see him, you believe that you do. I don't believe in God, so when you try to tell me that you see these things, I treat you exactly as though you were telling me you saw Santa Clause. Also, Jesus does not literally appear; you are (I hope) seeing him metaphorically in the actions of those around you (if you literally see Jesus appearing before you, well, I don't think even the Pope is going to believe you on that one). But that's Jesus appearing only to you; he's not popping in so your atheist friends can see him and go, "Ah, I guess you were right after all."

The piece is designed to show you that your most deeply held personal beliefs can appear ludicrous to other people, regardless of how strongly you feel about them. That is why you are being asked to evaluate the mysticism of several different religions. There are things that we take for granted, such as horses not being able to fly or men not being able to rise from the dead, that religion tells us we must take on faith. This piece is trying to get you to ask yourself why you are willing to have faith in the mysticism of your own religion, but dismiss all else as hocus-pocus and supersitition. That's a difficult question to answer, as it forces you to consider that your most deeply held beliefs could be wrong. No one wants to take that position; it's extremely uncomfortable to admit to yourself that you might be living a lie.

I absolutely agree with you. Everyone should examine what they believe in and why they believe in it. I think that's exactly the point of all this.

If we were to introduce ID as an alternate explanation to evolution in classrooms, the students would actually have to process something and really dig into what they are going to believe in and why. Those that agree/disagree with either would actually come out of the classroom thinking on their own.

There's no reason students shouldn't be able to agree to disagree and still be able to have healthy relationships with each other.

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Let me start by saying that I'm not a biologist, so I may be wrong about the specifics of evolution. However, I feel I have a fairly good understanding of the concept overall. Let me address your points as best I can.

First off, an organism does not "know" it needs to evolve. Drastic changes are not the driving force behind evolution. People have this idea that evolution comes around because of some cataclysmic event, such as floods or volcanoes, but that's really not the case. Evolution is gradual change over a lengthy period of time; it is not a response to a sudden, drastic shift in environment.

At its core, evolution is adaptation based on advantages that lead to a higher likelihood of reproduction. I had the good fortune to go to the Galapagos when I was younger, and they love to talk about evolution there. Virtually every island in the Galapagos has prickly pear cactuses. They have sharp thorns to deter predators. Except on the island of Genovesa, where the prickly pears have thorns that are as soft as hair. Why? Because the Galapagos tortoise, the primary consumer of the prickly pear, never lived on the island of Genovesa. With no natural predators, the prickly pear did not need sharp thorns to survive, so gradually it lost them.

Here is where the process gets confused. People think that the plant must have actively realized it didn't need thorns and decided to stop growing them. This is obviously silly, and one of the major misconceptions about evolution. What actually happened was that prickly pears would grow with sharp thorns. Occasionally, through normal mutation, a prickly pear would grow without sharp thorns. On the islands with predators, these soft thorn cactus were quickly eaten before they had a chance to reproduce. On Genovesa, they were not eaten, so their genes ended up mixing in with the rest of the population. In fact, because these prickly pears were not using their resources to grow large thorns, they were able to get larger than the other prickly pears. This became advantageous for reproduction, so their genes started composing a larger portion of the genetic pool of prickly pears on the island. Gradually, over a period of tens of thousands of years, the prickly pear population on Genovesa lost the sharp thorns as they were no longer advantageous for survival.

I have to go to an office lunch now, so I'll try to post more later, but this is a basic example of how evolution happens in nature.

Excellent summary and thanks for the help.

Some questions:

1) Organisms do not need cataclysmic events to induce evolution (I never assumed that by the way, I just used it in my example) because natural selection is a never-ending process?

2) Drastic changes in the environment may accelerate natural selection?

3) Natural selection processes adaption in a population so the organisms best suited for their environment dominate the gene pool?

4) Natural selection specializes organisms from the main line of organisms such that speciation occurs?

5) These two processes constitute the theory of evolution (Natural selection ---> Speciation = Evolution)?

Originally posted by: Enig101
This is indeed incorrect. Neither organisms, nor genes, "know" anything when it comes to evolution. The example you used was a species' environment becoming more aquatic.

To simplify, the animals may begin to develop wider feet by chance, better for swimming. They don't know that wider feet are better for swimming, but the ones lucky enough to have wider feet will be more likely to survive (hunt for food, find a mate, etc) to reproduce. Therefore, wider feet are selected. This is what "natural selection" is all about.

Got the natural selection part, but how would they evolve their feet into flippers? (Like a seal, perhaps.)

Originally posted by: Enig101
With regard to macro and micro evolution (among many other topics) see this link: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Scroll down to the "CB900" section to read about evolution and macro/micro-evolution.

Thank you.

Originally posted by: MrPickins
You really should read up on evolution. It seems you have learned every misconception there is about the process.

Enig101 & Atomic Playboy have you on the right track.

I had a general biology course back in 10th grade, but we didn't do evolutionary biology, just "present state" biology. In other words, we studied general botony, anatomy, microbiology, and zoology as the organisms/structures are now; but we didn't study how they got to where they are or why they are so diverse. The post I wrote was based on my observations alone, I wasn't taught them.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Let me start by saying that I'm not a biologist, so I may be wrong about the specifics of evolution. However, I feel I have a fairly good understanding of the concept overall. Let me address your points as best I can.

First off, an organism does not "know" it needs to evolve. Drastic changes are not the driving force behind evolution. People have this idea that evolution comes around because of some cataclysmic event, such as floods or volcanoes, but that's really not the case. Evolution is gradual change over a lengthy period of time; it is not a response to a sudden, drastic shift in environment.

At its core, evolution is adaptation based on advantages that lead to a higher likelihood of reproduction. I had the good fortune to go to the Galapagos when I was younger, and they love to talk about evolution there. Virtually every island in the Galapagos has prickly pear cactuses. They have sharp thorns to deter predators. Except on the island of Genovesa, where the prickly pears have thorns that are as soft as hair. Why? Because the Galapagos tortoise, the primary consumer of the prickly pear, never lived on the island of Genovesa. With no natural predators, the prickly pear did not need sharp thorns to survive, so gradually it lost them.

Here is where the process gets confused. People think that the plant must have actively realized it didn't need thorns and decided to stop growing them. This is obviously silly, and one of the major misconceptions about evolution. What actually happened was that prickly pears would grow with sharp thorns. Occasionally, through normal mutation, a prickly pear would grow without sharp thorns. On the islands with predators, these soft thorn cactus were quickly eaten before they had a chance to reproduce. On Genovesa, they were not eaten, so their genes ended up mixing in with the rest of the population. In fact, because these prickly pears were not using their resources to grow large thorns, they were able to get larger than the other prickly pears. This became advantageous for reproduction, so their genes started composing a larger portion of the genetic pool of prickly pears on the island. Gradually, over a period of tens of thousands of years, the prickly pear population on Genovesa lost the sharp thorns as they were no longer advantageous for survival.

I have to go to an office lunch now, so I'll try to post more later, but this is a basic example of how evolution happens in nature.

Excellent summary and thanks for the help.

Some questions:

1) Organisms do not need cataclysmic events to induce evolution (I never assumed that by the way, I just used it in my example) because natural selection is a never-ending process?

2) Drastic changes in the environment may accelerate natural selection?

3) Natural selection processes adaption in a population so the organisms best suited for their environment dominate the gene pool?

4) Natural selection specializes organisms from the main line of organisms such that speciation occurs?

5) These two processes constitute the theory of evolution (Natural selection ---> Speciation = Evolution)?

1. Cataclysmic events aren't necessary. Even where there's no apparent "tooth and claw" there's a selection for those that reproduce fastest.

2. I don't know if accelerate is the right word, but the changes might be more evident. The change in environment may provide a strong selective pressure, so allele frequencies will likely change quickly.

3. That's pretty much correct. I'm a gene guy, so I tend to think of genes more suited to allowing propogation will increase in frequency.

4. An important point is reproductive isolation. If you take two populations of the same species and allow them to reproduce independently for a very long time (no interbreeding) you'll eventually have two separate species. The speciation will occur faster if the two populations are in different environments. There are other ways for speciation to occur though.

Over a long enough time, a species may remain what we call the same species, but not be able to interbreed with any of its direct ancestors. i.e. a crocodile from today might look very much like the first fossils we can id as a croc, but there's been enough genetic drift over time that they couldn't interbreed. (this particular example is just speculation on my part)

5. It can be stated a little simpler than that - allele frequencies change over time. New alleles are constantly arising, assuming the population size is large enough. Every generation the alleles get shuffled around, mixed and matched. You can sort of just think of alleles as genes. You'll need to start digging into some genetics to sort out what these words really imply wrt to DNA sequences.

Got the natural selection part, but how would they evolve their feet into flippers? (Like a seal, perhaps.)

Some humans have webbed fingers and or toes. Not a stretch to imagine that that might lead to them being able to swim a little better. Some will have a body that's slightly more streamlined. Some will be able to hold their breath longer, some will have a little more subcutaneous fat than others. Multiply fairly small changes like this over a few thousand (or millions) of generations and you can have something that looks very little like what you started out with.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Excellent summary and thanks for the help.

Some questions:

1) Organisms do not need cataclysmic events to induce evolution (I never assumed that by the way, I just used it in my example) because natural selection is a never-ending process?

2) Drastic changes in the environment may accelerate natural selection?

3) Natural selection processes adaption in a population so the organisms best suited for their environment dominate the gene pool?

4) Natural selection specializes organisms from the main line of organisms such that speciation occurs?

5) These two processes constitute the theory of evolution (Natural selection ---> Speciation = Evolution)?

1) Natural selection is a process that describes how organisms that are better suited to living in their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce, sending the advantageous adaptations to their offspring in their genes. This requires merely that the organisms live in an environment (which is every organism); it does not require that the environment change. Granted, static environments don't really exist, but it is not a function of natural selection that adaptations only occur because of changes in the environment.

2) Cataclysmic events can speed the process of natural selection in rare cases. However, as a general rule, cataclysmic events are much more likely to simply kill an entire population. For example, lets say there is a population of rats living in a low land. A flood comes along and causes the area to fill with water, effectively turning the rats home into a lake. The rats aren't going to magically sprout gills; they are going to die, or swim to shore and find a new home.

3) This is a general tenet of natural selection; the adaptations that make an organism more likely to survive and reproduce will be favored in the gene pool. Conversely, adaptations that make an organism less likely to survive or reproduce will be selected against. It's not a conscious selection, mind you, it's simply that the organisms best suited to survive will be most likely to pass on their genes.

4) It certainly can work in this way. Darwin observed this in the finches on Galapagos. The birds share a common ancestor, but because of the differing conditions on the islands they live on, as well as what food they consume, they developed specific adaptations that effectively made them different species. Some of the finches are large; others are small. Some have heavy beaks for cracking nuts; others have pointed beaks for digging out insects. The environmental conditions in which the birds have evolved has determined their evolutionary course, as certain adaptations are selected for or against according to natural selection. However, we can also observe straight line evolution where one species simply undergoes a myriad of changes over time (most notably human evolution, where there are not a lot of diverging branches between Australopithecines and Homo sapien).

5) Evolution describes the observable fact that organisms can change over time. Natural selection was Darwin's proposal for the process that determines why evolution takes place. Speciation is simply a function of evolution, describing how new species arise through evolutionary processes.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Trying to convince an atheist that ID is plausible, is like trying to communicate with the blind mole rat using hand signals. True atheists simply have no frame of reference to begin to comprehend reality based on faith. Jesus spoke in parables for that very reason. He would often begin with, "He who has ears, let him hear", knowing that what he was about to say was not going to get through to everyone in attendance.

All that said, I don't think Mr. Stein is trying to change the views of those who have already formed their stances. I think he is mainly trying to promote freedom to those who are in the process of searching for answers.

It's not atheists you won't be able to convince that ID is a scientifically plausible theory, it's any thinking person. Including the devout, Republican, Bush appointed federal judge who wrote a 100 page opinion smacking down a PA schoolboard's attempts to integrate ID into science classes.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/ms...220_kitzmiller_342.pdf
"In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question
of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover
that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock
assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory
is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in
general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs? scientific experts testified that the
theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the
scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the
existence of a divine creator.

To be sure, Darwin?s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory
cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not
be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in
religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific
propositions."

And there you have it. Intelligent Design is nothing but religious crap with the trappings of sham science.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Mr Pepper

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Let me answer your 50th "proof" on my own: "He would appear when people pray to see him. The reason why he does not appear is simple: Both Jesus and God are imaginary."

My answer: I see Him, as clear as day, at work in my life and in the lives of others. Which brings us exactly back to my first point: Trying to convince an atheist that ID is plausible, is like trying to communicate with the blind mole rat using hand signals.

That's exactly the point. You claim to see him, you believe that you do. I don't believe in God, so when you try to tell me that you see these things, I treat you exactly as though you were telling me you saw Santa Clause. Also, Jesus does not literally appear; you are (I hope) seeing him metaphorically in the actions of those around you (if you literally see Jesus appearing before you, well, I don't think even the Pope is going to believe you on that one). But that's Jesus appearing only to you; he's not popping in so your atheist friends can see him and go, "Ah, I guess you were right after all."

The piece is designed to show you that your most deeply held personal beliefs can appear ludicrous to other people, regardless of how strongly you feel about them. That is why you are being asked to evaluate the mysticism of several different religions. There are things that we take for granted, such as horses not being able to fly or men not being able to rise from the dead, that religion tells us we must take on faith. This piece is trying to get you to ask yourself why you are willing to have faith in the mysticism of your own religion, but dismiss all else as hocus-pocus and supersitition. That's a difficult question to answer, as it forces you to consider that your most deeply held beliefs could be wrong. No one wants to take that position; it's extremely uncomfortable to admit to yourself that you might be living a lie.

I absolutely agree with you. Everyone should examine what they believe in and why they believe in it. I think that's exactly the point of all this.

If we were to introduce ID as an alternate explanation to evolution in classrooms, the students would actually have to process something and really dig into what they are going to believe in and why. Those that agree/disagree with either would actually come out of the classroom thinking on their own.

There's no reason students shouldn't be able to agree to disagree and still be able to have healthy relationships with each other.

That's fucking idiotic. If were were to do that, then we should just get rid of the study of biology altogether. Hell, lets do away with the scientific process, since joe sixpack can now call his own inane 'theories' about how all the plants and animals came to be "science'. We can introduce hundreds of theories in a classroom and let the impressionable young kids pick and choose what they think is right!

Are you insane? Science is not a democratic process. There are rigid rules that must be follow in order to call something 'science'. Otherwise, lets just get rid of science and have the study of 'personal opinion'. :roll:

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Mr Pepper

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Let me answer your 50th "proof" on my own: "He would appear when people pray to see him. The reason why he does not appear is simple: Both Jesus and God are imaginary."

My answer: I see Him, as clear as day, at work in my life and in the lives of others. Which brings us exactly back to my first point: Trying to convince an atheist that ID is plausible, is like trying to communicate with the blind mole rat using hand signals.

That's exactly the point. You claim to see him, you believe that you do. I don't believe in God, so when you try to tell me that you see these things, I treat you exactly as though you were telling me you saw Santa Clause. Also, Jesus does not literally appear; you are (I hope) seeing him metaphorically in the actions of those around you (if you literally see Jesus appearing before you, well, I don't think even the Pope is going to believe you on that one). But that's Jesus appearing only to you; he's not popping in so your atheist friends can see him and go, "Ah, I guess you were right after all."

The piece is designed to show you that your most deeply held personal beliefs can appear ludicrous to other people, regardless of how strongly you feel about them. That is why you are being asked to evaluate the mysticism of several different religions. There are things that we take for granted, such as horses not being able to fly or men not being able to rise from the dead, that religion tells us we must take on faith. This piece is trying to get you to ask yourself why you are willing to have faith in the mysticism of your own religion, but dismiss all else as hocus-pocus and supersitition. That's a difficult question to answer, as it forces you to consider that your most deeply held beliefs could be wrong. No one wants to take that position; it's extremely uncomfortable to admit to yourself that you might be living a lie.

I absolutely agree with you. Everyone should examine what they believe in and why they believe in it. I think that's exactly the point of all this.

If we were to introduce ID as an alternate explanation to evolution in classrooms, the students would actually have to process something and really dig into what they are going to believe in and why. Those that agree/disagree with either would actually come out of the classroom thinking on their own.

There's no reason students shouldn't be able to agree to disagree and still be able to have healthy relationships with each other.

That's fucking idiotic. If were were to do that, then we should just get rid of the study of biology altogether. Hell, lets do away with the scientific process, since joe sixpack can now call his own inane 'theories' about how all the plants and animals came to be "science'. We can introduce hundreds of theories in a classroom and let the impressionable young kids pick and choose what they think is right!

Are you insane? Science is not a democratic process. There are rigid rules that must be follow in order to call something 'science'. Otherwise, lets just get rid of science and have the study of 'personal opinion'. :roll:

I vote for the flying sp... ahh forget it.

 

[TheShiz]

I always liked David Attenborough's view. Such a simple and powerful example.


In a December 2005 interview with Simon Mayo on BBC Radio Five Live, Attenborough stated that he considers himself an agnostic.[23] When asked whether his observation of the natural world has given him faith in a creator, he generally responds with some version of this story:

"My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind. And [I ask them], 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy".[24]

He has explained that he feels the evidence all over the planet clearly shows evolution to be the best way to explain the diversity of life, and that "as far as I'm concerned, if there is a supreme being then he chose organic evolution as a way of bringing into existence the natural world."

In a BBC Four interview with Mark Lawson, Attenborough was asked if he at any time had any religious faith. He replied simply, "No."

 

[Enig101]

Originally posted by: TheShiz
I always liked David Attenborough's view. Such a simple and powerful example.


In a December 2005 interview with Simon Mayo on BBC Radio Five Live, Attenborough stated that he considers himself an agnostic.[23] When asked whether his observation of the natural world has given him faith in a creator, he generally responds with some version of this story:

"My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind. And [I ask them], 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy".[24]

He has explained that he feels the evidence all over the planet clearly shows evolution to be the best way to explain the diversity of life, and that "as far as I'm concerned, if there is a supreme being then he chose organic evolution as a way of bringing into existence the natural world."

In a BBC Four interview with Mark Lawson, Attenborough was asked if he at any time had any religious faith. He replied simply, "No."

There is a similar quote attributed to Charles Darwin (I have not bothered to check whether it is authentic or not, but it still makes the same valid point).

"I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created parasitic wasps with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars."

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
I absolutely agree with you. Everyone should examine what they believe in and why they believe in it. I think that's exactly the point of all this.

If we were to introduce ID as an alternate explanation to evolution in classrooms, the students would actually have to process something and really dig into what they are going to believe in and why. Those that agree/disagree with either would actually come out of the classroom thinking on their own.

There's no reason students shouldn't be able to agree to disagree and still be able to have healthy relationships with each other.

That's fucking idiotic. If were were to do that, then we should just get rid of the study of biology altogether. Hell, lets do away with the scientific process, since joe sixpack can now call his own inane 'theories' about how all the plants and animals came to be "science'. We can introduce hundreds of theories in a classroom and let the impressionable young kids pick and choose what they think is right!

Are you insane? Science is not a democratic process. There are rigid rules that must be follow in order to call something 'science'. Otherwise, lets just get rid of science and have the study of 'personal opinion'. :roll:

Well put. The problem is that ID is not an alternative to evolution, at least not in a science classroom. There is nothing scientific about it.

If you want to introduce students to theology, you have to... teach... them in some sort of church setting, or let them study theology at university.

 

[Enig101]

Double post.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: BigToque
As soon at that guy started calling Stein a fool he lost all credibility. If you can't make your point without throwing around personal insults, I won't listen to it.

Stein lost all credibility long before this guy made the video calling him a fool so what difference does it make?

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Originally posted by: Mr Pepper

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS

Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Trying to convince an atheist that ID is plausible, is like trying to communicate with the blind mole rat using hand signals. True atheists simply have no frame of reference to begin to comprehend reality based on faith. Jesus spoke in parables for that very reason. He would often begin with, "He who has ears, let him hear", knowing that what he was about to say was not going to get through to everyone in attendance.

All that said, I don't think Mr. Stein is trying to change the views of those who have already formed their stances. I think he is mainly trying to promote freedom to those who are in the process of searching for answers.

I wish I could take credit for this brilliant writing. ...alas, I can not!

However I do believe this might shed some light on what it's like to talk with someone like you and have them tell me I can't comprehend something because I have no faith. I have no faith because I have no evidence. But if I had evidence I wouldn't need faith would I? Your circular arguments are the first kind of FALSEHOOD I learned about in Philosophy 101. Ahh but the devil is in the details, READ ON!

Let's imagine that I tell you the following story:

......... SNIP

* It is not his will
* He doesn't have time
* I didn't pray the right way
* I am not worthy
* I do not have enough faith
* I cannot test the Lord like this
* It is not part of Jesus' plan for me
* And on and on and on...

One rationalization that you may find yourself developing is particularly interesting. You may say to yourself: ?Well, of course Jesus doesn?t answer me when I pray about a coin toss, because it is too trivial." Where did this rationalization come from? If you read what Jesus says about prayer in the Bible (see this proof), Jesus does not ever say, "don't pray to me about coin tosses." Jesus clearly says he will answer your prayers, and he puts no boundaries on what you may pray for. You invented this rationalization out of thin air.

You are an expert at creating rationalizations for Jesus. The reason you are an expert is because Jesus does not answer any of your prayers (see this proof). The reason why Jesus does not answer any of your prayers is because Jesus and God are imaginary.

Courtesy of: http://godisimaginary.com/index.htm

So first of all,

Spamming that much text into one post should be a felony. Simply making your point & linking your source would have been sufficient. Secondly, (yes I read through it) these types of arguments simply don't work. That's the kind of reasoning that disappoints dogs who think that good tasting treats are born in a refrigerator.

Let me answer your 50th "proof" on my own: "He would appear when people pray to see him. The reason why he does not appear is simple: Both Jesus and God are imaginary."

My answer: I see Him, as clear as day, at work in my life and in the lives of others. Which brings us exactly back to my first point: Trying to convince an atheist that ID is plausible, is like trying to communicate with the blind mole rat using hand signals.

Spamming? Need I give you a vocabulary lesson as well?

No kidding! I was trying to explain about the stork, you know, the birds and the bees, to my dog, but he just barking at the neighbor's cat. Perhaps the next time I'll use an analogy that makes sense.

You see god working in your life? Please explain. When you pray, does god answer your prayers? What about all the soldiers involved in the American Civil War, the ones praying to the same god for help, was he answering their prayers? What about the 6 million Jews praying to the same god? That's a big prayer!

God works in mysterious ways, right? All will be revealed in the end right? Then explain how you know all about God's will and such- his commandments, etc. Oh right he used to visit with people on Earth back in the days when we were worthy, we can ask them. Oh noes, they're dead, I guess not!

All rather convenient. SATAN!

You're right, these types of arguments (or any other), never work on someone who has made up their mind that it is a sin to even question their own absurd beliefs. It's a convenience of many religions that questioning the faith is an act of betrayal. In some sects of Islam (including very secular sects), they can do all sorts of barbaric things to people found guilty of defaming the religion or any of it's tenants, which includes questioning or plain not believing. Not good old Christianity though. Here all they do is look down on you at church, or kick you out, but only 300 years ago, they were pressing, drawing, quartering, and hanging. How long will it take you guys to get over the other obvious blatant lies? How long will it take you guys to understand that even if there is a god, he has done nothing since the big bang, has never interacted with humans on Earth, and has either no power or no will to use it, and that spending even one thought on him during this life is nothing but a waste of time. Waste away.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Trying to convince an atheist that ID is plausible, is like trying to communicate with the blind mole rat using hand signals. True atheists simply have no frame of reference to begin to comprehend reality based on faith. Jesus spoke in parables for that very reason. He would often begin with, "He who has ears, let him hear", knowing that what he was about to say was not going to get through to everyone in attendance.

All that said, I don't think Mr. Stein is trying to change the views of those who have already formed their stances. I think he is mainly trying to promote freedom to those who are in the process of searching for answers.

There is no reality in faith. The definition of faith is: a firm belief in something for which there is no proof. The definition of reality comes from the word real which means: having objective independent existence or not artificial, fraudulent, or illusory.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Trying to convince an atheist that ID is plausible, is like trying to communicate with the blind mole rat using hand signals. True atheists simply have no frame of reference to begin to comprehend reality based on faith. Jesus spoke in parables for that very reason. He would often begin with, "He who has ears, let him hear", knowing that what he was about to say was not going to get through to everyone in attendance.

All that said, I don't think Mr. Stein is trying to change the views of those who have already formed their stances. I think he is mainly trying to promote freedom to those who are in the process of searching for answers.

There is no reality in faith. The definition of faith is: a firm belief in something for which there is no proof. The definition of reality comes from the word real which means: having objective independent existence or not artificial, fraudulent, or illusory.

:thumbsup:

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Trying to convince an atheist that ID is plausible, is like trying to communicate with the blind mole rat using hand signals. True atheists simply have no frame of reference to begin to comprehend reality based on faith. Jesus spoke in parables for that very reason. He would often begin with, "He who has ears, let him hear", knowing that what he was about to say was not going to get through to everyone in attendance.

All that said, I don't think Mr. Stein is trying to change the views of those who have already formed their stances. I think he is mainly trying to promote freedom to those who are in the process of searching for answers.

There is no reality in faith. The definition of faith is: a firm belief in something for which there is no proof. The definition of reality comes from the word real which means: having objective independent existence or not artificial, fraudulent, or illusory.

I like this statement a lot, although I think it might be a little closer to perfection if you include something designed to attack the word "comprehend" as well. Here, in the same post, Mr. Pepper claims that ID is plausible (and let's not forget that it pretends to be a scientific theory, hence independently, objectively verifiable) and then claims that it requires faith to "comprehend" the teachings of ID.

I'm always mystified by this disconnect, and the apparent inability of ID supporters to understand that it's a disconnect.

I guess what I'm saying is there might, technically speaking, be reality in faith-- if God really deposits information directly in the brains of the faithful, and that information is true, and that information forms the foundation of faith (instead of, say, Bible study classes for the young and other indoctrination). There is certainly no reality in ID, as Mr. Pepper basically admits.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Mr Pepper

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Mr Pepper

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Trying to convince an atheist that ID is plausible, is like trying to communicate with the blind mole rat using hand signals. True atheists simply have no frame of reference to begin to comprehend reality based on faith. Jesus spoke in parables for that very reason. He would often begin with, "He who has ears, let him hear", knowing that what he was about to say was not going to get through to everyone in attendance.

All that said, I don't think Mr. Stein is trying to change the views of those who have already formed their stances. I think he is mainly trying to promote freedom to those who are in the process of searching for answers.

It's not atheists you won't be able to convince that ID is a scientifically plausible theory, it's any thinking person.

If that were true, this would not be an issue, but since more than 80% of Americans claim to believe in ID, I would lean toward there being a large hole in your assumption.


That is, if polls are to be believed.

America?s Favorite Book

The Religious and Other Beliefs of Americans

That springs from ignorance of the facts of the difference between what ID purports to teach and what evolution purports to explain. A thinking person educated on the actual differences could make no other conclusion. Asking someone off the street if they believe in ID or evolution without educating them on the difference doesn't yield a result worthy of considering.

Perhaps I am not following your line of thinking, but it sounds like you are suggesting that the majority of Americans are incapable of rational thought on the issue without some form of human intervention.

Seeing as how evolution is the bulk of what we do teach in our classrooms in this country, you might want to rethink that.

Correct, you are not following my line of thinking. 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.

EDIT: See posts below which clarify my incorrect position as stated in the above paragraph.

Originally posted by: Enig101
Most college educated people, who do not study the sciences, don't really understand how evolution works, let alone the large numbers who only finish high school.

Still, I think if you look at the portion of the population who have a Master's degree, the percentage who believe ID is valid will decrease significantly.

Yep.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

ID IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH EVOLUTION. One says evolution happens and one says it does not. ID is NOT people saying god created the fundamental principles and fabric of the universe, then let it evolve. ID says that YOU were created by God and placed here. ID is basically Genesis with the names removed coupled with attacks on certain points of evolution (eyes, wings, time, etc.). ID is a SHAM devised specifically to get CHRISTIAN MYTHS taught in PUBLIC school. IDers are not open-minded scholars trying to encourage debate. They are religious people trying to hijack the US public education system. They want ID in schools because real biology directly contradicts their beliefs on how MAN came to be, and they would rather that kids were not taught things that would cause them to question their faith or make it impossible to ascribe to it.

 

[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.

 

[jonks]

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.